Sandpoint is safer fighting STR deregulation in court

Why fighting it out in court is safer for Sandpoint than deregulating short-term rentals right now:

1. Litigation preserves the status quo.

If Sandpoint faces a legal challenge, the current short-term rental rules remain in effect during the court process. This means:

• No immediate surge of STR conversions.

• No investor buying spree.

• No sudden loss of year-round rentals.

• Quiet neighborhoods remain intact.

Litigation pauses change. Deregulation unleashes it.

2. Deregulation causes immediate, irreversible harm.

Once a home becomes a short-term rental, it rarely returns to long-term housing. Deregulating now guarantees rapid loss of rentals at a time when Sandpoint’s housing market is already strained.

3. Sandpoint’s housing supply is extremely limited.

Average rent is roughly $2,000 per month and there are only about 67 rentals on the market. Median home price has nearly doubled in five years.

Investor demand already strong. Removing caps now would accelerate these pressures.

4. The Idaho Supreme Court did not require deregulation.

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled cities cannot ban short-term rentals, but it did not require removing caps, spacing rules, or operational regulations. Moderate regulation remains fully legal.

5. Litigation provides clarity without harming the community.

A court process forces guidance and refinements to the ordinance while:

• Keeping housing protections in place.

• Allowing time for a community impact study.

• Preventing irreversible conversions.

6. Deregulation cannot be undone.

Homes converted to STRs won’t return to the year-round market. A court challenge can be resolved; housing losses cannot.

ERIK YINGLING

Sandpoint