A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Summit County government鈥檚 short-term rental regulations.
Homeowners, , alleged the Summit Board of County Commissioners imposed 鈥渟uccessively more severe, wide-ranging, misguided and unlawful regulations鈥� when they in February 2023.
In a June 25 ruling, federal Judge Gordon Gallagher sided with the county鈥檚 motion to dismiss the case, by a group of around 100 homeowners who claimed their rights had been violated.
鈥淭his court is aware of the significant consequences of the ordinance 鈥� for property owners, residents, and visitors to Summit County 鈥� and perhaps in similar communities across Colorado,鈥� Gallagher wrote.
While Gallagher went on to say property owners鈥� 鈥済rievances, concerns, and the potential financial repercussions of the ordinance are valid,鈥� he added that the court鈥檚 role is in determining the legality and constitutionality of the ordinance, which it upheld.
In an email statement to the Summit Daily News, Summit County communications director Adrienne Isaac wrote, 鈥淲e respect the court鈥檚 decision and will continue to engage in productive conversations with our community on housing challenges and opportunities.鈥�
Todd Ruelle, a county homeowner who filed the lawsuit alongside the group, told the Summit Daily, 鈥淲e disagree with Judge Gallagher鈥檚 determination,鈥� adding, 鈥淲e are considering potential next steps with our counsel, but it would be premature for me to comment further.鈥�
Under the ordinance, which went into effect this fall in unincorporated Summit County, limits were placed on the number of homes that can operate a short-term rental license, ranging from 5% to 18% in various neighborhoods. Short-term rental owners were also restricted to no more than 35 bookings per year.
Rental properties in areas deemed 鈥渞esort overlay zones,鈥� which included Keystone and Copper, were exempt from the license caps and booking limit. Additionally, the ordinance created an exemption to the license cap for full-time county residents who work more than 30 hours per week in the county or who鈥檝e retired and have a history of working in the county for at least 10 to 15 years.
County commissioners at the time said the rules were designed to mitigate an escalating affordable housing crisis by protecting existing housing stock for long-term tenants. Similar measures , each of which placed caps on short-term rentals within their respective town boundaries.
Homeowners argued that the county鈥檚 rules threaten their livelihood through loss of income, treat county homeowners differently based on exemptions for full-time residents and resort zone properties, and ultimately violate a number of property rights under the United States Constitution and Colorado state law.
In a , the county contested several of the allegations, stating the homeowners 鈥渄o not maintain that they are members of any protected class鈥� but claim to have a 鈥渇undamental right to lease their property for whatever length of time they prefer.鈥�
The county government, through its lawyers, went on to state that the federal district court where the case was filed 鈥渉as yet to recognize any such right, and has suggested that governmental limitations on the use of property do not implicate a fundamental right.鈥�
The county鈥檚 motion also defends regulatory differences for working residents and properties in resort areas, stating that reported complaints over short-term rentals in neighborhoods and the loss of housing stock 鈥減rovide a rational basis for distinguishing between the tourist-oriented areas around the ski resorts of Summit County and neighborhood areas.鈥�
In his June 25 ruling, Gallagher states that the homeowners 鈥渉ave not established that the right to rent one鈥檚 property is a fundamental right and concede that they do not have a fundamental right鈥� to a short-term rental license.
Gallagher also wrote that the county provided 鈥渁 sufficient rational basis for the ordinance鈥� and dismissed claims of both constitutional and state law violations, the latter of which could still be filed in state court.
In a separate case, another federal judge on July 9 dismissed several federal claims who sought to invalidate two of the town鈥檚 short-term rental ordinances.