Citizen Portal
Sign In

Residents urge City Council to tighten enforcement of home-sharing rules and oppose Vacation Rentals Ordinance

Los Angeles City Council · January 21, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple public commenters at the Jan. 20 meeting urged the council to enforce the 2019 home-sharing ordinance, said the city's own numbers show many illegal short-term rentals, and asked the council to reject a proposed Vacation Rentals Ordinance that would expand short-term rentals.

During public comment at the City Council meeting on Jan. 20, several speakers urged elected officials to strengthen enforcement of Los Angeles’ home-sharing ordinance and to oppose a proposed Vacation Rentals Ordinance (VRO) promoted by short-term rental interests.

Noah Sarras Sykes, lead organizer for Better Neighbors LA, told the council the 2019 home-sharing ordinance has not been fully enforced and said, "by the city's own numbers, over 60% of the short-term rentals we currently have are illegal." He urged the council to reject what he described as an Airbnb-backed proposal to expand vacation rentals and cited council-file references as he called for the council to protect long-term housing.

Dr. Penny Herman, a demographer and Council District 5 resident, also urged strengthening the ordinance ahead of the Olympics, saying housing scarcity and hidden vacancies continue to push residents out of stable housing and citing studies and city homeless counts to underline the stakes.

Representatives from Better Neighbors LA reiterated the group’s position later in the sequence of speakers, arguing a proposed VRO would incentivize converting long-term housing to STRs, would not increase overall tourist numbers, and would spread transient-occupancy tax receipts rather than increase net revenue to the city.

Speakers attributed numerical claims (for example, the "over 60%" figure) to city estimates or third-party studies; the council did not take immediate floor action on the VRO during the public-comment period described here. The comments were submitted to the record as public testimony; any legislative response remains a matter for subsequent deliberation and committee referral.