The Newport City Council rejected a proposal Wednesday night to ban new short-term rentals in business zones. The decision followed a contentious debate over the city’s housing crisis and Airbnb’s impact on the local community.
The ordinance, sponsored by Councilor Mark Aramli, aimed to prevent the conversion of existing housing units into short-term rentals in general business, waterfront business, and limited business districts.
Proponents argued the measure was necessary to protect Newport’s dwindling housing stock and prioritize long-term residents over tourists. Holder said the city loses 20 to 30 housing units annually to short-term rental conversions.
“When a patient is bleeding and we are bleeding our housing stock out, first thing you do is stop the bleeding. And that’s what this ordinance change is,” Aramli said.
The proposal would not have affected existing short-term rentals or homeowners renting out rooms in their primary residences.
“We have a situation right now if we do not pass an ordinance like this, it is not just the housing stock that is at risk from being taken over by Airbnb and short term rentals. It is the mom and pop retail shops, the restaurants, all of the little stores you see on Broadway, any commercial building, period,” said Councilor Aramli.
Opponents, including several short-term rental owners who spoke during public comment, contended the ban would infringe on property rights and harm local businesses without guaranteeing more affordable housing.
“Changing or stripping rights from the property owners who play by the rules because of a housing affordability issue plaguing the nation is not solving any problem other than helping the hotel associations and their friends,” said Sarah Adams, a Florida resident who owns a short-term rental in Newport’s waterfront business district.
City Zoning Officer Nick Armour confirmed that eliminating guest houses in commercial zones would preserve some existing housing units but noted it’s difficult to predict exactly how many.
The council’s split vote highlighted differing views on balancing tourism and housing needs in the coastal city of about 25,000 residents.
Councilor Lynn Underwood Ceglie said she couldn’t support the measure without more evidence it would effectively address housing issues.
“I need proof that this will actually do what we are wanting it to do,” Ceglie said. “I think that this is rather dangerous.”
Councilor Jeanne-Marie Napolitano argued Newport’s housing challenges extend beyond city limits and require a regional approach.
“I’m kind of tired of hearing about housing in Newport when in fact, there should be housing in the state of Rhode Island,” Napolitano said. “There’s acres and acres out in Portsmouth, acres and acres out in Middletown, and they don’t have the water problems that we have.”
The motion to amend the ordinances failed in a 3-3 vote, with Councilors Ceglie, Napolitano, and Holder voting against, Councilor Aramli, Khamsyvoravong, and Carlin voting for, and Councilor Lima not voting due to being absent.
The failed vote doesn’t preclude the council from revisiting short-term rental regulations in the future. Holder indicated he may reintroduce a modified proposal at a later date.
In other business, the council approved changes to zoning ordinances regarding lot coverage and patio heights. The amendments allow for slightly taller raised patios on larger residential properties while maintaining stricter limits in denser neighborhoods.
I think we’ve moved beyond worrying about how many year-round rentals we’re losing to lucrative short-term rentals. Now we’re looking at losing the businesses that tourists enjoy coming here to peruse: the gift shops, the clothing shops, the candy shops, etc. As well as the mom-and-pop eateries that residents love. STRs are so profitable over a few warm months that it’s now going to make sense for some businesses to throw in the year-round retail/restaurant towel and sell out to more and more new “guesthouses.” Is that what we residents want? At least half the council thinks not. I think not. The viability of this town is more important than the rights of people from here or wherever who have found a new way to make a buck. This trend is going to get bigger, unless we stop it now.