Another kind of hypocrisy I see regularly in my short-term rental practice involves those who engage in STR's trying to stop my clients from engaging in STR's. It would be one thing if the sole basis for banning STR's were the applicable deed restrictions, but alas that is often not the case. Those who wish to ban STR's pull out all the stops, arguing that they're always a commercial use and always create nuisances and headaches. How many times, once the litigation commences, have I found that the same people crying foul also both rent homes for short-terms when they travel or else actually own another property somewhere that they themselves rent out for short terms! It's a classic not-in-my-backyard position, and I don't hesitate to tell the court exactly how the person suing my client to ban STR's loves them so long as they're somewhere else -- presumably, in a property zoned to prohibit "business use."

There is a valid middle ground in the STR debate, and many HOA's and cities are adjusting to the new realities by adopting and tweaking deed restrictions and ordinances that allow STR's but with detailed restrictions, which in my view is always the best way because it's democratic in the best sense. No one wants to live next to a full-time party house, but equally, very few people want to lose property rights irrevocably. STR's offer owners and travelers a new and wonderful kind of freedom and flexibility, but it imposes on them the same responsibility to conform to neighborhood standards and kindnesses.