Closing the book—for now—on what has often seemed like an interminable five-year debate, the Raleigh City Council passed strict regulations on short-term rentals like Airbnb last Tuesday. 

Starting January 1, whole-house rentals will be illegal throughout most of the city, and residents will only be permitted to rent a maximum of two rooms in their home to a maximum of two adults at a time. Moreover, those rooms cannot have a separate kitchen or privacy from the main dwelling, and homeowners must be living onsite. Those violating the new rules will accrue fines of $500 per day. (Exempt from the whole-house ban are five mixed-use districts, mostly downtown, where hotels are already allowed.) Rental owners will be required to obtain a $176 permit that must be renewed every year for $86.

It’s hard to describe how foolish this is. 

As Airbnb noted in a press release before the vote, it has seen 60 percent year-over-year growth in North Carolina, and taxes on its rentals pumped $24 million into state and local coffers last year. 

But Raleigh’s rules crack down on the very things that make the service popular: Short-term rentals offer privacy and space, and whole-house rentals can accommodate more people than fit into hotel rooms. 

Want to bring in the whole family for graduation? Right now, you can rent a North Raleigh townhome that sleeps six for $169 a night. Come January, that will be illegal. 

The bigger problem, though, is that the council simply refuses to listen. 

It’s been more than sixteen hundred days since the city cited Gregg Stebben for renting out his home on Airbnb, then decided to stop enforcing its Airbnb ban while it crafted regulations. There have been countless meetings and public hearings since. Each time, a vast majority of residents urged the city to adopt rules that, while reining in abuses, would allow them to rent their homes to generate extra income or give their families an affordable place to stay when they visit. 

The council didn’t care. 

What council members cared about were the horror stories they heard from a handful of residents who said their neighborhoods were being ruined by renters taking up street parking or throwing loud parties. Never mind that, since 2014, the city has only received thirty-seven complaints about Airbnbs, of which just twenty-three were deemed valid—about four a year

To be sure, Airbnb has been a mixed bag in some cities. In cities with tight housing markets and large tourism economies, short-term rentals have driven up housing prices. In response, several cities are tightening their rules.

But while that’s a convenient excuse for the Airbnb-phobic city council, that’s not the problem in Raleigh. The city isn’t a tourist destination—Airbnb’s biggest surge is graduation weekend—and Raleigh’s housing prices are skyrocketing because of the predominance of single-family zoning and the city’s reluctance to increase the housing stock by adding density. 

Rather, Airbnb disrupts the status quo. And like other disruptions to the status quo—electric scooters, accessory dwelling units, mobile retail—the council’s instinct is the same. 


In this case, council members Dickie Thompson and Stef Mendell have argued that neighborhood opposition has led to the city’s crackdown. But that opposition has been almost invisible throughout the debate. 

“If there are that many people in Stef Mendell’s district and that many people in Dickie Thompson’s district that are opposed to this, where are they?” Stebben asks. “We’ve never seen them.”

At a public hearing on May 7, for example, twelve people addressed the council on short-term rentals. Eleven spoke against the city’s proposed rules. 

The council delayed its vote on the regulations for two weeks because Thompson wasn’t there, and the pro-regulation camp needed his vote. 

As it turned out, Thompson had ideas to add: Allowing four adults to stay in a house, as was originally proposed, was too much, he argued. He suggested two. 

On a 5–2 vote, the council agreed. Nicole Stewart and Corey Branch—not coincidentally, the only council members under the age of fifty—dissented. 

The public never got a chance to weigh in. Not that it would have mattered. 

Those regulations didn’t cover whole-house rentals. They were still illegal in most of the city, but there weren’t plans to enforce the ban, as council members were still working on those rules. 

But immediately after the vote, Mendell moved to begin enforcing the whole-house ban along with the other rules on January 1. And while violators were initially going to be fined $100 a day, council member Kay Crowder thought that wasn’t enough: She asked for $500. 

Again, the council agreed, with only Stewart voting no. Again, there was no public input. 

Contact staff writer Leigh Tauss at This story has been edited and updated for print. 

Support independent local journalism. Join the INDY Press Club to help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle. 

7 replies on “Here’s the Problem With Raleigh’s Dumb Airbnb Restrictions”

  1. Probably not $24 million more than if Airbnb hadn’t been in NC. It’s not like people decide to travel just because Airbnb is an option. They would have just stayed in hotels instead.

  2. Derpy Derp NIMBYs please get out of my house! If I own my primary residence and wish to rent it to guests via AirBNB while I’m out of town, that shouldn’t concern my city council. It’s MY property. How dare they raise our taxes while simultaneously restricting our ability to generate profits from the land? I hope they all put on some lipstick so they look pretty while they screw me hard.

  3. Well, it’s election time. This article clearly show how emotional and arrogant our rep up on ridge road makes decisions. I understand she is upset by mcmansions, we all are, but taking it out on everyone and everything, isn’t right. I met Stef several times, she is as emotional in real life as she was in this hearing. She knows what’s best for us, period.

  4. Your commitment to getting rid of some of our best city councilors is amazing. I have heard that you are committed to Nicole Stewart, who wants to remove everyone from the Council who has the knowledge and history to be aware of bad ideas.

  5. The scooters hurt people! The available rentals hurt people! Where’s all the public safety? /s

    The argument that these new business represent disruption and the older council members don’t like a rapidly changing world is spot on. This isn’t about safety. That can be addressed. If the answer is just a ‘No’ it’s because its new, different and therefore scary and bad.

    These lawmakers aren’t doing their job to protect us. They’re protecting close-minded worldviews. Views their electorate will undoubtedly support by decreasingly small margins.

    When a regulator cites a fine as a portion of a company’s profit (cough Mendell scooters cough), they aren’t thinking about safety and wellbeing. They’re thinking about control. And for the kiddies out there, “Control is a tool for fascists.”

    Boomsday is coming and not soon enough.

  6. This is a very poorly written argument. It portrays this whole issue as an us vs. them intergenerational polemic where the old farts just don’t understand Internet economy. The argument doesn’t even begin to take into account the real problems with short term rentals like Airbnb and VRBO from the standpoint of the regulator.

    The most important thing to keep in mind, which this argument totally ignores, is that lawmakers and regulators have one primary job: to safeguard health, safety, and public welfare. Their job is not to embrace businesses with no oversight even though patronage would save the consumer money. Would you be okay with someone selling medicine for half price if it meant that the cheap price of the medicine was because the manufacturer didn’t need to comply with any safety regulations?! I should hope not!

    It’s not about fear of change. It’s about the fact that short term rentals, unlike conventional lodging units, have no fire safety standards, no food safety standards, no public health inspections, no additional environmental controls, etc. Those regulations for hotels are there for good reason.

    Yes, NIMBY arguments are annoyingly filled with hyperbole. But maybe here good lawmakers were doing their jobs and keeping people safe.

Comments are closed.