editor@sfreporter.com
For Rent
The Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners modified rules Tuesday evening to give non-residents permission to operate short-term rentals, yet to restrict the percentage of such rentals in certain areas.
The county first regulated short-term rentals with an ordinance that went into effect in November 2022 and has been working on revisions since October 2023. Among the tweaks from commissioners Tuesday, the ordinance will now limit the number of non-owner occupied rentals to 3% or 7% of available housing stock for communities and restrict to two the number of licenses any one person or entity can own.
But the rules don’t go far enough for many who testified in a public hearing before the vote.
Representatives from the Old Santa Fe Association asked commissioners to permanently disallow all short-term rentals for properties where owners don’t live on-site, largely as a way to maintain affordable workforce housing.
“You will either vote today to support our workforce by banning additional non-owner-occupied short term rentals that negatively affect our community, or you will vote to advance the continuation of housing loss due to investor non-owner occupied short-term rentals that put hotel businesses into neighborhoods and next door,” Old Santa Fe Association Board Member Pat Lillis said.
Erik Aaboe, a former county employee, noted vacancies in city, county and state job positions, and added the county could “make significant change” by lowering thresholds for non-owner occupied units.
“When you think about the slight lever you can push with regard to making housing stock available to people who want to live and work here, you can push that lever a little bit by reducing the number of investor-owned short-term rentals,” Aaboe said.
The 2022 ordinance placed a one-year moratorium on short-term rental licenses for new non-owner occupied units if the owner purchased them after Nov. 26, 2022, then the county extended the ban for a few months. After a review by a consultant late last year and a study session on Nov. 17, 2023, Land Use staff recommended higher percentage thresholds for non-owner occupants than those the commission adopted.
“I asked all my friends in Eldorado about this issue, and the people who own short-term rentals may have one opinion, but the other 93% don’t want to live next to one, don’t want one in their neighborhood, think it’s a terrible idea, think we should outlaw them completely—so that’s why I’m shooting for a lower number,” District 5 Commissioner Hank Hughes said. “It’s clear that my community wants to preserve itself as a place where long-term residents live.”
District 1 Commissioner Justin Greene, however, raised questions about whether restrictions on how many rentals one person may operate would disproportionately impact couples and/or families who would like to rent out properties as vacation homes but may use them also to house other family members during the holidays.
“I think this one issue is unenforceable and will complicate the enforcement if so, and I really don’t think that local families that have common interest in properties should be penalized,” Greene said, who added he did not support the changes on this basis.
Commissioners approved the ordinance revisions 4-1—with Greene as the sole no vote. The amended ordinance will go into effect Feb. 9.
Non-owner occupied units will be restricted to 3% of housing stock in Agua Fria, Arroyo Hondo, Cuyamungue, El Rancho, El Valle de Arroyo Seco, Eldorado, Encantado, Glorieta, Jacona, Jaconita, La Cienega, La Cueva, Nambe, Pojoaque, Rio en Medio, San Ildefonso Pueblo, Tres Arroyos and Valencia; and to 7% in Cañada de los Alamos, Cañoncito, Chimayo, Chupadero, Conejo, Galisteo, Hyde Park, La Tierra, Lamy, Las Campanas, Los Cerrillos, Madrid, the Santa Fe foothills, Seton Village, Sunlit Hills, Tano Road and Tesuque.
On another track, the board appointed Hughes as chair and District 3 Commissioner Camilla Bustamante as vice chair for 2024.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit against the county as a result of the ordinance awaits a hearing in District Court. A notice of completion of briefing filed Dec. 8 outlines a brief history of the dispute; the county has asked the court to dismiss the case.
