FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

We as an Alliance, collaboratively consider the best approach to achieve an outcome that is equitable, durable and practicable, while protecting our rights. The majority of SASTRA members supported filing the lawsuit, and other members preferred to take action to lobby the city for STR support. Therefore, SASTRA is focusing on both courses of action (lawsuit and lobbying) to help protect the interests of our members, while at every opportunity, educating the community and its leaders on the realities and benefits of STRs in Santa Ana.

• Following our lawsuit, SASTRA saw a minor victory through the rescission of all recent citations and fines against our members, which were imposed by the City's Ordinance.
• SASTRA has developed a robust STR Guide, which we intend to share with the City of Santa shortly, to help highlight key findings, true statistics and eliminate any misconceptions with STRs.
• Our attorney's are involved in multiple actions to protect our members, while attacking the City's unsupported, unlawful, and unconstitutional ordinances which immediately criminalizes hosts for operating short-term rentals.  
• SASTRA intends to take meaningful steps to educate the City's community members, as well as its planning department and city council leadership, on the benefits of STRs and the wisdom in regulating STRs instead of banning them.
• SASTRA continues to add members to build support and increase the potency of our policy, advocacy and education in order to ensure our long-term success. 

Likely, if you do not join your fellow hosts in this struggle against the City of Santa Ana, you could remain at risk to receive future citations, misdemeanors and fines based on the current unlawful ordinance banning STRs. 

SASTRA members will benefit from negotiations that are conferred only to our members actively involved and contributing to the lawsuit. 

A similar circumstance regarding STR litigation unfolded in the City of Anaheim. By way of example, STR hosts who joined in the lawsuit against a similar ordinance were ultimately granted STR operating permits; and the hosts who failed to participate were forced to shut down their STRs. Sitting on the sidelines will likely contribute to your own failure to operate a STR in Santa Ana.

After April 16th, 2024, as the STR ordinance ban went into effect, a group of hosts received citations and fines. Yet, due to SASTRA legal and lobbying efforts, all Citations and Fines were rescinded within the last 30-days (Aug - Sept). SASTRA will continue to help ensured any citations or fines against our members are legally challenged. 

Our strategy is to educate the public and the leaders of the City of Santa Ana (Council Members and Planning Commission) on the realities and benefits of STRs.  Put simply, we understand that STRs are an immense community benefit that can be harnessed to create jobs in the community, ensure economic security to struggling families, and strengthen the health of our neighborhoods and communities.  All we need is an opportunity to be heard by the leaders of our great city, and to be given an opportunity to present a new regulatory paradigm that will create a rising tide that benefits all.

Notably, earlier this year, in the wake of the City of Santa Ana's issuance of unexpected emergency and permanent ordinances to ban STRs, SASTRA was forced to file a lawsuit against the City of Santa Ana. These ordinances enacted unsupported, unlawful, and unconstitutional ordinances which immediately criminalized hosts from renting homes on a short-term basis. After careful consideration, our group felt that a lawsuit was the only means by which to protect our rights as homeowners and hosts, while we coordinate future discussions with the City of Santa Ana.

The more Hosts and Homeowners that joint SASTRA, the less it will cost each person. Our main financial obligations consist of our Attorney and Lobbyist commitments. Currently we have members contributing to funding these efforts. To maintain the privacy of our members, please contact a SASTRA manager to learn our current contribution requirements to meet our obligation to supporting our hosts and homeowners. 

This concept of “permissive zoning,” the doctrine that “zoning ordinances prohibit any use they do not permit” has been rejected by more than one court. i.e Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142, 150 (2022), review denied (June 29, 2022). Plus, State in People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715, 733 (2021). The court noting that “[a]pplication of the permissive zoning scheme in the manner urged by the People would lead to an absurd result where neither short-term nor long-term occupancies would be allowed an apartment House, apartment hotel, or residential building because a length of occupancy is ‘not expressed.’ ” (SASTRA is not providing legal advice, only sharing public accessible case law)

The absurdity of taking municipal actions that limit homeowners’ rights, or force the sale of a home, in an effort to generate long-term rentals for low-income residents, represents a net loss value to society. This illogical thinking will not have the desired impact, as the majority of single-family homes listed as STRs in Santa Ana were inhabited for only parts of the year by their owners. Attempting to remove the owners Home Sharing rights, will NOT likely force the home into the long-term rental market or even for sale. Rather, the home will simply return to being uninhabited for parts of the year, due to owners continued limited use requirement.