City of Miami v. Airbnb

Citation: Not availableDocket: 17-1213

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 4, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida issued an opinion on December 5, 2018, regarding the City of Miami's appeal against a trial court's order that granted a temporary injunction to Airbnb and several individual plaintiffs. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements for the broad temporary injunction, leading to a reversal of the trial court's decision.

The background reveals that Airbnb operates as an online platform facilitating short-term rentals, which prompted the City of Miami to adopt a resolution in March 2017 limiting such rentals in the T3 zoning area to permanent residential use. This resolution was based on the city's zoning ordinance, Miami 21, and a 2015 interpretation that deemed short-term rentals in the T3 zone a violation of city regulations. The resolution was met with opposition from residents who utilized Airbnb for rentals, leading the City Manager to indicate intentions to enforce the city code against those individuals.

Subsequently, Airbnb and affected residents filed a lawsuit against the City, claiming that the vacation rental ban was preempted by state law and alleging retaliatory intent from city officials towards those opposing the ban. They sought to enjoin the City from enforcing code violations against them and from requiring personal information from speakers at City Commission meetings. An evidentiary hearing on their emergency motion for a temporary injunction was held on April 19, 2017, where testimonies were provided regarding the alleged targeting of Airbnb and the nature of rentals in the T3 zone. The City’s planning director testified that the T3 zone was intended for permanent housing, not transient lodging.

Residents in the T3 zone testified about negative impacts from living near short-term rentals, while the City Clerk discussed how the City collects names and addresses of speakers at City Commission meetings. The trial court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, ruling that Miami 21 does not prohibit vacation rentals and that the City's zoning interpretation banning them is preempted by Florida Statutes section 509.032(7)(b). The court found no evidence of retaliation from the City Manager or Mayor but acknowledged that their statements negatively affected residents' First Amendment rights. The injunction specifically prevents the City from enforcing any ban on vacation rentals and from requiring public commenters to disclose their identities.

The court noted that obtaining a temporary injunction requires demonstrating irreparable harm, lack of an adequate legal remedy, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and that the injunction serves the public interest. The injunction must also be narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on non-harmful conduct. However, the court found that the Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success to justify such broad injunctions. It concluded that the injunction against the City’s vacation rental ban was overbroad, as Miami 21 is not preempted by state law and can impose land-use restrictions on properties in the T3 zone, including short-term rentals. The ruling emphasized that the preemption statute does not apply to local regulations established before June 1, 2011, and since Miami 21's provisions are unchanged from 2009, the injunction was reversed.

'Residential' is defined by Miami 21 as land primarily used for permanent housing, which excludes vacation rentals that provide transient accommodations. Consequently, Miami 21 prohibits short-term and vacation rentals in T3 zones if they alter the property's use from 'predominantly of permanent housing.' Properties used exclusively for short-term rentals would not be permitted in T3. However, incidental short-term rentals may be allowed if the primary use remains predominantly permanent housing. The City’s 2015 Zoning Interpretation, which bans all short-term rentals in T3, overreaches and is preempted under section 509.032(7)(b) because it does not account for permissible incidental uses. The trial court did not differentiate between allowable rentals and those violating zoning restrictions, failing to recognize that Miami 21 prohibits only certain short-term rentals that undermine the residential nature of T3 properties. Additionally, while 'lodging' under Miami 21 includes uses like hotels and inns, which are not permitted in T3, some Airbnb rentals might qualify as lodging, but this determination requires a detailed case-by-case analysis. The trial court's broad injunction against the City’s prohibition on vacation or short-term rentals in T3 is deemed overbroad and is vacated.

The injunction preventing the City from requiring speakers at public hearings to provide their names and addresses is deemed overbroad. The trial court's order, which prohibits the City from imposing this requirement and mandates that residents be informed they can remain anonymous while speaking, was based on concerns that the City might retaliate against property owners advocating for vacation rentals, thus infringing on their free speech rights. However, it is determined that the blanket ban on name and address requirements at all public hearings is excessive, as there are situations where providing such information is beneficial and does not suppress First Amendment rights. Public hearings often benefit from knowing a speaker's identity, especially regarding local matters that affect residents. Moreover, the majority of public meetings do not present a risk of governmental abuse concerning enforcement priorities. Consequently, the temporary injunction is vacated for being overly broad, although the trial court is allowed to issue a more narrowly tailored injunction on remand to address specific concerns. 

In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Lagoa agrees that the injunction regarding public speaking requirements is overbroad, but would prefer to modify rather than vacate it. Regarding the portion of the order related to vacation rentals, she disagrees with the majority's finding that the trial court erred, advocating instead for a modification of the order rather than a complete reversal.

The legal issue at hand concerns the City’s vacation rental ban and its compatibility with the City’s zoning ordinances. Municipal ordinances are interpreted similarly to state statutes, meaning courts cannot add words or phrases to reflect intentions not explicitly stated in the ordinances. The language of such ordinances must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, prioritizing property owners' rights and interpreting zoning laws in their favor due to their restrictive nature on property use.

The City’s zoning code, Miami 21, effective from 2010, categorizes the City into transect zones with specified permitted uses. A critical factor is whether Miami 21 prohibited vacation rentals in the T3 zone prior to June 1, 2011—a date set by Florida Statutes which preempts local laws prohibiting vacation rentals enacted after this date. If Miami 21 did not explicitly prohibit such rentals before this date, the City cannot impose restrictions through amendments or interpretations afterward.

The City argues that Miami 21 indicates an intention to construe the zoning ordinance against homeowners, referencing a precedent that suggests zoning ordinances should be broadly interpreted in favor of property owners unless otherwise stated. However, this interpretation is challenged on two grounds: first, the cited precedent conflates separate legal issues regarding the scope of interpretation and the party favored by the ordinance; second, the specific provision in Miami 21 regarding conflicting laws does not pertain to the internal interpretation of its provisions or address situations where the ordinance is silent on an issue.

On August 15, 2015, the City issued Zoning Interpretation 2015-001 to clarify regulations regarding short-term rentals in the T3 zone, defined by Miami 21 as the 'Sub-Urban' zone that only permits certain 'Residential' uses. 'Residential' is characterized as primarily for permanent housing, while 'Lodging' is explicitly prohibited. The T3 zone is further categorized into 'Restricted' (only Single-Family Residences), 'Limited' (adds Ancillary Units), and 'Open' (includes Two Family-Housing). A 'Single-Family Residence' is defined as a detached building serving as a permanent residence for a single housekeeping unit. Other residential types, like Multi-Family Housing, are not allowed in the T3 zone. Miami 21 does not explicitly address temporary vacation rentals, indicating that properties predominantly serve as permanent housing. The use of the term 'predominantly' suggests multiple uses may exist as long as the primary use is for permanent housing. Testimonies from the Appellants, who reside in Single-Family Residences in the T3 zone, revealed their occasional use of Airbnb for short-term rentals. Kenneth Tobin reported renting his home for fewer than 20 days each year, averaging two nights per rental, while Gary Levin and Toya Bowles rented for 12 nights in 2016, averaging three nights. Yamile Bell indicated renting a room more than 30 times in 2016, with varying lengths of stay, while her family continued to live in their home during these rentals.

The City failed to present any evidence contradicting the Appellants' claims of using their residences primarily for personal, permanent living. The City argued that the Appellants’ short-term rentals of their rooms transformed the properties from 'Residential' to 'Lodging.' According to Miami 21, 'Lodging' is defined as accommodations predominantly rented for short periods and includes specific criteria for lodging units that differ from dwelling units. Miami 21 categorizes lodging based on the number of units, defining Bed & Breakfasts, Inns, and Hotels based on their capacity. Notably, Miami 21 states that a multifamily structure offering rentals for less than one month is considered 'Lodging,' but this provision does not apply to the T3 zone, where multifamily housing is not permitted. Therefore, Miami 21 does not address short-term rentals of permanent residences in the T3 zone. Statutory interpretation principles indicate that, apart from the multifamily exception, properties primarily used as permanent residences cannot be classified as lodging. Consequently, the trial court concluded that the Appellants were likely to succeed on the merits, while also noting that the temporary injunction issued was overly broad. Ultimately, the court found that Miami 21 does not restrict vacation rentals in the T3 zone, provided that the residences are primarily used for permanent housing.

The trial court issued an order that imposes a blanket restriction on the City’s enforcement of its zoning code against nonconforming buildings in the T3 zone, particularly affecting single-family residences used for vacation rentals. This usage may violate zoning regulations, as it is not predominantly for permanent housing. Despite the court's order, section 509.032(7)(b) does not prevent the City from enforcing zoning regulations concerning nonconforming uses. Therefore, it is recommended to remand the case for the trial court to adjust the temporary injunction in accordance with this finding.

Additionally, the trial court's order prohibits the City from requiring public speakers at City Commission meetings to disclose their names and addresses, while acknowledging the City's legitimate interests in doing so. The core issue is not the overall policy but the specific application in this case, which stemmed from a March 23, 2017, City Commission meeting where a resolution to ban vacation rentals in the T3 zone was passed. Appellants Bell, Bowles, and Tobin testified that they were compelled to provide their names and addresses to speak at that meeting. Key stipulated facts include the City’s requirement for speakers to provide their names and addresses and statements made by the City Manager and Mayor indicating intent to enforce the city's code against those who publicly opposed the vacation rental regulations.

Appellants requested a temporary injunction due to the chilling impact of public statements and the City’s requirement for speakers to disclose their names and addresses before addressing the City Commission, which they argued infringed on their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right also protected against state and local actions by the Fourteenth Amendment. Retaliation against citizens for their statements on public concerns can violate this right. While the majority agrees with the trial court's finding that the City’s actions impeded the Appellants’ petition rights, they vacate the injunction as overly broad. The dissenting opinion suggests instead of vacating, the injunction should be remanded to the trial court for modification to specifically address the harm in a more targeted manner.