A gutted and watered down ordinance pertaining to extended stays is on the agenda to be considered on first reading at Thursday’s East Ridge City Council meeting. Heaven help us all if it’s adopted.

Before I show you exactly how we are bending to the will of special interest, let me first explain how we got to this point. 

On August 9, 2012 the City Council voted 4-1 to pass Ordinance 922, which was sold to the public at-large as being a ban on extended stays.  What this ordinance actually did was ban hotel guests from staying at hotels for longer than 90 days.  However, there was no provision in the ordinance to penalize any bad actors.  It also was set up to apply only to new businesses, and current extended stays were grandfathered and did not have to comply with this legislation.

With the opening of a new extended stay looming, on April 18, 2016 the issue of extended stays was brought before the East Ridge Planning Commission.  The planning commission decided to add “teeth” to the ordinance allowing for sanctions, including the revoking of occupancy permit for violating the ordinance.  It also addressed the needs of temporary workers by limiting the stay of any temporary worker to 180 days (non consecutive) in any calendar year.  It maintained the 90 continuous day limit for guest stays set in 2012.

In May 2016 the new amended ordinance was passed on first reading with the provision that in two years it would apply to all currently operating hotels/motels.

So far, so good.

In June 2016 the hotel operators and lobbyists showed up en mass to a city council meeting.  They argued that extended stay operations were a vital part of many hotels’ business model.  The ability to turn rooms into residences the way the Choo-Choo has done in downtown Chattanooga appealed to them. They stated that an ordinance that prohibited them from operating as such would possibly jeopardize their bank loans.  So the ordinance was tabled to hear their concerns.

I was told by a city employee that our codes officials had little if any say in crafting the new ordinance.  I was informed that it was primarily worked out between hotel lobbyists and our City Attorney.  I understand we need to bridge the gap between their concerns and our ultimate goal, but is the answer to let lobbyists dictate what’s best for East Ridge?

The taxpayers of East Ridge have been vocal on this issue for a long, long time.  They are ready to see their city cleaned up.  They want the extended stay blight on our city’s reputation and good name removed.  Is the best way to handle this by allowing special interest to swoop into City Hall like it’s Washington D.C. and start to use their influence to dictate legislation?

There is only one way to find out and that is to look at the final outcome of this special interest piece of legislation:

They added a stipulation at the end that we would send notices of violations to the management company.  This will help them to know if a violation occurred so they can correct it, and is a good thing.

As you can also see they changed the 90-day limit to 120 days, adding an additional month of time to the length of stay.  The next thing they did was change the 180 days (6 months) in a calendar year to 210 days (7 months).  This would allow someone to check into an extended stay on June 1 and stay as late as mid-July the following year as long as they take two, one-day breaks during that time.  It would allow a person to check out every 119 days and stay for a total of 14 straight months _  seven in the first calendar year and seven in the second.

Next, they added a provision that this would only apply to occupants using the extended stay as a permanent residence.  How will this be enforced?  If the question is asked “do you intend to live here permanently?” and they say “NO,” will they be allowed to stay indefinitely?

Isn’t anyone staying at an extended stay hotel planning on being there temporarily?  So now anyone who has a driver’s license or ID card with their mom’s address will be allowed to stay forever without violating anything?

What we have up for discussion on Thursday isn’t a bridge between their concerns and the demands of the electorate.  No, it’s a watered down piece of legislation that completely destroys the previous good faith attempts to address a serious concern in this city.  It is just short of a complete bend to the will of special interests.

Now, City Fathers may say that we didn’t accept all of the demands of the special interests … just a few.  After all their demand list included the following: 

Fortunately we did not comply with the third demand, as it would have completely gutted the entire ordinance.  The reason being that every hotel or motel in East Ridge is at least an LLC or greater.  I know, I checked.  So unless someone is careless enough to operate a facility as a simple “DBA,”the entire ordinance wouldn’t apply to them.  Due to liability issues associated with sole proprietorship/DBA business structures it’s unlikely that any hotel or motel would ever operate this way.

However, even more concerning is a reference found in the agenda packet that states we intend to later in the year adopt the rest of the lobbyist’s suggestions:

This is frightening to me in a major way.

We shouldn’t be allowing special interest groups to write East Ridge’s laws or dictate them.  We especially shouldn’t bend to their will in such a way that we pass an ordinance that essentially voids itself.

This is not the will of the people of East Ridge.

The citizens of this city see the blight of these few properties as a major issue and have repeatedly demanded something be done.

What needs to happen on Thursday, in my opinion, is a return to the original proposed amendment.  We then need to add exceptions to any hotel that’s part of a nationally accredited chain or that’s rated three stars or higher by the AAA.  Then there would be no need for the hotel/motel industry to water down our legislation.  It would exempt any independent hotel that was operating a quality establishment.

It would force the bad actors in our community to clean up their act.

This solution – which I personally sent to the city attorney months ago – is the bridge between addressing the concerns of the hotel lobbyists and the will of the people to clean up our city.

I discovered this solution while researching extended stay issues.  In fact, this is exactly how Little Rock, Arkansas and a few other cities around the country regulate extended stay motels.

I genuinely believe that markets operate best when unobstructed by regulation.  However, in this case that obviously hasn’t worked out.  We must strike a balance between what’s in the best interest of citizens and allowing business the freedom to flourish.

I believe this compromise does just that.

I want to encourage the city council to do what is right and take steps forward that are meaningful and productive.  We need to let the special interest groups know that while we respect their business we have to take a stand against the few bad actors.

I see no reason why the legitimate hotels in our community would push back against this, after all they are exempt under this scenario.  As far as new hotels or prospective hotels are concerned, if they are part of a national chain they are automatically exempt.  We could add language where newly-constructed, independent hotels are exempt for a year or until they are rated by the AAA, whichever is first.

If you agree that something needs to be done to address the blight that extended stay motels represent to our community, reach out to a member of the council.  Let them know that you won’t accept legislation watered down by special interest masquerading as effective regulation.

Demand that the City Council stand up for its community and encourage them to take real action on this critical issue.