Residents Voice Concerns About Southampton Village Rental Registry Law

Toward the end of a public hearing on Tuesday night that was, at times, contentious, the members of the Southampton Village Board and the group of residents and stakeholders in attendance enjoyed a collective laugh when Southampton Village Mayor Jesse Warren responded to a long turn at the lectern for attorney John Bennett, who shared his thoughts on the village’s proposed rental registry law.

“I agree with John,” the mayor said, with a laugh, acknowledging, along with everyone else in the room, the long odds of him uttering that phrase.

Bennett has a well-earned reputation as someone not afraid to speak his mind when it comes to all manner of village procedures and proposed legislation, often with trademark dramatic flair.

Earlier in the meeting, he passionately expressed his distaste for the village’s consideration of allowing luxury jeweler Cartier to pay for an advertisement on the village helipad, calling it “cheesy,” saying it would represent a trading in of the village’s collective dignity — and asking if the next step would be allowing models to stand on the helipad popping bottles of Cristal.

But in many ways, Bennett was the hero of the night during the registry hearing, with his list of proposed changes to the draft legislation drawing repeated applause and cheers of encouragement and agreement from the attending group of landlords and village homeowners who often rent their homes during the summer season.

Warren and Bennett were essentially in agreement over the idea that the rental registry should be as streamlined as possible and should primarily be considered a service rather than a roadblock for village residents who want to rent their homes or properties on a seasonal basis.

The necessity for creating such a law came about as a result of state legislation that states that landlords seeking to collect all the rent up front for a seasonal rental — which had been standard practice until a few years ago when the state restricted collecting rent to more than one month at a time — can only do so if the town or village they live in creates a seasonal rental registry and they sign up.

Warren started the hearing by stating that registration would be optional for homeowners, but pointed out that homeowners seeking to rent their homes for shorter seasonal periods would be in violation of state law if they collected all their rent up front without going through the registration process.

He added that he and the board wanted to make the law as simple and non-invasive as possible, seeking to draft legislation that was just three or four pages long, as opposed to Southampton Town’s recently adopted rental permit law, a 19-page document.

Unlike the Southampton Town law, Warren said that village renters would not be subject to a penalty for choosing not to sign up. He said that while the village would charge a fee for those who do register their homes, he would not support a fee any higher than $250, although many in attendance thought even that price was too high. Warren said the fee would be used to cover any additional costs the village incurs in creating and implementing the registry, but said he’d prefer to run it on a “self-inspection” basis rather than deploying code enforcement into people’s homes.

During his turn at the lectern, Bennett started off by stating, “This is one of those rare laws the village passes that actually helps,” adding that instead of trying to impose an extra burden on village property owners wishing to rent their homes seasonally, it creates “a safe harbor” for them to do so and still collect their rent up front without being in violation of state law.

But he did have several suggested changes to the draft legislation, which, judging by the reactions in the room, were widely supported.

Bennett said the legislation should reinstate a 30-day minimum rental period, which would address the scourge of short-term rentals that have frustrated many residents. He also drew cheers when he stated that a copy of the lease and the name of the tenant should not be part of the registration process.

“You shouldn’t know who the tenant is or how much they’re paying,” he said. “That’s nobody’s goddamned business.”

Mary O’Brien, an East Quogue resident who owns rental properties in the village, pointed out that a requirement to include the name of the tenant could have unintended consequences.

“I’ve had tenants who didn’t want people knowing where they live,” she said. “One was an abused woman, and she wouldn’t have wanted a simple Freedom of Information request to reveal where she lived.”

Bennett also said that the village should not view the registry as a revenue source, and should only charge $100 or less for registration. “Stop trying to get revenue out of everything,” he said. “You’re already skating on thin ice with the Building Department fees.”

Many attendees still took the village to task for what they felt was a less than optimal process surrounding the registry law.

Frances Genovese, another well-known and vociferous critic of local government, expressed her view that the mayor and board had not done enough to make the drafting of the law a collaborative effort. She said that East Hampton Village officials had sent out questionnaires seeking input on a law a year in advance of creating one. “You’ve made no effort to reach the public until tonight,” she said.

Despite the frustration expressed at times, many attendees expressed their relief and gratitude that the village was making an effort to listen to their concerns and pare down the law in an effort to balance the needs for a registry with the desire of landlords to maintain privacy and ensure the process would not be unnecessarily cumbersome.

To that end, the board unanimously agreed to table the resolution, revise the legislation, re-notice it, and then likely hold a special meeting to get the law passed as soon as possible, as the summer rental season is rapidly approaching.