Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Advertising Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee refers ‘luxury’ rental-signage ordinance back to sponsor for legal review
Summary
Councilor Rogers’ ordinance that would restrict use of the word “luxury” in rental-housing advertising was referred back to the sponsor for research and solicitor review after members raised First Amendment questions and uncertainty about enforceability.
The Committee on Legislative Affairs and Elections on March 24 voted to refer an ordinance proposed by Councilor Rogers — which would limit use of the word “luxury” in rental-housing advertising — back to the sponsor for further research and review with the city solicitor.
Councilor Rogers said the measure responds to widespread use of “luxury” to market rental properties that, in his view, do not offer luxury amenities; he asked whether the city could at least ban the word on exterior building signage. Assistant City Solicitor Keith Slattery sent a late memorandum saying the draft may not survive legal challenge as written, according to the sponsor.
Several members raised free-speech and practical-enforcement concerns. Councilor Smith said she opposed regulating advertising copy on legal grounds and warned the city against “nitpicking” signs. Councilor Mike Casey said market forces and prospective renters would police claims of luxury, and other members suggested the matter may fall to zoning or sign regulations rather than an outright ban on a word.
The committee voted to send the draft back to the sponsor and to request follow-up from the assistant city solicitor and Mr. Lattanzi (planning/legal staff) to explore whether the city has authority to regulate exterior signage wording and whether an alternative regulatory approach (e.g., sign controls or zoning language) would be lawful and practical. The motion to refer back to the sponsor was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.
