Taking on management for units facing a possible permit cap

Question

Consider a co-host asked to take over management of two units starting in a few months. Both are permitted today. Suppose the city has a proposal on the agenda to cap the total number of short-term permits and, based on the draft, not renew permits on properties where the owner doesn't live in the city, and the owner in question lives out of state. So the units are legal now and might not be legal by summer, and nobody can reliably predict how the vote goes. One approach is to sign anyway. Several months of fee income is real income, the units may end up grandfathered, and if the cap passes, the co-host who understands the ordinance cold is positioned to help convert to longer stays or support a sale. Co-hosts who understand the rules tend to be worth more in a tightening market, not less. The other approach treats this as building a book on a property with a known expiration risk, spending setup effort, cleaner scheduling and listing budget on something that could evaporate within months, when there are owners elsewhere with settled rules. A middle path exists: a shorter initial term with a higher fee, or a setup fee upfront that covers onboarding cost regardless of outcome, though not every owner will accept that structure. The honest position is that nobody can call the vote in advance, so the decision comes down to how much runway and how much appetite for that specific risk a co-host actually has.

jessreyes12 · Answer

The question I'd ask before anything else is what the draft says about existing permits. Grandfathering language is the whole deal, and drafts usually have some. If it's silent, that's an answer too.

paulgrant17 · Answer

@jessreyes12 beat me to it. Also, has the owner read the draft? Because if he hasn't, the first thing you're selling him is that you did.

luis_carrera · Answer

Charging the setup fee is the right call here. Naming the real cost, photos and cleaner onboarding and listing build, and there's no reason that sits on the manager's side of the table when the regulatory risk is on the owner's property.

tashaford30 · Answer

Would an owner actually pay a setup fee in a market where co-hosts compete for units? Worth putting to the room, since that's the piece that determines what's normal here.

marcus_hale41 · Answer

@tashaford30 they pay it when the alternative is nobody good takes the job. In a tightening market fewer co-hosts want the exposure, which is exactly when you can ask.

The part I'd underwrite is what happens after. If the cap passes and he goes to 30 day minimum stays, does your fee structure still make sense? Mid-term is a different business at a different rate, and you'd be renegotiating from a weak spot in July.

chriswalton8 · Answer

Write the conversion into the agreement now. If the property has to go 30 day minimum, fee moves to X. There will never be a cleaner moment to agree to that than before either side knows the outcome.

tylerbrooks9 · Answer

Five months of income against a full setup doesn't read as income, it reads as a job you pay to do. It depends entirely on what the setup actually costs in hours.

sonia_alvarez · Answer

The permit risk sits with the owner and the labor risk sits with the manager, and if a contract splits those the wrong way, the vote matters less once that is fixed.

priya_n21 · Answer

Wouldn't a cap that grandfathers existing permits make the surviving units more valuable? Fewer competitors, same demand. If it lands that way, an owner in that position wants a good co-host more than ever.

megan_doyle15 · Answer

@priya_n21 that's the scenario where signing looks smart in hindsight. The one where he's out-of-state and non-owner-occupied is the specific thing the draft targets though, which is what makes it uncomfortable.

Taking on management for units facing a possible permit cap

10 replies