Jefferson County's New STR Ordinance
10/03/25 12:56 Filed in: Short-term rentals | STR
Jefferson County, WA, on the Olympic Peninsula, appears set to give in to local prejudice and parochialism. The County appears likely to adopt an ordinance not allowing the citizens of other states to rent out their Jefferson County homes for short terms, which sure looks to me like a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Separately, the Jefferson County ordinance would give a monopoly to a very small number of homes in the County, prohibiting everyone else in the county from renting out their homes for short terms.
It looks like the County intends to "grandfather" existing STR's which have permits, so not only do those owners get to share in the monopoly, but people whose life situations suddenly change even if they have owned properties previously will be unable to earn STR income or move to another locale — even another locale in Washington State!
The restrictions contemplated by Jefferson County, in my legal opinion, implicate important constitutional questions, not the least of which is private landowners' fundamental right to decide who gets to stay in their homes and for how long. Relatedly, enforcement of the new Jefferson County ordinance requires an extensive monitoring and surveillance regime over the comings and goings of ordinary people at private homes. Big Brother is watching you, folks. Read More…
Separately, the Jefferson County ordinance would give a monopoly to a very small number of homes in the County, prohibiting everyone else in the county from renting out their homes for short terms.
It looks like the County intends to "grandfather" existing STR's which have permits, so not only do those owners get to share in the monopoly, but people whose life situations suddenly change even if they have owned properties previously will be unable to earn STR income or move to another locale — even another locale in Washington State!
The restrictions contemplated by Jefferson County, in my legal opinion, implicate important constitutional questions, not the least of which is private landowners' fundamental right to decide who gets to stay in their homes and for how long. Relatedly, enforcement of the new Jefferson County ordinance requires an extensive monitoring and surveillance regime over the comings and goings of ordinary people at private homes. Big Brother is watching you, folks. Read More…
STR's in Bellingham - Allowed with an (*)
10/03/25 12:45 Filed in: STR | Short-term rentals | Bellingham short-term rentals | Washington State short-term rentals
Bellingham, WA generally allows short-term home rentals in residential areas. But that only happened after volatile City Council hearings a few years back. As usual, opponents were loud and emphatic that STR's must be banned — stated another way, that the government should take over the role of private landowners in deciding who gets to stay in private homes and for how long. So the Bellingham City Council tossed in a few restrictions to mollify STR opponents. One of those, completely senseless, is that if you have an accessory dwelling (ADU), but it's not physically attached to your house, you can never rent it out for short terms. At a minimum, you would have connect it to your house with a breezeway or else tuck it into your basement.
In my new home in Bellingham, our small lot in a very old neighborhood dictated a small main house situated at the front of the lot and any ADU to be in the back. But when we asked for a variance from the City's prohibition on the renting of detached ADU's, the City of Bellingham claimed we couldn't even seek a variance! In essence, if your ADU is not physically attached, you have no right at all to have renters for less than 30 days. An administrative law judge agreed, so we had to appeal. We won that appeal, meaning we won the right to seek a variance.
So we're back in the administrative hearing route, but only after a year of tussling over just the preliminary issue whether we even have the right to seek an exception from a City ordinance which is facially senseless. In any event, Bellingham residents who seek a variance from any of the many requirements and restrictions the City of Bellingham imposes on ADU's can reach out to my office for further information and advice. Read More…
In my new home in Bellingham, our small lot in a very old neighborhood dictated a small main house situated at the front of the lot and any ADU to be in the back. But when we asked for a variance from the City's prohibition on the renting of detached ADU's, the City of Bellingham claimed we couldn't even seek a variance! In essence, if your ADU is not physically attached, you have no right at all to have renters for less than 30 days. An administrative law judge agreed, so we had to appeal. We won that appeal, meaning we won the right to seek a variance.
So we're back in the administrative hearing route, but only after a year of tussling over just the preliminary issue whether we even have the right to seek an exception from a City ordinance which is facially senseless. In any event, Bellingham residents who seek a variance from any of the many requirements and restrictions the City of Bellingham imposes on ADU's can reach out to my office for further information and advice. Read More…
Washington State generally protects the rights of existing owners, but . . .
Homeowners in subdivisions in Washington State have been protected for the last 10 years by a watershed decision, Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Communities Ass’n, 180 Wn.2d 241, 256, 327 P.3d 614 (2014). It's one of the cases in the nationwide majority which holds that owners who purchased important rights reflected in deed restrictions (restrictive covenants) can't have those rights taken away if a majority of the subdivision owners vote to amend the deed restrictions. The Washington Legislature later included a similar protection in the laws governing homeowners' associations and subdivisions.
(In Texas, notably, the courts don't seem to care and don't follow Wilkinson. I've been losing on that issue in case after case, but the Texas Supreme Court hasn't yet weighed in.)
I've met with several clients here in Washington State who've been threatened by their neighbors with an amendment designed to curtail leasing rights — the hot-button issue. I've been able to point to Wilkinson and the protection it affords existing owners, and until recently, I could point to Washington State's subdivision laws.
But in a worrisome development, in mid-2024, the Washington Legislature deleted the express protection for the rights of existing owners as against amendments which would prejudice their rights. It was part of a general cleanup of Washington State's HOA laws, but the deletion is inexplicable. It looks to me like a special-interest insertion, but I haven't been able to run down how or why the change was made.
In the meantime, Wilkinson remains good law in Washington State, and even though there are judges who clearly don't like it (see Twin W Owners' Ass'n v. Murphy, 26 Wash. App. 2d 494, 511, 529 P.3d 410, 419, review denied, 534 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2023), homeowners can rely on it for the time being. Now, the Washington Supreme Court could undo its own decision, but boy, that would be harsh — people have been relying on it for 10 years. So it would seem to me that any change would have to come from the Legislature. Given the recent deletion of the Wilkinson protection from the HOA laws, however, it's quite possible that special interests are trying to undo Wilkinson legislatively. I am unclear who those special interests are, since it would seem abundantly clear that taking away existing rights from people who spent money on property in reliance on those rights could affect anyone. But then again, I've heard HOA lawyers stridently defend the ability of a majority to screw a minority, so what do I know? Read More…
(In Texas, notably, the courts don't seem to care and don't follow Wilkinson. I've been losing on that issue in case after case, but the Texas Supreme Court hasn't yet weighed in.)
I've met with several clients here in Washington State who've been threatened by their neighbors with an amendment designed to curtail leasing rights — the hot-button issue. I've been able to point to Wilkinson and the protection it affords existing owners, and until recently, I could point to Washington State's subdivision laws.
But in a worrisome development, in mid-2024, the Washington Legislature deleted the express protection for the rights of existing owners as against amendments which would prejudice their rights. It was part of a general cleanup of Washington State's HOA laws, but the deletion is inexplicable. It looks to me like a special-interest insertion, but I haven't been able to run down how or why the change was made.
In the meantime, Wilkinson remains good law in Washington State, and even though there are judges who clearly don't like it (see Twin W Owners' Ass'n v. Murphy, 26 Wash. App. 2d 494, 511, 529 P.3d 410, 419, review denied, 534 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2023), homeowners can rely on it for the time being. Now, the Washington Supreme Court could undo its own decision, but boy, that would be harsh — people have been relying on it for 10 years. So it would seem to me that any change would have to come from the Legislature. Given the recent deletion of the Wilkinson protection from the HOA laws, however, it's quite possible that special interests are trying to undo Wilkinson legislatively. I am unclear who those special interests are, since it would seem abundantly clear that taking away existing rights from people who spent money on property in reliance on those rights could affect anyone. But then again, I've heard HOA lawyers stridently defend the ability of a majority to screw a minority, so what do I know? Read More…
New member of the Washington State Bar
20/10/22 10:23 Filed in: Washington State HOA law | Washing State short-term rental law
I became a member of the State Bar of Washington on October 18, 2022. I will continue handling homeowner-side property rights, restrictive covenant, and HOA-related issues and disputes in both Texas and Washington State. Stay tuned for Washington-specific blog posts. Read More…