I think not many local govts. had any relationship with Airbnb back in 2016, nor had any str regulations or licensing in place, aside from just maybe requiring a normal business license. There were much fewer listings back then, and I don’t think the “investor host” phenomenon, taking a lot of viable housing off the market for locals, or the concept of an Airbnb as a “party house”, with serious impact on the neighbors, was nearly as prevalant 7 years ago. It was definitely past the “rent a room in your home, live like a local” idea, but not yet something where everyone and anyone thought of Airbnb as a some easy money scheme. Now we have tons of people offering their services as a co-hosts so they can “learn” the business, with zero qualifications aside from “I’m very organized and good with people”.
It’s not whether Chicago had a relationship with Airbnb. It’s that Chicago passed its Shared Housing Ordinance in 2016. The City isn’t required to notify you or ask you to apply for a license. How would they even know you’re running a short-term rental? But even if they were to know, it would be nice for them to contact you, but it’s not their responsibility.
The responsibility is on the owner of a short-term rental – just as it is for the owner of any business – to be proactive and research the regulatory environment in which they operate their business.
Regardless, since you weren’t even operating a short-term rental in 2016, grandfathering under 4-14-060 (e) is not applicable to you. So, the City’s ‘shoddy administrative responses’ seem irrelevant in this regard.
Anyway, you have an attorney now. I think it’s important that any and every argument you make with the alderman needs to be solid, lest the alderman or his staff seize on a rationale that doesn’t really hold water.
Good luck with your attorney and the alderman!
Yes, I hear you, and I understood what happened to you. If I were you, I would have camped out overnight in front of city hall, and banged the door down, on day one of the password problem, or texting problem, in order to cut through all Government red tape, because the situation affected my STR and my livelihood and was critical to be solved.
I did something like that myself this past December…I had already paid, reserved and booked to be on my yearly vacation in Europe, and then on a ship transatlantic across the ocean to Barbados, where I had hotel reservations, …when my govt voted in a new renewal deadline and process for required Permit applications. I was terrified to risk any last minute failure by local govt bureaucracy or computer technology, so I canceled my entire Barbados holiday, paid thousands of dollars $$$ to change my flights and canceled my hotels and holiday, and flew home early… leaving lots of time to spare to process my renewal…all “just in case”…government had a renewal glitch or error, or I made a mistake that needed time to correct. Was I happy?..no…but I would have moved mountains to be sure I complied with every ordinance deadline so as to not lose my golden grandfather status. I understood my priorities.
But, as I learned from other knowledgeable posts below, this is all a moot point anyway, because you are not in compliance with the 2016 Shared Housing Ordinance.
There has been a failure of investors to seek out, learn, and understand what is required, by the government, to legally operate a business. …or to accept money in return for housing.
There are insurance implications, property tax implications, sales and accomodations tax implications, (state and local), and then federal tax implications. The masses who jumped into buying, investing, and renting lacking knowledge of business, has been one of the causations of government stepping in to be in the middle of the transactions and automatic collection of taxes…because the people earning the money ignored laws. Now there are lots of permits, and limits, and rules, and ordinances to control the industry…none of which existed when I began renting out in 2008. Back then it was a wonderful cottage industry for Vacation Rentals.
I still feel very badly for you, and I empathize, because your income and livlihood are in danger of being taken away, and that is horrible. I do think it would have been wiser to have investigated your local laws long before this day.
It matters not that you are labeled a “superhost” by Airbnb…that is just a carrot dangled from AirBnb corporate in order to entice owners to fall in line with their everchanging rules and demands. It is simply the mass application of the Pavlov Dog Theory…and it clearly works. Everyone starts their complaint letter by saying: “…I am a Superhost…” and…
I agree with you.
What I also don’t understand is the real effect of the OP being late on her application.
I say that because it is not clear – and could not have been clear to her – that she would qualify for the commissioner providing an exception to granting her a license because denial would place an extraordinary burden on her given her unique or unusual circumstances. That is not a ‘given.’
After all, the Chicago law prohibits STRs in buildings with 2-4 units unless the listing is the applicant’s primary residence (the OP lives across the street) AND the listing . . . I’ll stop there because it is not her primary residence. The Chicago law also prohibits an STR of a single family home unless such single family home is the shared housing host’s primary residence (which this is not as she lives across the street).
So I would think that the reasonable expectation would be that the application would not have been immediately approved even if it had been submitted timely. I would think that it would have taken some time for the city to evaluate OP’s claim of denying her the license would place on her an extraordinary burden because of her unique and special circumstances.
After all – and I could be misinterpreting this – but it does not appear that she made a detailed or strong case for the denial placing an extraordinary burden on her. She says;
And what was that answer?
Surely it is not reasonable to believe that merely saying that the STR income is the sole income to operate the STR would overcome the law that such STRs are not eligible to be listed or rented in the first place.
So, maybe the OP will get an exception made for her on some basis, but it is not a given, and the password problems appear to me to be a red herring.
I’m hopeful that this post is helpful to the OP so that when she and her attorney meet with alderman Beale she can make only those arguments that withstand scrutiny. This to me is not one of them.
EDIT TO ADD: The OP’s claim that the STR income is her ‘sole income’ to operate her STR might also be questioned for its accuracy and completeness. After all, how does she and her husband support their household expenses? If the STR income provides their entire livelihood that surely would have been a stronger argument to make. If they do have other income then how is the STR income ‘the sole income’ to operate the STR? In fact, later she tells us that the STR income is not her ‘sole’ income but ‘supplemental income.’
So, again, when she and her attorney meet with alderman Beale her statement on her application that the STR income is her ‘sole income’ to operate the STR is not a statement to repeat.