Short-term rentals are expanding in CT. Their impact on housing availability concerns residents.
In response, State Rep. Aundré Bumgardner, D-Groton, has co-sponsored 'An Act Establishing a State Short-term Rental Registry and Authorizing an Optional Municipal Supplemental Tax on Short-term Rentals,' which took another step forward this past week during a Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee hearing on March 24.
Bumgardner said the proposed legislation, also known as HB-07238, will create a short-term rental registry maintained by the Department of Revenue Services and reduce administrative burdens on local governments.
It will allow communities such as Groton and Stonington to 'opt into a local supplemental tax (up to 2.75%) on STRs, with revenue directed to local housing initiatives, including deposits into an affordable housing trust fund, require short-term rental platforms like Airbnb and VRBO to collect and remit taxes and report revenue by municipality, giving towns better tools to track activity and enforce local regulations,' Bumgardner said.
'As a member of the Groton Town Council, I worked closely on this issue, and I've continued to carry that work with me to the legislature,' he added. 'In 2023, I proudly co-sponsored legislation that explicitly gave municipalities the authority to regulate STRs through local ordinances — an important clarification that empowered towns to act,' Bumgardner said.
Bumgardner said in recent years, the Town of Groton Planning & Zoning Commission passed regulations restricting short-term rentals including requiring permits and limiting rentals to certain residential zones. Noank, a fire district with independent zoning authority and political subdivision of the Town of Groton, banned short-term rentals entirely.
'Groton, like most municipalities, is in the midst of a housing crisis, both in terms of availability and affordability,' Groton Town Manager John Burt stated in written testimony. 'I strongly support the ability for local municipalities to create a supplemental tax on short-term rentals, which could be used to combat the housing crisis by increasing the supply of housing for renters and prospective homeowners. Additionally, this would create a more level playing field with hotel operators.'
'The Town of Stonington pursued regulation through its ordinance, supported by the framework we established in 2023 legislation,' Bumgardner added. 'I believe these decisions should remain in the hands of our local communities, as Groton and Stonington have demonstrated through thoughtful public processes.'
Among the biggest supporters are those in the lodging business, such as hotels and bed and breakfasts. Several members of the industry voiced support for the proposed bill.
Victor Antico, the owner of Holiday Inn Express in Vernon, believes this bill 'is a necessary step toward creating a fair and equitable lodging marketplace while ensuring transparency, tax compliance, and consumer safety.'
'For too long, hotels, inns, and bed and breakfasts have been subject to strict regulations, including health and safety inspections, licensing fees and the full remittance of state and local occupancy taxes,' Antico said. 'Meanwhile, short-term rental operators who compete directly for guests have operated with minimal oversight. This has created an unlevel playing field that places traditional lodging establishments at a disadvantage. Bill No. 7238 addresses this imbalance by requiring short-term rentals to meet the same registration and tax obligations as hotels and other licensed lodging providers.'
Alan Miller, the general manager of Sheraton Hartford Hotel at Bradley Airport, is a strong proponent of the bill
'By passing Raised Bill No. 7238, the Connecticut General Assembly will take a meaningful step toward modernizing lodging regulations, protecting consumers and ensuring tax fairness across all accommodation providers,' Miller said. 'I urge you to support this legislation and create a more balanced and competitive hospitality industry.'
Ryan Albers, the senior manager of government affairs of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, said his organization was also in ardent support of the bill.
'Hotels, inns, and bed & breakfasts have long been subject to strict regulations, including health and safety inspections, licensing fees, and the full remittance of state and local occupancy taxes,' Albers said. 'Meanwhile, short-term rental operators—who compete directly for guests—have operated with minimal oversight. This has created an uneven playing field that places traditional lodging establishments at a disadvantage. Bill No. 7238 addresses this imbalance by requiring short-term rentals to meet the same registration and tax obligations as hotels and other licensed lodging providers.'
One of the highest-profile opponents of the bill is Mark D. Boughton, the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services commissioner.
'After careful review, the Department of Revenue Services opposes this legislation as drafted due to the significant administrative and fiscal burden that would be created for the agency,' Boughton said. 'The legislation as proposed creates additional enforcement responsibilities, which has the potential to take us away from our core function of collecting and administering taxes. In addition, this legislation would result in significant administrative costs, including but not limited to additional staffing.'
David Haberfeld, a Bristol-based real estate investor and entrepreneur, runs Haberfeld Enterprises. He owns 11 short-term rentals and manages four others. He also opposes the proposed law.
'It's more overregulation and it's a double tax because short-term rental hosts already pay taxes to Airbnb and VRBO and we already pay taxes on our income. It's like a double tax which is always inappropriate if you ask me,' Haberfeld said.
As far as the registration part of the proposed law, Haberfeld said short-term rentals shouldn't be handled any differently than long-term rentals.
'The registration is so someone can reach out when there is a problem like a party,' Haberfeld said. 'I'm not going to say it's not an issue, but it's barely an issue. But it's what they think they have to combat. … we discourage parties, but Airbnb hosts are the victims of parties, we are not proponents or the cause of them. The guest is the person who has the party. They want to have this so if there are too many complaints they can shut you down.'
Bumgardner said the bill is still in the beginning stages, but the public hearing was a big step. He initially raised this concept two years ago and didn't get a hearing.
Bumgardner said he spoke with a representative from Airbnb recently who said said they would not oppose a registry, 'which I was shocked by,' Bumgardner said. 'I'm not anti-Airbnb, it's another tool in our municipality.
'Airbnb said they would like to be involved in the process and as someone who is passing legislation, it's good to give someone a seat at the table,' Bumgardner said. 'I believe when you follow that process and bring as many people as you can to the table, you have a better bill.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Capitalists Love This Podcast. So Do Their Critics.
On a recent Thursday evening at Racket NYC, a music venue in Chelsea that typically features the high-decibel likes of Faster Pussycat and King Lil G, the mostly male, mostly younger standing-room-only crowd was wearing a lot of button-down shirts. It had come for an evening of economic and markets talk. The Bloomberg podcast 'Odd Lots'— hosted by the journalists Joe Weisenthal, 44, and Tracy Alloway, 41 — was putting on a live event. The first guest to go onstage was Charlie McElligott, an exuberantly bearded managing director of cross-asset macro strategy at the Japanese investment bank Nomura. Despite the global chaos of tariffs, war and technological and political disruption, Mr. Weisenthal noted, stocks were at an all-time high. 'You have to admit,' he goaded Mr. McElligott, 'it's kind of weird.' Mr. McElligott rattled off a sophisticated analysis of the state of the market using lots of Wall Street-isms. ('With the amount of short-dated volatility selling, when dealers are stuffed on gamma, it compresses the distribution of outcomes.') The audience listened raptly. Many people there were finance professionals, but even those who weren't could feel that they had received a sophisticated analysis. Part of the appeal of 'Odd Lots' is a privileged sense of eavesdropping while insiders talk to one another without dumbing anything down. Turbulence was an overriding theme of the evening, with guests including Nassim Taleb, a contrarian investor and author ('I don't think we are experiencing real volatility'); Emily Sundberg, a Substack influencer ('one thing that's very clear about Gen Z is that they've been repeatedly told nobody is coming to save you'); and Jim Chanos, a noted short seller ('the animal spirits are definitely back'). Even a panel of experts on U.S. government bonds, normally one of the most boring areas of finance, enthralled the crowd by making sense of volatility in the prices of Treasury bills. 'Odd Lots' would later air this discussion as an episode titled 'The Greatest Ever Panel on the World's Most Important Market.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fast Company
2 hours ago
- Fast Company
How to outsmart AI-driven pricing
Recently, Delta Air Lines announced it would expand its use of artificial intelligence to provide individualized prices to customers. This move sparked concern among flyers and politicians. But Delta isn't the only business interested in using AI this way. Personalized pricing has already spread across a range of industries, from finance to online gaming. Customized pricing —where each customer receives a different price for the same product—is a holy grail for businesses because it boosts profits. With customized pricing, free-spending people pay more while the price-sensitive pay less. Just as clothes can be tailored to each person, custom pricing fits each person's ability and desire to pay. I am a professor who teaches business school students how to set prices. My latest book, The Power of Cash: Why Using Paper Money is Good for You and Society, highlights problems with custom pricing. Specifically, I'm worried that AI pricing models lack transparency and could unfairly take advantage of financially unsophisticated people. The history of custom pricing For much of history, customized pricing was the normal way things happened. In the past, business owners sized up each customer and then bargained face-to-face. The price paid depended on the buyer's and seller's bargaining skills—and desperation. An old joke illustrates this process. Once, a very rich man was riding in his carriage at breakfast time. Hungry, he told his driver to stop at the next restaurant. He went inside, ordered some eggs, and asked for the bill. When the owner handed him the check, the rich man was shocked at the price. 'Are eggs rare in this neighborhood?' he asked. 'No,' the owner said. 'Eggs are plentiful, but very rich men are quite rare.' Custom pricing through bargaining still exists in some industries. For example, car dealerships often negotiate a different price for each vehicle they sell. Economists refer to this as 'first-degree' or 'perfect' price discrimination, which is 'perfect' from the seller's perspective because it allows them to charge each customer the maximum amount they're willing to pay. Currently, most American shoppers don't bargain but instead see set prices. Many scholars trace the rise of set prices to John Wanamaker's Philadelphia department store, which opened in 1876. In his store, each item had a nonnegotiable price tag. These set prices made it simpler for customers to shop and became very popular. Why uniform pricing caught on Set prices have several advantages for businesses. For one thing, they allow stores to hire low-paid retail workers instead of employees who are experts in negotiation. Historically, they also made it easier for stores to decide how much to charge. Before the advent of AI pricing, many companies determined prices using a 'cost-plus' rule. Cost-plus means a business adds a fixed percentage or markup to an item's cost. The markup is the percentage added to a product's cost that covers a company's profits and overhead. The big-box retailer Costco still uses this rule. It determines prices by adding a roughly 15% maximum markup to each item on the warehouse floor. If something costs Costco $100, they sell it for about $115. The problem with cost-plus is that it treats all items the same. For example, Costco sells wine in many stores. People buying expensive Champagne typically are willing to pay a much higher markup than customers purchasing inexpensive boxed wine. Using AI gets around this problem by letting a computer determine the optimal markup item by item. What personalized pricing means for shoppers AI needs a lot of data to operate effectively. The shift from cash to electronic payments has enabled businesses to collect what's been called a 'gold mine' of information. For example, Mastercard says its data lets companies 'determine optimal pricing strategies.' So much information is collected when you pay electronically that in 2024 the Federal Trade Commission issued civil subpoenas to Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase, and other financial companies demanding to know 'how artificial intelligence and other technological tools may allow companies to vary prices using data they collect about individual consumers' finances and shopping habits.' Experiments at the FTC show that AI programs can even collude among themselves to raise prices without human intervention. To prevent customized pricing, some states have laws requiring retailers to display a single price for each product for sale. Even with these laws, it's simple to do custom pricing by using targeted digital coupons, which vary each shopper's discount. How you can outsmart AI pricing There are ways to get around customized pricing. All depend on denying AI programs data on past purchases and knowledge of who you are. First, when shopping in brick-and-mortar stores, use paper money. Yes, good old-fashioned cash is private and leaves no data trail that follows you online. Second, once online, clear your cache. Your search history and cookies provide algorithms with extensive amounts of information. Many articles say the protective power of clearing your cache is an urban myth. However, this information was based on how airlines used to price tickets. Recent analysis by the FTC shows the newest AI algorithms are changing prices based on this cached information. Third, many computer pricing algorithms look at your location, since location is a good proxy for income. I was once in Botswana and needed to buy a plane ticket. The price on my computer was about $200. Unfortunately, before booking I was called away to dinner. After dinner my computer showed the cost was $1,000—five times higher. It turned out after dinner I used my university's VPN, which told the airline I was located in a rich American neighborhood. Before dinner I was located in a poor African town. Shutting off the VPN reduced the price. Last, often to get a better price in face-to-face negotiations, you need to walk away. To do this online, put something in your basket and then wait before hitting purchase. I recently bought eyeglasses online. As a cash payer, I didn't have my credit card handy. It took five minutes to find it, and the delay caused the site to offer a large discount to complete the purchase. The computer revolution has created the ability to create custom products cheaply. The cashless society combined with AI is setting us up for customized prices. In a custom-pricing situation, seeing a high price doesn't mean something is higher quality. Instead, a high price simply means a business views the customer as willing to part with more money.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What UK investors can learn from Warren Buffett's recent trades
Warren Buffett's every move is analysed under a microscope — and with good reason. As the driving force behind Berkshire Hathaway, he's created one of the most successful investment records in history. But what does his latest trading activity reveal? And are there lessons here for UK investors? While Buffett doesn't typically invest in UK-listed companies, many shares on the FTSE 100 have similar characteristics to those in his portfolio — global reach, pricing power, and consistent cash generation. In particular, two recent Berkshire Holdings — Johnson & Johnson and Constellation Brands — remind me of UK equivalents AstraZeneca and Unilever (LSE: ULVR). Here's why they may be worth considering for UK investors. A defensive pharma pick Buffett trimmed his position in healthcare giant J&J a few years ago but the logic behind owning large-cap pharma remains. Companies like these benefit from wide moats, high barriers to entry, and products people rely on regardless of the economic cycle. In that sense, AstraZeneca fits the bill. The firm has built a diverse drug portfolio and is investing in oncology, immunology, and rare diseases treatments. It also boasts impressive financials: revenue grew 12% in the second quarter of 2025 and earnings per share climbed 27%. Although the dividend yield is a modest 2.2%, the payout ratio is well-covered by earnings and has room to grow. The price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 19.7 may look high at first glance, but is arguably justified by the company's strong pipeline of long-term growth potential. One risk? Drug development failures and regulatory hurdles can hit revenue and sentiment hard — but for investors seeking Buffett-style defensiveness, AstraZeneca is one to consider. Always in demand Buffett has been increasing Berkshire's position in Constellation Brands recently. His love for well-known branded consumer products stems from their pricing power, consistency, and brand loyalty — traits also found in UK consumer goods giant Unilever. With household names like Dove, Hellmann's, and Persil in its portfolio, Unilever enjoys broad global exposure. In Q2 2025, turnover rose 3.3% year on year, driven by a return to volume growth. Despite inflationary pressure, it maintained operating margins above 16% — impressive for a company in this space. The 3.4 % dividend yield, backed by a payout ratio of around 75%, offers solid passive income potential. And while the share price has struggled in recent years, a forward P/E ratio of 17 suggests the worst may already be priced in. The current competitive landscape is challenging, though, and poses risks to Unilever's bottom line. Changing consumer tastes and competition from private labels could continue to weigh on profits. Over an extended period, this could threaten a dividend cut if debt piles up. Still, when looking at the bigger picture, I believe the scale and brand power of the company are enough to keep it resilient. Sustainable quality Buffett's investment principles — buy quality, hold long, ignore the noise – continue to resonate. While Berkshire Hathaway may not be snapping up FTSE 100 stocks, businesses like AstraZeneca and Unilever share many of the same strengths as his US holdings. For patient UK investors, following his philosophy might just pay off. The post What UK investors can learn from Warren Buffett's recent trades appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Mark Hartley has positions in AstraZeneca Plc and Unilever. The Motley Fool UK has recommended AstraZeneca Plc, Constellation Brands, and Unilever. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
