Home » City Council, Community » Court Vacates Sedona Short Term Rental Appeal

Court Vacates Sedona Short Term Rental Appeal

This article submitted by the City of SedonaSedona AZ (August 27, 2013) – On August 27, 2013, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the appeal of Robert Perdrizet who was convicted of violating Sedona’s ordinance prohibiting advertisement of illegal short-term vacation rentals. Mr. Perdrizet had argued that his conviction should be overturned because the City of Sedona’s ordinance could not apply to his internet advertisement activities conducted outside the Sedona City limits.

The Sedona Municipal Court ruling still has standing for its decision that Perdrizet was guilty of violating Sedona’s short term vacation rental ordinance. To read the Court ruling see below.

The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal since Mr. Perdrizet was not challenging the facial validity of Sedona’s ordinance but was instead challenging the manner in which the ordinance was applied to him.

Sedona has banned the rental of single-family residences in residential districts for less than 30 days since before 1995. In 2008, Sedona also adopted an ordinance banning the advertisement of illegal short-term rentals. These bans remain in place and continue to be enforced. Violations of these ordinances can result in a Class-1 misdemeanor conviction and subject violators to fines of up to $2,500 and imprisonment of up to six months. Every day a violation continues can constitute a separate criminal offense.

The Arizona Court of Appeals will not convene the scheduled panel of September 3, 2013, to hear Perdrizet’s appeal (case number V1300CR201280135).perdrizet 1perdrizet 2perdrizet 3

 

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

15 Comments

  1. Ted says:

    Saw in Verde Independent then read the city website/then read your version. Verde Independent & City got name WRONG/here didn’t & Verde Independent & City DIDN’T show court papers/here DID. RRN and City, same? RRN will copy you if they get it right. Don’t give a damn. Keep doing it right & best & we’ll keep reading like we do. Now ask yourself why others get bothered by you? Journalistic standards.

  2. Dennis says:

    For the record, the “City of Sedona” is still “aggressively” pursuing short-term rentals within that jurisdiction (city limits.) This article is somewhat confusing because VOC is in Yavapai County jurisdiction where it appears the violation occurred. Having problems in the neighborhood where I live I can attest that the city attorney has assured those of us with concern that Sedona will continue to enforce the city ordinance. It would be unfortunate if those breaking the law read this and believe they are off the hook.

  3. Sharlett says:

    So justice does prevail! Gives me hope!

  4. E. Maddock says:

    Response to Sharlett: Let’s hope you are correct. In the meantime, I’ll not be one holding my breath. It’s sort of maybe like waiting for the other shoe to drop?

  5. Alfred says:

    I do not, but if I owned a house in Sedona that I chose to rent out for short term time periods. I believe I would rent it out for 30 days on paper for whatever amount that corresponds to the actual time it was desired to be used.
    Nothing says what I must charge for a “30 day” rental and so what if the renters didn’t stay the full 30 days.
    Just Say’n !

  6. E. Maddock says:

    Hey, Alfred, your theory is alive and well. All I suggest to you is to have your neighborhood invaded with strange walkers gawking at your property, dogs running loose and pooping all over, and other distractions such as weekend brawls necessitating calling the police, on a short-term but ongoing basis. Most of us purchase homes zoned “single family residential” for the reason we didn’t want to live in an environment not quite equal to a motel-row such as Grand Avenue in Phoenix. That is why Sedona has had a restrictive law since prior to 1995.

  7. A few years ago when we lived in Cup of Gold (outside incorporated Sedona) there was a vacation rental and Yavapai County put a stop to it very quickly. So, laws are enforceable at least in Yavapap County.

  8. Cindy says:

    hi there mr. dennis and unsure what you’re reading? definitely a City of Sedona case in the papers where it says City of Sedona (appellate)? That man was brought to court and appeals are heard by higher courts not the city. Can’t speak for the county though. we have seen renters in my neighborhood that come up for weekends but as long as they are well-mannered and don’t act up or be noisy with cars coming and going or parties we don’t complain. we will if it gets to be an issue.

  9. So what your are saying is that only short term renters gawk at properties, have dogs running loose and pooping all over, are noisy with cars coming and goig, and parties? But if you rent for 30 days none of that occurs? No homeowners do any of those things either? Or vacationers staying at hotels or timeshares?

    I have bee a landlord to short and long term renters and the short term renters are by far the most respectful of homes and neighbors, especially the kind of renter that enjoys a vacation in Sedona. Which homes do you think would raise the value of all the neighbors’ homes? A tired long term rental or a well cared for short term rental?

  10. Sharlett says:

    OMG! for some reason Jennifer Edwards seems to believe Breaking The Law is just the thing we should all believe in! Ain’t no way Jennifer.

    Basic rules of renting: long term rentals don’t pay as much as short vacation folks but have a more vested interested (usually) and stay for 6 to 12 months or more so you don’t have to pay bed and sales tax’s to City (yet somehow I seriously doubt you are doing that on your vacation rentals? ) : and short term rentals are not vested in Sedona for more than a couple days at least. Is this really that tough a concept and when it’s combined with illegal vs legal renting’s……….argument over!

  11. So who are you, Jennifer? Just another shill for the C of Commerce who takes pleasure in scheming ways to avoid city and county taxes? Shame on the likes of you and your cheating pals.

  12. Guy says:

    There are currently 94 vacation rentals in Prescott and 6,742 in the state. How are they allowed to exist?

  13. Bonnie says:

    @Guy: Your point being? Apparently you aren’t aware short term rentals are governed by local jurisdiction. City of Sedona has a law against it as does Yavapai County. Now possibly Prescott as an incorporated city allows vacation rentals. I’m surprised with your “facts” you didn’t check into that. (If the truth were known you probably did.) Therefore, if a total of 6,742 short terms rentals exist in the State of Arizona that certainly leaves a huge option of locations for those seeking that type of business from which to choose. In the meantime, have the courtesy to uphold local laws and as another suggestion quit dragging up old news to deflect from important current events. Surprise. As if no one else could figure thakt out. Goodby.

  14. Jean says:

    I don’t think Jennifer said a thing about breaking the law is something everyone should believe in or avoiding taxes. Did you read what was written at all? Your response makes no sense to the argument on short term rental behavior.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·