Earlier this year, Local Housing Solutions released a brief reviewing “empirical evidence about rental registries’ efficacy in promoting housing quality and affordability.

This brief is designed to be a resource for local governments considering establishing a rental registry or expanding an existing one. Drawing on a scan of nearly 50 rental registries across the country, the brief explores variations in their key features, such as what kinds of information registries gather, how often, and from whom. It concludes with a discussion of landlord compliance and strategies to boost enrollment.

For more information, please click here.

To view their April 2023 brief on managing vacant properties, please click here.

A recent syndicated article being picked up by mainstream media outlets seem to portray the “so-called vacant property registration movement” in a negative light.

Couple of key points:

• “But what goes unsaid is that registrations are a source of revenue — sometimes a huge source — for cash-starved jurisdictions“.
  Obviously revenue is enticing, but it is shortsighted.
  • It is difficult to justify exorbitant fees. As was raised in the recent lawsuit “It should be noted that these registration fees were for a program that did nothing more than compile a list of vacant properties and track the current owners,” the suit states.” 
  • Besides for the aforementioned legal risk, there is the reputational risk as well
    Law.com: “Judge Renounces Towns’ ‘Zombie House’ Regulations as a Money Grab”
  • Even when registration fees are sensible, excessive penalties can lead to unwanted challenges like the creation of “perverse incentives”.
  • “VPRO” was not designed to be a revenue generator. It is a “means to an end”, a tool to facilitate better and earlier communication and making code enforcement more efficient.
• Though it starts by discussing vacant property registrations in digresses to discuss rental and short term rental registries. Though similar, each has its own unique qualities.
  “Unfortunately, “registration requirements change frequently,”, so there is value in uniformity. However, just as critical is to know what to replicate and what not to replicate, with the best approach being to collaborate with true experts like MuniReg.
  Going at it alone can result in “confusing” and “convoluted” regulations that can be more trouble than its worth.
• The good news however, is the article advocates for owners staying updated on registration laws, ensuring their vacant properties are maintained in accordance with specific local requirements and standards, and building relationships with the agencies that enforce local codes

To read the full article in the Miami Herald, please click here.

A recent report in the Desert Sun (behind paywall) just reported on “co-owned homes” being banned in Indian Wells (CA).
This follows a “controversial” process in Palm Springs where it was allowed, albeit with significant restrictions.

While initially it appeared to primarily involve high-end luxury homes (Robb Report May 10, 2024) , an article from Strong Towns  from earlier this year asks “Is Co-Buying the Future of Homeownership?”

Perhaps too early to know, but what will the impact be to local governments when any of these home are vacated, abandoned or otherwise become a nuisance.

For more information please click on the following links:
Strong Towns: “Is Co-Buying the Future of Homeownership?”
Patch: St. Helena Reaches Settlement With Pacaso Home Co-Ownership Company
USA Today: I know we haven’t met but, want to go in on a vacation home? Why co-ownership makes sense
Palm Beach Post: Palm Springs OKs controversial co-owned housing ordinance