When Airbnb emerged on the scene in 2007, it was described as an industry “disruptor,” drastically changing the way travelers book accommodations. Nearly 20 years later, the presence of short-term rental platforms is proving to be a major disruption in Monterey County, as a fight over a vacation rental ordinance continues to confound nearly everyone involved.
The ordinance, passed by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on a 3-2 vote in September 2024, took over a decade to create and was hailed as a compromise between vacation rental owners and those who fought against the rentals, in part arguing that the rentals further exacerbated the housing crisis. The Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance took the county to court in November 2024. A year later, the MCVRA filed an amended complaint asking for damages on the basis that owners’ rights had been violated. The County is asking a judge to strike it down.
The move sparked a flurry of activity on the County’s part. Officials announced they would not enforce two provisions of the ordinance, one requiring owners to be present during homestays, the other prohibiting corporations from owning vacation rentals. Supervisor Kate Daniels, fearing homes could be snapped up as STRs by corporations, asked the board to ban the rentals altogether in residential areas. In January the board voted 3-2 in favor of drafting an ordinance that included no STRs in residential zones, except in agricultural areas.
For Daniels’ predecessor, Mary Adams, who previously represented District 5 – home to the majority of vacation rentals – the fight boils down to one question: “What comes first, benefiting corporations or community?”
On Wednesday, Feb. 11, county staff presented the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission. They were asked to either recommend the new ordinance to the supervisors, or not. They were not to make further changes, according to Deputy County Counsel Reed Gallogly.
“Today my encouragement for the commissioners is to keep the train on the tracks, keep your focus on what’s in front of you in making a recommendation,” Gallogly said. “Because we have outstanding litigation it is helpful to keep a clear record and not muddle the waters further.”
Some commissioners appeared stymied by the request, unwilling to go along with what the board asked for.
“I’m probably going to muddy the waters here,” said Commissioner Christine Shaw, who asked if they could just remove the two portions of the current ordinance regarding homestays and corporate ownership and move on, adding that while she doesn’t love the idea of vacation rentals in neighborhoods, she wanted to strike a compromise with STR owners. Commissioner Ramon Gomez also said he wanted to remove the two provisions and stick with the rest of the current ordinance.
Chair Paul Getzelman cited the decision as “a political decision that should be left to the politicians.”
The commission voted 7-1 against recommending the draft ordinance.
The County and MCVRA are due back in court Friday, Feb. 20, on a motion by the county to strike down MCVRA’s complaint.