Short-term rental ban

A local host who converted his family home to a short-term rental urged the council to vote against the ban and regulate instead, citing ~$300,000 annual TOT revenue and guests like police officers and traveling nurses.

A born-and-raised homeowner and host asked the council to pause the ban, saying her rental income lets her stay home with her child and warning of legal risk with no grandfathering.

A local engineer and host said most hosts are local homeowners with strict rules, and urged a balanced regulatory approach that protects neighborhoods, property rights, and TOT revenue.

A full-time host since 2019 argued only about 5% of the city's 108 rentals are problem properties and asked the council not to shut down an entire industry over a few bad actors.

A nurse, mother, and host said rental income supports her son's medical and educational needs and warned of threatened litigation over the ban.

Argued regulation over prohibition is fiscally responsible, cited ~$300,000 in potential TOT revenue, and said no fires have been caused by short-term rental guests locally.

Said he believes in the city's recovery from bankruptcy and urged the council to keep visitor spending in San Bernardino rather than driving tourists to Riverside.

A lifelong resident, homeowner and rental operator asked the council to halt the ban, saying it punishes families like hers who depend on rental income.

Described renting her homes for family events, church groups and travelers with pets, and asked for regulation rather than prohibition.

A homeowner opposing MC-1661, noting her rentals occur only a few weekends a year and serve traveling nurses and visiting families; asked why other cities regulate instead of banning.

A mother of a nearly deaf child who said STR income feeds her family, and warned the ban would cost the city money in litigation and enforcement.

Cited over $300,000 in annual TOT revenue and noted only about five of roughly 100 STR properties generated complaints; urged reconsideration.