Newport council deadlocks on sweeping short-term rental ban after hourslong debate

The Newport City Council spent much of its Sept. 9 meeting debating a package of ordinance amendments intended to limit the conversion of existing housing and commercial properties into short-term rental guest houses.

Councilor Marco Romley, sponsor of the measure, said the change was intended to "stop the bleeding" of housing stock being converted to short-term rentals and to preserve workforce and long-term housing options. Romley told the council he did not intend to revoke any existing permitted short-term rental rights, but said new guest-house uses should be restricted in business districts to protect remaining dwelling units.

Opponents — including attorneys representing property owners and the Rhode Island Short Term Rentals Association — warned of legal risk and questioned whether the policy would produce meaningful increases in long-term housing. Attorney Michael Resnick told the council the proposed changes risked inconsistency with the city's comprehensive plan and predicted legal challenges, while Mitchell Edwards of Hinkley Allen cited studies suggesting removing STRs from commercial zones has not produced promised housing gains elsewhere.

Short-term rental owners and operators testified that their businesses support local restaurants, cleaners and service workers and that many STR operators are small, local business owners rather than absentee investors. Jen Bradbury, an STR owner, said she had invested significant funds to renovate her property and asked the council to "see me" and others as small-business owners who depend on the right to operate.

Planning and zoning staff said that removing guest-house use from certain districts would reduce conversions away from housing, but cautioned that the magnitude of the effect was uncertain. The city zoning officer said roughly 20–25 zoning applications earlier in the year involved conversions to guest houses; registrations approved last year numbered about 230–300 depending on the dataset, and staff said overall registrations have declined year-to-date.

Councilors diverged on timing and legal prudence. Some, including Councilor (unnamed in roll) who raised concern about enforcement and impacts on workforce housing, argued for more study and longer delays to allow staff and the solicitor to evaluate implications. Others called for action to prioritize residents over tourism. Several motions to continue or to adopt second-reading amendments yielded split votes; the transcript records multiple failed motions and several technical amendments that were adopted.

The council accepted written exhibits and legal letters into the record and heard that some opponents were prepared to appeal any ordinance found inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The session ended with a mixed set of votes: sweeping bans did not pass that evening, but the debate was not conclusively closed — councilors said the topic will return for further study and potential future proposals.

The council did not adopt the full package restricting guest-house uses in business zones as presented on second reading that night; some definitional and code-cleanup amendments passed. The sponsor and supporters said they would continue pursuing housing-focused measures.