Newport council splits on package to limit new short‑term rentals after hours of testimony

Councilors debated a package of zoning amendments aimed at preventing new short‑term rentals in certain business districts and limiting the conversion of existing housing into guest facilities. Sponsor Councilor Romilly framed the package as an emergency step to "stop the bleeding" of the city's housing stock and urged the council to act to protect remaining long‑term housing.

"When a patient is bleeding, and we are bleeding our housing stock out, first thing you do is stop the bleeding," Councilor Romilly said, urging passage of measures that would bar new guest‑house uses in some business zones while grandfathering existing permits.

Opponents — including attorneys and business owners who operate short‑term rentals — told the council the changes risk legal challenges and would not produce the promised workforce housing. Attorney Michael Resnick, who identified recent filings and exhibits for the council, cautioned that changes inconsistent with the city's comprehensive land‑use map could be overturned in court: "If you look at map 3‑6 ... the general commercial land use ... specific uses within the commercial area include ... guest facilities," he said, arguing that a zoning change conflicting with the comp plan could be subject to appeal.

Speakers for the short‑term rental industry and local owners urged the council to pause. Mitchell Edwards, representing the Rhode Island Short Term Rentals Association, argued there is little evidence that removing short‑term rentals in commercial zones would lead to affordable long‑term housing and cited New York as an example where expected housing gains did not materialize. Individual owners described the businesses as livelihoods: "This is what a short term rental owner looks like," said Jen Bradbury, who asked councilors to weigh the personal and economic impacts of removing guest‑house rights.

Council debate was sharp and procedural. Sponsor Romilly moved to continue the ordinances 30 days to allow solicitor and planning review, but a procedural maneuver left the matter in front of the full council that evening. Councilors split along policy lines: some framed the issue as one of protecting residents and housing stock; others warned of unintended consequences, enforcement challenges and the prospect of creating a two‑tier market that benefits only current permit holders.

On second reading several of the specific zoning amendments failed, while other related technical changes (for example, certain accessory‑use and lot‑coverage clarifications) passed. The council did not enact a blanket retroactive revocation of existing, permitted short‑term rentals; sponsors repeatedly said the proposals were intended to prevent new conversions rather than strip currently permitted operators of existing rights.

The council received multiple public exhibits and legal memos during the discussion and was asked to weigh planning‑board recommendations and the city's comprehensive plan before final action. Several councilors and members of the public urged more time for analysis and outreach; legal representatives for property owners signaled they may challenge any ordinance that they believe conflicts with the comp plan.

The council left a number of items unresolved and signaled further votes and legal review at upcoming meetings as it balances housing goals with concerns about property rights and local businesses.