Neighborhood Group Wins Preliminary Legal Battle
Trevor Phipps
The saga surrounding short-term rentals (STRs) in Woodland Park has become a never-ending fight that now has entered the legal arena.
After a special election late last year, many thought they had seen the drawn-out drama surrounding the legality of STRs finally reach a conclusion.
But they were wrong. As one side, consisting of concerned citizens fought hard to get an ordinance on the ballot for a special election to ban non-owner occupied STRs inside residential neighborhoods; another group, led by some realtors and business operators, came out swinging with a lawsuit, saying the voter-approved STR laws are unconstitutional.
Silence came from city officials after it was announced that the group, called “Teller County Short-Term Rental Alliance,” filed a lawsuit that made several serious claims. With their action, the group contended that the city’s new STR ordinance opposed rights guaranteed by the Colorado and U.S. Constitution. The newly elected city council held two executive sessions regarding the matter, but no information was released to the public. It was also unclear how the current council, consisting of a vastly different lineup than a previous elected panel, stood on the issue.
But then on June 20, a lawyer working on the behalf of the city of Woodland Park, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in District Court. Many local political observers view this as a victory for the citizens who put the anti-STR ordinance on the ballot, which was approved by the voters.
The city’s new STR ordinance followed a two-year battle regarding whether STRs should be allowed in residential neighborhoods. First, a group of citizens calling themselves “Preserving Neighborhood Character in Woodland Park” successfully got enough signatures on a petition to rescind an earlier law the city council passed. This original city ordinance actually allowed STRs in residentially zoned districts.
The “Preserving Neighborhood Character” group, though, sought to overturn the city’s pro-STR ordinance by successfully putting the issue on the ballot. Their counter proposal was passed by the voters during a special election held in late 2023. The citizens’ ordinance essentially banned non-owner occupied STR businesses from operating in residentially zoned neighborhoods. And through this action, it gave those current STR businesses until the end of 2024 to comply with the new law and restrictions, or to cease operations.
However, the saga took another twist during the city’s regular election day in April, when a pro-STR group, led by certain developers/realtors and business operators, filed a lawsuit attempting to nullify the new voter-approved ordinance. In a nutshell, the lawsuit states that since STRs were operating legally before the ordinance passed, the city cannot enact new laws that take away legal businesses.
The lawsuit was submitted to the District Court. The city responded recently with a motion to dismiss. A District Court judge can agree to dismiss the lawsuit or give the other side a chance to respond to the city’s motion.
City Attorney: No Reason to Go to Court
In the official motion to dismiss, the city’s attorney representing Woodland Park on the lawsuit, Andrew Ringel, broke down each claim made in the lawsuit. These mostly deal with arguments, contending that the new voter-approved STR ordinance violated STR business owners’ rights. The attorney used case laws and details to refute all seven claims brought up in the lawsuit.
In the lawsuit, the pro-STR group contends that it is unlawful to take away an individual’s STR business since they previously operated legally. But the city’s rebuttal states that since STR businesses were never technically legal, according to the city’s zoning laws, the city can impose stricter STR regulations in residential zones.
The motion to dismiss argues that there were not any regulations pertaining to STR businesses previously, and the city just collected business license fees and lodging taxes. Collecting business license fees and lodging taxes don’t make STR businesses legal, the city’s attorney stated.
Ringel went on to refute the lawsuit’s claim that the STR ordinance was unconstitutional because it included limits on how many people could occupy an STR property at one time and went against the freedom of assembly clause guaranteed to citizens in the First Amendment.
“The ordinance does not generally restrict any citizen’s right to speak or right to assemble,” Ringel’s motion states. “Rather, the ordinance imposes legitimate and lawful occupancy limitations.”
After the latest action, Woodland Park residents, especially those who live in the impacted neighborhoods, now must await the court’s decision. This could result in a dismissal of the lawsuit, or a chance to allow the plaintiffs to respond to the city’s latest motion. If the latter action occurs, the case could extend for quite a lengthy period.
