The only ‘winner’ in this attempt to regulate rentals will be the City Attorney who will be required to defend multiple legal challenges. I think there are unconstitutional provisions in the ordinance and would hope that the City obtained a formal written opinion from the City Attorney’s law firm that this ordinance is constitutional and will withstand legal challenges. I would also hope that the City liability carrier has ‘signed off’ on this ordinance to the extent it will be called upon to defend and potentially indemnify the City for any damages emanating from any enforcement activity, or constitutional challenge under 42 USC 1983.
At first glance, various portions appear cumbersome, vague, ambiguous, unreasonable, and unenforceable. I would expect multiple legal challenges either before or during any enforcement activity. Such will undoubtedly result in an injunction, or multiple injunctions, at various stages of enforcement. At a minimum, Council will be inundated with requests for waivers and burden with evidentiary issues.
In my opinion, as an attorney, this ordinance, although well intentioned, will be ineffective, costly to the City, be subject to multiple legal challenges, and create ongoing civic divisiveness that will not end after adoption of the ordinance.
At least the STRP issue is ‘buried’ now!
Frank R. Recker, DDS