TO SETTLE THIS MATTER?
WHO IS REALLY "CALLING THE SHOTS DOWNTOWN?"
WHO HAS THE GUTS (AND THE WISDOM) TO FIX THIS THING FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE WHOLE CITY?
MAYBE ONE OF THE NEW COMMISSIONERS: LET'S HOPE IT'S ALL OF THEM!
THE CURRENT TRANSIENT RENTAL SITUATION.
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS ARE WELCOME.
1995-96 Investors are advised to get transient operations in Key West “up and
running,” because the next summer (traditional time to introduce legislation or
variances that might prove unpopular, because so many people are away or on
vacation) they will get “licenses” that can be sold for an extra $100,000 or so.
City Attorney promulgates “50% rule” interpretation. (Never passed into law.)
City Attorney says “50% rule” interpretation was in error. (1998?) (Cf. Rollison)
City Commission considers an ordinance which would “grandfather in” all (not legally
recognized) transient rental operations regardless of location or zone.
A group of aggrieved residents object, and the ordinance is tabled (indefinitely), and
a series of “workshops” on the issue is begun, along with an “economic study.”
City introduces a “buildback ordinance,” wording of which made every unit in Key
West potentially a transient rental unit. Ordinance withdrawn after this was pointed
out.
Numerous pressure groups advocate universal transient rentals for the “good of the
city.” Common sense and good zoning prevail; the tide of public opinion begins to
turn. The “economic study” predicts no dire results, and mentions the sociological
benefits of traditional residential neighborhoods.
Anti-transient activists succeed in getting 30 days as the break point in the
transient/non-transient definition.
Homeowners recognize need for an “enforcement ordinance.” Private individuals
have no right to enforce city laws without this. The first version “legalizes”
theoretically illegal operations for a period of time, as a way to gradually end illegal
activity. This is seen as a way for illegal renters to gain time, and to establish a future
equitable remedy to allow them to continue. (cf. Rollison 2004)
An ordinance is passed, but it allows continued transient use in Truman Annex and
condominiums. The DCA (Department of Community Affairs) rejects it, as not being
consistent with Key West’s Comprehensive Plan. (Early 1998)
Sept. 1998: A refined, stripped down ordinance (eliminating all the DCA objections)
is passed with minimal reference to the “50% rule,” although it remains. Opposition
attorney maintains at the third reading of the ordinance that, because of Hurricane
Georges, proper legal “notice” was not given. City Attorney demurs, and the
ordinance, known as 98-31 passes.
The ordinance passes the initial DCA review, and then is challenged by Transient
Renters. The hearings, and subsequent challenges take three years.
98-31 is challenged on the “notice” issue. Neighborhood groups advocate a “two-
pronged approach.” The city will defend 98-31 on the notice issue, and pass an
identical ordinance.
Feb. 2002 02-06, an identical ordinance to 98-31 is passed. 02-06 begins the
potentially (three year) long process of DCA approval. The city also passes another
ordinance that forbids transient renting without a transient license.
Commissioner McCoy presents an ordinance to the Planning Board that would give
Truman Annex residents a chance at a transient-type license. More than 70 residents
speak, mostly against the ordinance. Planning Board denies it. (April 2002)
May 2002, Commissioner McCoy presents a “resolution” to the Planning Board,
calling for a “tax” on legal nonconforming transient rentals in residential zones. But
the resolution calls for amending both 98-31 and 02-06, which are both still in
litigation. The City Attorney informs the board that this will NOT affect the two
ordinances (other attorneys disagree); he later agrees to withdraw the resolution.
June(?)2002: 98-31 dies in court because of lack of proper notice. Only 02-06
survives.
July 2002: The new city codes are published. They omit the standards for variances,
and the penalty wording of 98-31 and 02-06. The penalties are omitted via an
“erroneous footnote” that claims that ordinance 02-06 eliminated the penalties,
when, in fact, it was identical.
2003: City explains missing codes as “computer error.”
Jan 2003 City Attorney meets with Neighborhood Activists and promises he will not
move to delay the DCA hearings concerning 02-06. (Reportedly he then moved to
postpone them indefinitely.) He promises a special investigator and crackdowns.
Feb. 2003 The City Commission, despite cautions from Neighborhood Activists,
passes an ordinance that “decriminalized” any Zoning infraction in the City of Key
West. This ordinance passed 7-0. The ordinance was written by and requested by the
City Attorney.
2003: It is pointed out that all Land Development Regulations must go through
Planning Board first, to test consistency with “Principles for Guiding Development”
for City of Key West. Neither transient rental enforcement ordinance went to
planning board first. Therefore 02-06, although never used, is subject to challenge.
2003 Numerous transient rental cases are brought before the “Special Master,” but
the fines are minimal. It is unclear under what statute, if any, he is citing offenders.
2004 The city hires a “special investigator.” The promised annual end-of-season
“crackdown” fades with the overturn of the Rollison Case.
It is revealed that the City did not request the help of the DCA in the Rollison appeal.
The Court ruled that since Rollison had relied on the City Attorney’s letter
promulgating the 50% rule, that he could not be prevented from continuing to rent on
a transient basis.
City maintains that the case applies only to Rollison. Other legal opinions disagree,
saying that the decision was so broad that it may apply all over the city.
April 2005 The City Commission tables a ordinance which would have ended transient
rentals in Truman Annex under an “amortization” scheme in which renters could
recoup the damages to which the City was potentially liable under the Rollison case.
May 2005 City Commission legalizes transient rental throughout entire Truman
Annex. Few voters are aware of this action.
July 2005 The Planning Board considers a “phantom unit” ordinance to recognize
unlicensed transient units.
September 2005 A new “RESOLUTION” surfaces which does not include an
“amortization period,”but which will accomplish many of the goals for citywide
transient conversion begun back in 1995-96.
The resolution is in the form of a “settlement agreement” so it only needs to be voted
on once, and it does not have to go to the Planning Board first. Who is it that authors
this garbage in the first place?
HAS THERE BEEN EVEN ONE SINGLE “MISSTEP” IN FAVOR OF SETTLING
THE ISSUE FAIRLY AND FINALLY?
NO! BUT PLENTY THAT FAVOR COMMERCIALIZING EVERYTHING IN
TOWN!
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
