Economics Dominate Marathon Hearing On Nashville’s Investor-Owned Airbnbs

Supplemental income and property rights versus maintaining the fabric of community where a neighbor knows who is living next door and could go borrow a cup of sugar. Those are some of the pros and cons the Metro Council spent several hours weighing on Tuesday night as the city considers phasing out short-term rentals run from afar by investors.

Those who support allowing short-term rentals owned by people who don’t live on-site are almost all owners of such properties. That describes Teryn Chapin, who also has a bit more at stake. She started a property management company that helps clean short-term rentals between tenants. Chapin says it allows her to be a stay-at-home-mom.

“You will be taking away my ability to provide for my family while also being able to be present for my children each day,” Chapin said while holding her nine-week-old child.

Chapin also contends that the 70 homes she oversees are not the nuisances that many complain about. She and many others echoed the same sentiment: they welcome more regulation, not elimination.

But supporters of phasing out investor-owned short-term rentals, like long-time East Nashville resident Carol Williams, say potential losses should not be considered.

“We are not the protector of anyone’s personal financial investments,” she said. “Personal business choices were made on a permit for one year. We do need to protect residential neighborhoods for the long term stability of Nashville.”

Several siding with Williams said they have little sympathy for the landlords, who could either rent to monthly tenants or sell to one of many families who’d like to move in permanently.

On Tuesday night, the Metro Council deferred what would have been a second of three votes on the proposed ordinance. The measure, which was recommended by the Metro Planning Commission, would set in motion the phase out of investor-owned short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. Commercial areas would be unaffected and owners who live on-site would still be allowed.

However, there is also an amendment to the ordinance which would maintain the ability of investors to run vacation rentals, but they would have to spend much more to get a permit and submit to more enforcement.