Will Garland miss the Airbnb and VRBO phenomenon? Garland's city council needs to slow down, do more research, and write a much better ordinance governing short-term rentals

www.airbnb.com offers a wonderland of vacation and short-term rentals. Why, when trying to find one in Garland, does the website point you only to properties in Dallas and other surrounding cities? (Photo from Airbnb website)

Type in www.airbnb.com on your computer address line, and then in the search engine on the Airbnb front page type in the words "Garland, TX".

Almost instantly you will see listings of fabulous places to stay, such as a well-furnished bedroom in an affluent-looking home in an exciting neighborhood, a fully-furnished apartment close to major attractions, an intriguing guest house in the back of an historic home, and individual well-furnished homes from different eras sprinkled throughout the area.

In the listing on this premiere website for alternative vacation, business, and short-term housing you will see special offers such as coffeemakers stocked with every kind of flavored coffee imaginable, beautiful landscaping, interesting areas to walk through, and lots of fun things to see and do.

The website offers a wide array of options for exciting places to stay, visit, and enjoy.

Look a little closer and you will see that none of those Airbnb offerings that initially pop up on your screen actually is in Garland. The locations are in "Lower Greenville Avenue", Lake Highlands, "near Bishop Arts", "Uptown Dallas", Oaklawn, White Rock Lake, "Historic M Street", and "an Historic Dallas Neighborhood".

This cute and tiny little guest house in the backyard of an Airbnb host is situated in Oak Cliff "near Bishop Arts" according to the Airbnb website, yet it comes up when you type in Garland, TX, in the Airbnb website search engine some 20 miles away. Why? (Photo from Airbnb website)

All sound lovely. But where is Garland?

After doing this search online, I picked up my cell phone and dialed the hotline for Airbnb hosts (more on this later). I told the friendly clerk who answered that I needed a list of all Airbnb's in the City of Garland—not those in Dallas, Plano, McKinney, or other DFW Metroplex cities. I emphasized that the list needed to be of Airbnb's listings ONLY within the city limits of Garland, not outside Garland in any other cities.

"That's not available," she responded after a few minutes of delay. I then explained that I live in Garland, TX, but own two very successful Airbnb properties in Arizona. I also told her that members of my family utilize Airbnb services all over the country and that in fact we had recently reserved a large, lovely mountain home in Colorado for our extended family of 10 this summer. She looked up my account to verify my words.

I then explained that our Garland city council is looking at a revision to its existing ordinance on hotels and motels specifically targeting short-term rentals within the city. I told her Airbnb and its competitor VRBO, in effect, are written all over the revision, but the actual names of Airbnb or VRBO are not there anywhere. I also told her that the revised ordinance strikes me, as a veteran Airbnb "host", as flawed in several significant places and would create a major obstacle to anyone interested in ever owning or operating—or wanting to stay in—an Airbnb facility actually in Garland.

Will Garland's proposed revision to its hotel and motel ordinance encourage or discourage short-term vacation rentals in Garland such as this beauty in one of Dallas' historic districts? (Photo from Airbnb website)

I believed that suddenly I had her full attention.

I didn't need to tell the representative what people who love and support Airbnb and/or VRBO already know: The diversity of the offerings encourages tourism, helps local businesses, offers a different perspective of a city than the cookie-cutter motels and hotels provide, are safer, are more personalized, and cost a whole lot less to start up—and usually to stay in—than do the big corporate motel and hotel chains.

I told her more about the proposed Garland ordinance and its rigid rules for registration and collection of hotel-motel occupancy taxes—which are more designed for large chains than they are for small mom-and-pop businesses. (For instance, Texas sales tax laws allow a small business with limited sales to file annually instead of quarterly, whereas the new Garland ordinance threatens fines and punishments for anyone who doesn't file quarterly. The revised ordinance requires a permit and penalties for operators without one but doesn't address how any current, existing short-term rental owners are going to be notified of the change in law.)

She promised me that within 24 to 48 hours she would send me an email containing the names and addresses of all listed Airbnb properties in Garland. I'm still waiting for that email. I'm guessing it will be a very short list. Or nonexistent.

Like on Airbnb, when you type in "Garland, TX" on VRBO a number of homes for lease on a short-term basis show up, but on closer examination they all but one are in nearby cities, not Garland.

One large home in north Garland does show up on VRBO. It rents for $185 a night and specifically states that it is not a party house, which is often a matter of concern to neighbors of homes leased out on a short-term basis. (And is also not addressed directly in the proposed revised ordinance.)

I personally know that one small bed and breakfast exists in the Embree addition in downtown Garland, but it doesn't show up on any Internet searches I have conducted. It's neighbors have not expressed any opposition or concern about it.

Clearly these short-term rentals are few and far between in Garland.   

And if this ordinance revision is passed as is and goes into effect, it will likely throw more cold water on a business enterprise of smaller mom-and-pop shops that would benefit Garland greatly. After reading the ordinance, my initial reaction was, "Thank you, I'll just keep investing in Arizona and other places and forget Garland." I would imagine others who are studying the idea of Airbnb's here will feel the same way.  Too much bureaucracy. Too little incentive and encouragement. Too tilted toward the larger motel and hotel chains. Too little understanding of the whole Airbnb and VRBO systems and operations

Like any new business, getting a short-term residential Airbnb or VRBO rental going takes time and lots of advertising. One doesn't become successful at it overnight. These rentals don't just happen by posting a small sign on the property (a matter not addressed in the new Garland ordinance but addressed in other sign ordinances). Within the past year some Garland friends listed their home on Airbnb but gave up quickly after the first guest-stay fizzled because of unexpected plumbing difficulties. Just as with long-term rentals being a successful Airbnb or VRBO host requires a backup team ready to quickly address any major issues that arise.

Airbnb's and VRBO's tend to cluster around "cool" places people like to visit on vacation or short-term getaways, but they also are utilized by business and other travelers. Our daughter, for instance, stayed in an Airbnb in the downtown area of a large city recently while on a business trip because she liked the convenience of being able to prepare her own meals.

This little jewel is a hot Airbnb property in the White Rock Lake area. Just like Lyft and Uber are the wave of the future in transportation, Airbnb is popular all across the country and around the world. Many people today prefer personalized and out-of-the-ordinary vacation and short-term housing. (Photos from Airbnb website)

Airbnb and VRBO are somewhat akin to the trendy new Lyft and Uber driving services, which provide cheaper, more localized, more efficient, and better services than traditional cab companies. Some might call Airbnb or VRBO "the Amazons of the alternative vacation and short-term housing industry".

As we talked, the Airbnb representative assured me (which I already knew) that Airbnb collects the hotel-motel occupancy taxes on our AZ properties and then pays the appropriate amounts to the State of Arizona and the city in which our properties are situated "in your name, of course".

She also told me Airbnb does the same thing for all of its listings in Texas and would do that for any listings in Garland.

After I hung up the phone, I reflected on how much this proposed revision (of Section 1, Article II, Hotel Occupancy Tax of Chapter 40, Taxation, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Garland targeting short-term rentals) reminds me of another Garland fumble about two decades ago. At that time the City of Garland's attempt to adopt an ordinance governing rentals and landlords in our city created a full-blown controversy that lasted several years and threw a pall over the single-family rental market in our community. The first version of that ordinance was ill-informed and penalized the "good" landlords instead of driving out the "bad" ones—which city leaders at that time said was their goal. After much turmoil that first wrong-headed ordinance was withdrawn and the current, much-better ordinance was put in its place.

After reading what was on the agenda for tonight's (March 19) city council regular session but has now been requested to be pulled to be returned for further discussion, my hope is that council will slow down, talk with people who truly understand and know thoroughly the business of vacation and short-term rentals, get a clear fix on what the current situation with short-term rentals is in Garland, then revise what's in front of them and come back later with a much better version of this ordinance that we can all live with.

Otherwise, history will repeat itself: council will adopt a flawed ordinance; its shortcomings will quickly become apparent when business goes elsewhere (or never comes here in the first place), and a future council will need to rescind what's on the agenda now and rewrite a much-better version to be adopted later.

To encourage the growth of more Airbnb properties in Garland our city council needs to take a closer look at the short-term rental ordinance before it right now. A delay and further study would be better than a flawed ordinance that has to eventually be thrown out in favor of one that better understands and supports Airbnb and VRBO properties in Garland. (Photo from Airbnb website)

THE RIGHT OF RECUSAL: Elected, appointed officials must step aside any time a question might arise; legislators don't deserve a free pass either

After being seated on Garland's Plan Commission in August 2006, I worked diligently to understand and follow the rules for recusal for public officials.

In the summer of 2006 when then-Councilmember Laura Perkins "Perky" Cox called to ask me to represent District 2 on the City of Garland's Plan Commission, my only hesitation involved our property holdings in downtown Garland.

Perky's response was simple: Any time there is the least bit of question about whether you might possibly have a personal interest in something on the Plan Commission's agenda, then you should just recuse yourself.

After our phone conversation ended, I had to look up the word "recuse" in the dictionary to be sure I understood its full meaning. To recuse means to step aside temporarily from a decision-making governmental body any time a matter is before that body in which a person who is a voting member might have or be perceived to have some kind of personal vested interest.

After I was seated on the Plan Commission in August 2006, I very quickly observed how often members of that city board recused themselves. When At-Large (Mayor-appointed) Commissioner Stan Luckie had a insurance client who had a case before the Plan Commission, he immediately without hesitation recused himself. When District 1 Commissioner (now-Chairman) Scott Roberts had an architectural client with a case before the Plan Commission, he, too, without hesitation and immediately did likewise. They were fastidious about rising from their seats and leaving the room before the discussion ensued.

I quickly figured out the pattern and recused myself any time I had the least bit of concern that there might be even perceived conflict of interest. During my 10 years on the Plan Commission I probably recused myself more than 30 times. It became so routine that I actually lost count. When it occurred, I just simply and methodically followed protocol and bowed out of the issue. I never made a big deal out of it.

Most often it was because a property matter before the commission was within the state's legal requirements for recusal of anything Kay and/or I owned in downtown Garland. (The law is very specific about the number of feet from one's property boundary, including property owned by one's spouse, that requires a public official to recuse himself or herself.) One time I recused myself merely because I held the Power of Attorney for our Aunt Frances and monthly wrote a $4,000 or so check from her funds for her care to a local nursing home, which had appealed to the Plan Commission for modifications to its facility.

Better to err on the side of caution than to leave even the slightest impression of conflict of interest.

One time I recused myself because I as POA signed the monthly checks for Aunt Frances' stay in a local nursing facility that applied to the Plan Commission for an addition to its facility. She died at that facility in 2009 at age 102.

Recusals on the Plan Commission involved privately signing a legal document BEFORE the matter was brought up stating that one was recusing himself/herself from a particular case. The document stated why the recusal was occurring. Then when the matter was ready to be brought before the commission, commissioners who were recusing themselves were required to leave the room immediately before the discussion began and to stay in a special room near the council chambers. We were not allowed to participate in any way in the commission's discussions or decision about the matter, though we were permitted to watch the proceedings on TV.

In one very unfortunate situation which was never made public, a plan commissioner recused himself from a case involving one of his clients, but then it was questioned whether he had actually lobbied other commissioners on behalf of his client to pass the motion. Ultimately the commissioner resigned. The determination was that recusals also mean not lobbying privately for that which a public official cannot vote publicly.

As Kay and I became more interested in the innerworkings of the Garland City Council, we noted how often former Mayor Douglas Athas recused himself whenever he believed a potential conflict existed. His actions were right and in keeping with the Plan Commission rules.

Councilmembers, however, don't seem as fastidious as the former mayor or my former colleagues on the Plan Commission were about recusals. I've seen several situations in recent months in which I wondered why a councilmember hadn't recused himself or herself and left council chambers forthrightly before a discussion or vote. I was supportive last evening (Monday, March 4) when one member of council appropriately did recuse.

One city official explained that the city walks a fine line with councilmembers on the matter of recusals, weighing carefully whether a councilmember, by recusing, loses his/her ability to represent his/her constituents.

Based on what Dallas is now discovering about some of its current and former city councilmembers who are heading to trial or jail over benefiting through bribes and other means from certain projects,  leniency for councilmembers is NOT a good idea.

If I were mayor or a councilmember, I would want to be held consistently to the highest standard possible. I would recuse myself following the same rules as I followed on the Plan Commission.

I was quite surprised recently to learn that the issue of public servants having special legal privileges is also a statewide matter. During the social hour for the four finalists in the City of Garland's quest for a new police chief, the candidate from the Austin Police Department revealed that state law forbids Austin police as well as other police departments around the state from arresting a sitting legislator while the legislature is in session. That means every time the Texas Legislature meets, Austin police face the dilemma of what to do when a legislator in the legislative session is stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The candidate indicated it happens more frequently than most Texans realize.

Texas legislators should NOT be exempt from tickets or arrest because the Legislature is in session.

If something is illegal for the average citizen, it ought to be equally illegal for a federal, state, or local government official, too. Americans in general have had enough of their "privileged" elected officials and the perks of their offices. The playing field on this matter needs to be leveled anywhere and everywhere in our various levels of government.

Several have told me that the law regarding legislators came about to prevent police from stopping a legislator on his/her way (speeding perhaps?) to a crucial vote in the legislature. I don't buy that excuse. If a legislator is caught speeding or DUI at any time anywhere, he or she needs to suffer the same punishment as an ordinary citizen would. And if it impacts a vote in the legislature, then the politicians who run the legislature ought to suffer the consequences of one of their own—be it Democrat, Republican, or Independent—who has broken the law.

When I was a reporter for the Houston Chronicle, a prominent local Roman Catholic priest that many of us believed was headed toward the episcopacy invited me to a private lunch at his residence. His motivation was to ask me behind the scenes what would happen if he did become a bishop and was caught DUI. He knew that I knew that alcohol sometimes presented a challenge for him.

My advice to him was simple: Get help to stop drinking, or get a driver when he was drinking, or reject any offer from the Vatican to elevate him to the rank of bishop. I told him in no uncertain terms I could not ethically and would not morally attempt to keep a DUI arrest of a Catholic bishop or any other religious figure out of the newspaper—no matter how good of friends we might be!

It's advice that our Texas legislators and our community leaders also need to follow: Don't try to be above the law; live in such a way that you don't violate the law!

I will always be grateful to former District 2 Councilmember Laura Perkins "Perky" Cox for making me aware of the practice of recusals before I was officially appointed to the Plan Commission.