Deep Dive Episode 308 - Property & Personal Rights: A Discussion of Short-Term Rental Regulations

Short-term rentals—popularized by Airbnb and Vrbo—have been given modern platforms for the customary alternative to hotels: in-home stays. Yet their rapid growth has prompted a wave of local and state regulations at odds with the practice, driven by lobbying from the hotel industry, concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups, support increased oversight, others—including advocates of limited government and individual rights—contend that these services represent an exercise of property rights, expand consumer choice, and note that there is limited evidence of significant impact on the housing market.

This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical, and policy implications of short-term rental regulation. Are local governments properly protecting community interests, or are they infringing on fundamental property rights? What legal frameworks govern this space—and what should they be?
Join us for a lively discussion featuring the Hon. Paul Clement, Tony Francois, and Ron Klain, moderated by Prof. Donald Kochan, that will examine the intersection of private property, regulatory authority, and economic liberty.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Regulation after regulation.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
There are abated regulations that need to be changed one
hundred and eighty five thousand pages our.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
Public accountability and transparency. There will be no public supports.
It's really the best we can do.

Speaker 4 (00:14):
There's a regulation that doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Why do you kid you.

Speaker 5 (00:17):
Know who wrote the regulatory laws you must comply with.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to the Regulatory Transparency Project's fourth Branch podcast series.
All expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Speaker 6 (00:32):
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to today's Regulatory Transparency Project
webinar titled Property and Personal Rights, a discussion of short
term rental regulations. We're so glad that you're able to
join us today. My name is Lippie Dickinson, and I
am the assistant director with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project.
As a reminder, all opinions expressed are those of the

(00:53):
speakers and not of the Federalist Society. We are honored
to be joined today by a fantastic panel of legal experts.
In order to get right to the discussion, I will
leave individual introductions to our moderator. After the panel discussion,
there will be a short period designated for audience questions
we ask as you submit them via Zoom's Q and
a feature not the chat, and that they are pertinent

(01:13):
to the topic at hand. Our moderator today is Donald Cochin,
Professor of Law and the executive director of the Law
and Economic Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School with
George Mason University. You can find out more about today's
moderator and panelists at fedsok dot org. That is fedsock
dot org. With that, I will hand things off to
Professor Coachin to get us started. Professor, thank you so

(01:34):
much for joining us today.

Speaker 5 (01:36):
Thank you so much, Libby, and thank you to the
Regulatory Transparency Project for hosting this webinar. As a matter
of summary, a few things about short term rentals before
we get to our panel. Short term rentals, popularized by Airbnb,
vrbo and others, have been given modern platforms for the
customary alternative to hotels in home stays. Yet the rapid
growth is prompted a wave of local and state regulations

(01:59):
at odds with the practice and potentially limiting property rights.
Regulations and restrictions have been driven by lobbying from the
hotel industry. Concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other
regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups,
support increased oversight, others, including advocates of limited government and
individual rights, contend that these services represent an exercise of

(02:22):
property rights, enhance competition to the benefits of consumers in
terms of options, quality and price, and expand consumer choice.
Supporters also note that there's limited evidence of significant impact
on the housing market. This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical,
and policy implications of short term rental regulation. Our local
governments properly protecting community interests or are they infringing fundamental

(02:44):
property rights? To regulations actually inhibit competition? What legal frameworks
govern the space, and what should they be. Our panels
will examine these and other questions at the intersection of
private properly regulatory authority, and economic liberty. Starting our conversation
will be wrong claimed. Here's the Chief Legal Officer at Airbnb.
Ron oversees Airbnb's global legal and ethics, functions and community

(03:06):
policy team. Ron serves as the thirtieth White House Chief
of Staff from January twenty twenty one to February twenty
twenty three. Ron's career in public service began as a
law clerk Supreme Court Justice Byron White. He was Chief
counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Staff director of the
Senate Democratic Leadership Committees, Associate Councilor for Judicial Selection under
President Clinton, Chief of Staff Device President Al Gore, Chief

(03:27):
of Staff and Counselor of the US Attorney General, and
Chief of Staff Device President Joe Biden. In the private sector,
Ron has served as a partner and national Practice Group
Chair at the law firm of Melvinie and Myers, as
well as general counsel and other technology firm. Ron's a
graduate of Georgetown University and Harvard Law School. I'll go
ahead and give the other two bios so that we
can just flow quickly through the conversations. So Paul Clement

(03:48):
is a partner at Clement and Murphy PLLC. He served
as the forty third Soliter General of the United States
from June two thousand and five until June two thousand
and eight, before his confirmation is Slicter General. He served
as acting General for near the year and as Principal
Deputy Solicitor General for over three years. Paul's argued over
one hundred cases before the United States Supreme Court, and
since two thousand he has more Supreme Court cases than

(04:12):
any other lawyer in or out of government. He's also
argued many important cases in lower courts. Paul's practice focus
is on appellop matters, constitutional litigation, other high stakes appeals,
along with strategic counseling. Following law school, Paul clerked for
Judge Laurence Silverman of the US Court of Appeals for
the c Circuit and for Associate Justice Antoninskley at the
US Supreme Court. After his clerkships, he went on to

(04:32):
serve as Chief Counsel of the Units Senate Subcommitee on
the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights. He's a Distinguished Lecturer
of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, where he also
serves as a Senior Fellow of the Law Center Supreme
Court Institute, and he is the Justice Joseph Story Distinguished
Practitioner in Residence at the Gray Center the Sea Gray
Center for the Study of the Administrative State at Scalia

(04:52):
Law School. He received his jd Magne cum laud from
Harvard Law School, his m phil from Darwin College at Cambridge,
and his BS summicum laud from Georgetown University School of
Foreign Service. And finally we're going to hear from Tony Francois,
who's a partner of Briscoe in Ivistir and Bazell. He's
deeply experienced in water and real property law, land use

(05:13):
and zoning, environmental regulation, natural resources development, agricultural law, and
constitutional law. He's represented homeowners, builders, farmers and ranchers, trade associations,
local governments and water districts, and administrative, civil and criminal
proceedings before state and federal administrative agencies and state and
federal trial and appelic courts nationwide, including the Supreme Court
of the United States and the Supreme courts of many
other states. Among the notable cases he's litigated, he served

(05:35):
as lead council for several years for in the Sacket
case that many of you are familiar with, and he
is also was an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation
from twenty twelve to twenty twenty one. Before that, he
was a lobbyist for ten years and an attorney at McQuaid,
Bedford and Van Zandt and San Francisco from nineteen ninety
nine to two thousand and three. He received as jd.

(05:56):
With honors from the University of California Hastings College of
Law in nineteen ninety six in mathematics of the honors
from the University of San Francisco. So we have an
incredibly distinguished panel that is all working closely in the
various areas associated with property law, constitutional law, with short
term rentals, and other areas that are implicated by today's conversation.

(06:18):
So with that, let's get to the heart of matter
and turn it over to Ron Claim to introduce the topic.

Speaker 4 (06:22):
Ron, thank you, professor, thanks for that jennerous introduction. I
thank everyone for joining us this interesting topic. Obviously, it's
a great concerned us at Airbnb. The professor mentioned, though
Airbnb and vrbo and booking have popularized this form of
accommodation recently, the people staying in people's homes. It's a
form of accommodation that has ancient providence, in fact that

(06:45):
it's in the Bible. Of course, as we know, when
Joseph and Mary were seeking a place to stay in Bethlehem,
there was no room at the inn. So you've got
accommodation with with someone in their in their stable. So
it wasn't a great in home stay, but in homestay's
date back all the way, but in our history. This
is a fundamental form of accommodation in American history. And

(07:06):
not only would the Framers, I think, be shocked to
hear the local governments are trying to prevent people from
renting out rooms in their house to guests. Framers availed
themselves with this form of accommodation, and the framing itself
owes a debt to this form of accommodation. Back in
seventeen eighty seven, when our founders gathered in Philadelphia, they
finally decided they were going to draft a new constitution
as the remedy for the problems in the in the

(07:27):
States at that time. They set out a call to
Gouvernor Morris to come to Philadelphia and be the drafts
person for this document. Governor Morris came to Philadelphia and
needed a place to stay. He didn't want to stay
in a hotel because the hotels were infamous for people
going through your papers for lack of privacy, So he
sought out a widow, a woman named Mary Daily, who
rented out rooms in her home to keep her home
after her husband had died in her family and her

(07:50):
children moved away. He went to Miss Daily and he
ran in a room for her in Philadelphia. But he
got there another member of the coatch was also staying there,
Albert Jerry. One day in the fall of seventeen eighty seven,
they were at Miss Daly's house, joining their home stay
when Alexander Hamilton came for a visit and the three
of them in Miss Daly's drawing room drafted the Preamble
to our Constitution was drafted in a home stay. So

(08:12):
the connection between our Constitution and this form of accommodation
goes back to the very founding period and throughout our history,
home stays have been part of which driven our history.
In our country, the abolition movement in the early part
of the nineteenth century was spread by preachers going to
lecture in the middle part of the country and preachers

(08:32):
from New England going to lecture in the middle part
of the country, staying in people's homes and seeing guests
and seeing people and spreading their ideas throughout the community.
And more recently, in the civil rights move in the
nineteen sixties, Brown versus the Board of Education was part
developed because a Thurgood Marshall and his biracial legal team,
which could not stay in a hotel under local law,
stayed in homes throughout the South and met with parents

(08:54):
and got them together as litigants in Brown vest boards,
staying in Linda Brown's house, and gathering the families in
the community to join together to challenge segregated schools. So
this is a tradition in America, and I want to
talk about some of the personal rights issues. Good for
the property issues to Paul and to Tony, but I'll

(09:15):
will hit the personal rights issues which may have a
littlest purchase with the federal society, but I think are
important considerations. First of all, there is a First Amendment
issue here. You're right to have people come into your
home to freedom of association, freedom of speech. As I said,
throughout American history, ideas and concepts have been transmitted through
homestays and guests and hosts exchanging ideas, and people in
the community exchanging ideas with guests.

Speaker 3 (09:37):
So I think there is a first event right here.

Speaker 4 (09:39):
It's not quite the Second Amendment, but the Third Amendment
to our Constitution does prohibit the government from mandating that
you host troops in your homes in times of peace.
And I think there's a negative implication here that the
founders understood that people would host people in their homes
who would be up to you to decide who you host,
except in a time of war. They're also big Fourth
Privacy consider rations here. Some of these ordinances really trample

(10:02):
the Fourth Amendment. In New Orleans, local inspectors without a
warrant or any probable cause can if you, if you
host guests, can enter your home and measure the size
of your bedsheets, make sure they're adequate, and do other
kinds of spot inspections. In New York before they totally
ban short term rentals, you know, the inspectors visited homes
without warrant a probable cause to see if someone had

(10:23):
a guest in there. And so this kind of this
kind of conduct, this overregulation of people's homes, you know,
does lead to does trample Fourth Amendment considerations. And then
I will say, from a progressive perspective, the idea of
order liberty under the fourteenth Amendment, I think definitely is
implicated here. And the line of cases that again I

(10:43):
know is may not be popular with this group, goes
back to Peers versus Society of Sisters Eisenstat Griswold recognize
a certain protection of home life, and you're just in
decisions people make about their homes. I think clearly extends
to who you have in your home and more. Versus
East Cleveland, which struck down a localsom zoning ordans because
it's said it's purported to suggest that in an area

(11:03):
that was zoned for single family homes, a elderly woman
couldn't house her grand nephews in her home because they
weren't a single family. Suggests that your control over who
stays in your house is a fundamental right that you
should have control over, not the government. And so I think,
I think all these personal rights are at stake here.
They're very important, and these local orients does just trample

(11:24):
on it?

Speaker 3 (11:25):
And why, As Tony as.

Speaker 4 (11:27):
The Professor's kiss in his introduction, part of this is
just anti competitive activity by the hotel industry.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
For example, there's an ordnance.

Speaker 4 (11:34):
In Clark County, Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada that prevents anyone
from operating a short term rental in their home within
a three miles cir comforts of a hotel. And it's
hard to match what the public policy rationale for that is.
It's a twenty five hundred foot radius between your short
term rental in a hotel, which is banned.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
In Las Vegas.

Speaker 4 (11:50):
You can have a strip club within a thousand feet
of a kindergarten, but not a short term rental within
twenty five hundred feet of a hotel. So it's hard
to see what the public policy theory there is, And
I think the effort to worry about this kind of
overregulation of short to rentals has drawn a concern across
the entire spectrum of the legal community. Recently had a
case in the Michigan Supreme Court about this that drew

(12:12):
amicus briefs from both the NAACP and the Goldwater Institute,
because we recognize that keeping people out of people's homes
raised his personal rights rais property rights. So I think
this is an issue that a broad spectrum of people
can can take interest in. With that, I'll step aside
and turn then the floor over to Paul.

Speaker 1 (12:29):
Great.

Speaker 7 (12:30):
Thanks Ron, Paul, Well, thank you both, and I'll just
you know, take the baton from Ron on this. You know,
when we first talked about this issue, Ron gave me
sort of a pitch that was similar to what he
just articulated very so ably, and you know, when I

(12:50):
first heard it, my first reaction was to be excited
about the Third Amendment. I've done a lot of Second
Amendment work, and you know, the third seemed like a
natural follow on. On a slightly more serious note, I mean,
I think Ron makes excellent points about all of the
various constitutional provisions that sort of suggest in some kind

(13:10):
of inferential way that there is something fundamental about the
right to make decisions about how to use your home,
who to let into your house, who to exclude from
your house. But as a good textualist, my sort of
first reaction was also, well, there's a provision of the
Constitution that speaks directly to property rights several but the

(13:33):
one that speaks most directly to it, of course, is
the takings clause, And so kind of my point of
entry into thinking about some of these issues was to think,
what does the takings clause and takings to yourst prudence
have to say about short term rentals and efforts by
state and mostly local governments to do everything from banning

(13:55):
short term rentals to regulating them in ways that is
Ron articulated simply don't make any common sense, but might
just pass rational basis, or maybe not in some cases,
but just might just pass rational basis if there's no
heightened scrutiny involved whatsoever. But sort of my starting proposition

(14:19):
was the text of the Constitution does speak rather directly
to the right of the homeowner to use their home
and the limits on the government from restricting those rights
in the form of the takings Clause. And my initial
point of departure in thinking about the takings clause issues
was really the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Cedar

(14:42):
Point Nursery case, where to Justice Roberts wrote very eloquently
about the core one of the core components of the
takings clause and property rights in particular being the homeowners
of the property owner's right to exclude. The Chief Justice,
writing for the Court sort of both emphasized that right

(15:05):
to exclude, said that distinguished the regulation at issue there
from many of the restrictions that we would think of
as being regulated under regulatory taking's doctrine. And so the Court,
i think, in that very important and muscular decision, kind
of revived the per se takings doctrine and really got

(15:27):
me interested in whether we could extend the right to
exclude to also include a right to include, and certainly
weren't drawing by any stretch on a clean slate with
regard to making that argument. In fact, Professor Tom Merrill,
in an article that the majority cited favorably in the

(15:49):
Cedar Point decision, specifically talked about the right to include
and the right to exclude as being just two sides
of the same coin, or a core Larry right. And
of course these restrictions, particularly most dramatically the restrictions that
say that short term rentals are just categorically forbidden. Those

(16:12):
restrictions do cut to the heart, are essentially a frontal
assault on the right to include people as one way
to use your property and a critical way to use
your property, really a way to unlock the value of
your property, and for some homeowners it would really be
the difference between being able to afford their property and

(16:35):
not being able to afford their property. So that was
my original point of departure, and I think that is
still a very robust way of thinking about these restrictions
and why the per se takings doctrine should be applicable
to these restrictions.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
But as we got into the research about that issue,
one of the things that we uncovered that I think
really strengthened the argument and I now think of as
almost like approaching the taking issue from the other end
of the stick, is the really robust history of the

(17:13):
court's recognizing that the right to lease one's property is
one of the most core components of the property right.
And this goes back really to the framing.

Speaker 7 (17:25):
With the idea that you know, you have the right
both to enjoy the property yourself or to alienate it
to a third party entight entirely through a through a sale,
or to lease the property to somebody else so they
can enjoy the immediate use rights while you enjoy the continued.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
Ownership and the property.

Speaker 7 (17:48):
And that's not just some feature of the property like
you know some uh, you know that the that the
government could regulate in some normal way. It really is
a stick to the bundle of property rights in a
way that maybe distinguishes it from some other aspects of
property ownership. And then one of the other things that

(18:10):
we came across in our research that really made a
powerful impression on me is that if you go back
to the framing of the country. And it's also true
if you go back to the reconstruction and the framing
of the fourteenth Amendment, you find that the right to
lease really was the right to lease on a relatively
short term basis. I think some of us that come

(18:34):
at this issue fresh from the perspective of twenty twenty
five excuse me, might think, well, you know, a lease
is the right to lease your property for a month
or more.

Speaker 1 (18:45):
And we're, you.

Speaker 7 (18:46):
Know, maybe used to the idea that you could run
a house for a year at a time. But at
the framing, week long release holds were very common, perhaps
the most common form of lease. And so there is
this sense that when you think about these issues, you
have to understand that short term rentals are really not

(19:07):
fundamentally different from rentals, and the right to rent your
property on a short term basis is really not fundamentally
different from your right to lease your property or rent
your property at all. And I think most of us
would understand pretty instinctively that a state that tried to say,

(19:28):
or a local government that tried to say, you simply
can't rent your house spine if you have the wherewithal
to live in your house. But if you wanted to
buy two houses and rent one of them, or you
wanted to go abroad for a year and rent your
house for a year, you simply can't do it. I
think that many people would recognize that as a such

(19:51):
a substantial imposition on your property rights that we would
think about it as being subject.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
To per se takings analysis.

Speaker 7 (20:00):
And then I think once you recognize this historical pedigree
for the short term rentals, it says very hard to
understand why there's a fundamental constitutional difference between a law
that says you can't rent your house altogether and a
law that says that you can't rent your house for
less than.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
Thirty days at a time.

Speaker 7 (20:21):
They're both fundamental impositions on one of the most fundamental
sort of building blocks, fundamental sticks in the property right bundle.
And then I think from there, another thing that's worth
recognizing is that some people, when they think about this issue, says, well,
you know your property rights. You have a lot of

(20:41):
rights to use your property in various different ways, but
there's something different about the rental market or the commercial market.
And indeed, some people have argued in the context of
either restrictions in like homeowners' associations or are in the
context of state and local laws, that you can ban

(21:04):
short term rentals simply by saying that houses in certain
areas are going to be limited to residential use. But
that's an argument that has failed almost everywhere that it's
been made, because when you're renting your house for somebody
else to use it for residential purposes, you're not engaging

(21:26):
in sort of what you would think of as a
non residential use or ordinary commercial activity. And again, I
think most of the homeowner associations that limit the use
to residential use are fully consistent with the idea that
you can rent that property for thirty days at a time.
And once you recognize that at the time of the

(21:49):
framing shorter term rental associations where the most common, the
argument really sort of breaks down that you can treat
short term rentals as either commercial activity or fundamentally different
from other restrictions on rental properties. And then the last
thing I'll say before handing the baton over is, you know,

(22:13):
when you think about these restrictions, they sort of come
in sort of two flavors, if you will.

Speaker 1 (22:21):
The most obvious.

Speaker 7 (22:22):
Are some of the ones that ron has already alluded
to where it is just crystal clear that this is
coming from the hotel industry. And as Ron points out,
some of these restrictions like they don't even bother disguising
what is going on in these restrictions, and that's of

(22:43):
course one of the fundamental problems when something is not
constitutionally protected, you occasionally have state and local laws that
don't even disguise what's going on. So to say you
can't have a short term rental within twenty five hundred
feet of a hotel, just you know it says the
quiet part out loud. It seems obviously problematic. But to

(23:06):
the extent you see other justifications for these restrictions, they
often take the form of saying, well, short term rentals
put a greater strain on resources, maybe they put a
greater strain on parking, maybe they lead to greater noise
concerns and the like. So that's why state and local

(23:27):
governments try to justify this. And to me, that gets
into one of the lines that's always struck me from
the Supreme Court's takings to your asprudence I think originally
came from a case called Armstrong, but it's been repeated
many times since, which is the basic thrust of the
Takings Clause is that the government shouldn't be able to

(23:47):
impose burdens on particular property owners that, in all fairness
and justice, ought to be borne equally by everybody in
the community. And that's where I think some of these
efforts to justify restrictions and bands based on concerns about
parking or noise.

Speaker 1 (24:05):
Or the like.

Speaker 7 (24:06):
You know, it really shows why the takings Clause needs
to apply here and why the argument for it is strong.
Because it's all well and good to regulate every house
on the block and say that you can't have noise
of a certain type at a certain time of night,
or you can only have two parking permits on the

(24:27):
street per house. But when those are imposed on everybody
on the block, so to speak, it essentially guarantees that
they're going to be reasonable restrictions that everybody in the
jurisdiction can live with. But when those burdens are imposed
solely on homeowners that want to use their house for
short term rentals, that's when you get the kind of

(24:49):
massive overregulation that we've seen from some of these jurisdictions.
But with that I'll turn the baton over to Tony.

Speaker 5 (24:59):
Great. Thanks. I'll just say one thing before we turned
over to Tony, and that is, you know, the law
and economics literature tells us also a lot about the
incumbent disruptor story, and there is a suspicion of the
additional justifications as being a masking concept when really it
is anti competitive behavior. That oftentimes there will be a

(25:19):
public interest stated for things that ultimately are for the
private interest of the incumbent interest groups, and so that
in addition to the concern about to the extent those
justifications might be legitimate ensuring that the public is bearing
the burden. I would encourage folks to look at some
of that literature to see where oftentimes we should be

(25:40):
suspicious of those justifications as well. But I think we're
also going to see some of this how this plays
out on the ground, with some further perspective from Tony.
So let's turn over to Tony to take over the conversation.

Speaker 8 (25:54):
Thank you, and thank you to the Federalist Society as well.
Let's look at a case study of how conflicts over
short term rentals do arise in particular communities and how
they get resolved currently, and then what a better body

(26:15):
of case law would do to help resolve those conflicts
in a more principled and uniform and orderly way. So
I'll use as an illustration of recently adopted short term
rental ordinance for West Marin County to illustrate these themes.

(26:38):
Marin County is the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge,
so kind of like over my right shoulder there, and
the eastern portion of it, which runs which is served
by Highway one oh one, is urbanized. It's the part
that's up against San Francisco Bay. It's pretty densely populated

(26:58):
and it develops slowly over time, but it's a not
quite no growth area, but it has developed very slowly.
The western part of Marin County is rural agricultural, with
a small number of very small communities and is basically

(27:19):
a zero growth zoning environment. In the West Marine short
Term Rental Ordinance, I represented a small local real estate
agency that has specialized for many decades in brokering vacation rentals.
A single family homes and a small town on the
coast called Stinton Beach. The Marin coast is served by

(27:44):
Highway one it's one of the most scenic stretches of
highway and in the world, I would say, and you know,
this is the Northern California version of it. And one
of the things that drives a lot of the cation
and visitor traffic to West Morin is the Point Raised
National Seashore and so that also is served by Highway

(28:09):
One principally. And so you've got small towns along the
Marin Coast which are fundamentally longstanding agricultural and local small
business communities. And then that is overlaid by fairly steady
traffic of tourists and visitors who are visiting the coast,

(28:32):
whether it's day trips or as part of vacations, and
very heavy use of Point Raised National Seashore. And so
these two uses overlay each other. But it's critically important
to also understand the history of how this short term
rental ordinance came about. And my argument there is that

(28:58):
the recent short term rental conflict is significantly downstream of
the zero growth zoning environment of West Morinn County. Over
a very long period of years, Marin County, in partnership
with the California Coastal Commission, has successfully stymied almost how

(29:22):
all housing development along the California coast and Marin County
and points north and south of there. And this is,
among many other adverse consequences, made the existing stock of
housing along that stretch of coast more and more valuable
all the time, and the cost of it is rental

(29:46):
housing higher and higher. Many of the coastal communities along
Highway one are multi generational families whose children and grandchildren
cannot afford to live where their parents and grandparents settled
when things weren't so crazy. You see a similar dynamic

(30:06):
throughout coastal California. The state's passage of its Environmental Review
Statute in the early nineteen seventies, coupled with a very
anti housing zoning culture, has had the long term effect
of basically coding entire cities and towns and amber freezing

(30:29):
them in time. And among other things, this has created
an enormous wealth among the baby boom generation that bought
houses there in the fifties into the sixties, and that
effect is simultaneously driving out, for cost of living reasons,
some of that generation's children and almost all of their grandchildren,

(30:53):
because they cannot afford to live there. Since there's been
effectively zero housing grow for decades in this part of California.
So one way of solving this cost of housing barrier
for younger generations, who you know, have the audacity to

(31:14):
just want to live where they grew up is getting
some rental income on properties that they otherwise could not
afford the debt service on their regular income, sometimes including
houses that they've inherited from their parents. Short term rental
platforms have made this vacation rental and short term rental

(31:38):
income opportunity very widely available to homeowners all over Moren
County and obviously everywhere by significantly reducing the degree of
difficulty in getting vacation rental guests. And I think that's
an important part of why, even though housing costs and

(32:01):
rent costs in this area have always been high, the
advent of easily used platforms not just for people looking
for a place to stay, but for people who own
a property that they're willing to make available on a
short term basis to get into that market. The brokerage
function of these platforms is key to the easy use

(32:29):
of a lot of homes for short term stays. Meanwhile,
you have also a younger generation of residents who've managed
to stay in the area as long term renters, and
they face high rents because there is a very low
absolute supply of housing of any kind along the coast

(32:52):
or inland. And again I want to emphasize, I mean
this lack of housing growth is a successful policy outcome
advanced for decades by both Marine County and the Coastal Commission,
the California Coastal Commission, So you know, this is for
that policy portfolio. What success looks like is that people

(33:14):
can't afford to live in the communities they grow up in,
and so they need workarounds, they need some other way
to stay in the area they grew up. And then,
as both Ron and Paul had mentioned, alongside both of
these interest homeowners and long term rental renters, you have
the hotels and motels, which are very few on the

(33:36):
ground in West Merin, but you know, reasonably numerous on
the San Francisco Bay side of the county served by
Highway one oh one. That part of Merin County is
much closer to San Francisco and other amenities in the
Bay area. And as with housing, you know, because of
the zoning culture in Marin, County. They aren't printing too

(33:59):
many new hotel rooms in Marin County along one oh one,
And so those incumbents have of a very strong interest
in their position, and short term rental platforms have presented
them with significant competition. So this is the environment under which,
or in which a relatively recently elected were In County supervisor,

(34:24):
whose district is the coast, decided that his policy priority
was to get a handle on traffic on Highway One
up and down the coast, which you know, is what
he wants to sell those who live there and therefore

(34:44):
vote for or against him as his constituents service, and
to see the visitors as adverse to the local community
and in a certain sentences, the political other here. And
so before long We're in County introduced a two step

(35:05):
process to regulate short term rentals, which the supervisor argued
were exacerbating traffic on Highway One by making it easier
for vacationers to stay along the coast and then do
day trips up and down the coast and visit Point
Rays and you know, make things hard for local residents

(35:26):
to get to and from. So the first step was
a moratorium that lasted a couple of years on any
new short term rentals, and then as that moratorium was
set to expire, he introduced or yeah, he introduced a
proposed regulation that would cap both at a county wide

(35:47):
level and in each specific community, the number of short
term rentals permitted, and this cap would then decline over time,
and so you could get a two year permit, and
then as the cap declined over time, some of those

(36:09):
permits simply wouldn't be reissued. And if there were a
more applicants for permits than permits available, there would be
a lottery system or a priority system that would allocate
the permits. And significantly, the initial cap was proposed lower
than the existing number of short term rentals. So you've

(36:33):
got a significant takings problem with that cap, which is
that those who are currently using their homes for short
term rentals have a vested property right in the legal
and then conforming use of the property, and to the
extent that they are forced out, they've got clearly valid

(36:58):
per se takings claims. Another significant feature of the proposed
ordinance was the limitation on ownership of short term rental
properties to a single property among related persons and entities,
and you know this this big. You know, we can't

(37:19):
have corporations coming in and buying up all the housing.
And so the Planning Commission hearing on this proposal went
about as one would expect. So owners of short term
rental properties testified pretty heatedly and properly, and certainly this
was the position that we took for our client, that

(37:41):
without short term rental income they would almost certainly have
to sell and move and have to leave the communities
that they grew up in. You had local renters testifying
that an alleged boom in short term rental use and
properties was price them out of the market, as those properties,

(38:03):
in their experience and their testimony, had previously been available
as long term rentals and at lower prices. So you've
got owners being priced out of the market if they
can't rent. You've got renters arguing that they're priced out
of the market if owners are allowed to do short
term rentals, and of course the hospitality industry keeping their

(38:26):
lips wisely sealed about the whole thing. There was no
testimony about from hotels and motels during the Planning Commission
hearing on this, and very little discussion of that during
two extended hearings on this ordinance. So the outcome of

(38:50):
the ordinance, you know, was some modifications to the caps
that satisfied some of the longer standing localities that had
featured a lot of vacation rentals. The answer, though, to

(39:10):
how that arrived is arrived at is, I think really
the key thing. How are these conflicts resolved? The simple
answer is that they're not resolved legally, meaning they're not
resolved based on well understood and universally applied or uniformly
applied legal principles. They're resolved politically. Who was able to

(39:30):
marshal the most effective political influence on the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors to make the desired modifications
to the ordinance, particularly in the caps. So obviously we're
pleased that our client was happy with the outcome of
our work in that process. But it's worth reflecting on whether,

(39:51):
you know, the best way to deal with these kinds
of conflicts is based on who has the best connections
or who does the best job of organizing community activists
to browbee the Planning Commission officials in the desired direction,

(40:11):
whether that's really the best way to handle, you know,
new economic realities like short term rental platforms. So I
think an important part of the answer raised by Ron and.

Speaker 1 (40:22):
Paul is.

Speaker 8 (40:24):
Why the court should do more work in this area
is that they can provide clear case law where predictable
legal precedents will tell county boards of supervisors and their
legal counsel what the what the basic answers are, can

(40:45):
you cap can you prevent people from even having short
term rentals? Can you ration them? Can you price control
them in ways that diminish the use of this economic tool.
The more uniform application of legal principles from case law,

(41:09):
I would argue, should be preferable to very localized backroom
dealing and influence pedaling. However, well one manages to do that,
and it certainly influence pedaling that is covered by community activism.

(41:30):
You know, where you've got one side of the debate
benefiting as Professor Cokin, you know, highlighted between my comments
and Paul's benefiting the silent interest that sits back, you know,
and doesn't really declare itself, and yet is really the
economic interest that benefits from the from the regulation. So,

(41:56):
if courts do get involved in this area and set
clear rules based on constitutional protection of property, rights. You know,
wherever these local efforts arise, they'll be resolved in a
more orderly way. And you know, participants in them should
then feel, especially mirror homeowners who want to make some
side income with vacation rentals, less like they're getting scapegoated

(42:19):
enrolled by activists renting for market competitors, and more like
they were treated fairly and justly under a uniform set
of principles. And all with that handed back to Professor Cocain,
and maybe there's some questions we can all answer.

Speaker 5 (42:36):
Great, thank you all for your introductory remarks. And with that,
I just want to ask if any of the panelists
have heard something during the conversation that they'd like to
reply to, or something that triggered a thought that you'd
like to add.

Speaker 4 (42:50):
If I could just quickly a couple of things that
both Paul and Tony rays I wanted to address. First
of all, Paul referred to Professor Merrill superb work in
this area. Uh, He's talked about this right to exclude
and the right to include as the gatekeeper right, and
I think that's very I think that's very palpable. You know,
when Coke said that a man's home is his castle.

(43:13):
What's the fundambal element of castle doom. You decide who
you raise and lower the drawbridge for. And as a
present Mira called it the gatekeeper right. And so that's
why I think the right to include the right to
exclude are two sides of the same coin. Paul also
talked about the fact that short term rentals go back
to the you know do go back to the founding era.

(43:33):
Rent leases for week it was commonplace. In fact, the
number one founder himself, George Washington, from the time he
was elected president the time he took office, wasn't sure
where the government would be long term, so he rented
a room from John Adams week to week from the
house that Adams had taken in New York, and he
paid the vice president, the vice president elect rent every

(43:54):
week for the house he had taken in New York.
So Washington himself did this. We've heard a lot about noise, traffic,
things like that. I do think these things are large
largely pretextual. There's been a lot of studies, academic studies,
independent studies done of calls to three one, one and
nine on one in cities. We find is that those
calls about local disturbances arise no more often from short

(44:17):
term rentals than any other kind of property, and a
short term rentals account for less than point two percent
of the calls to three one one complaining about noise
or disruptions in an area. So regulating short term rentals
is a way to regulate noise is just ridiculous and
in addition to being unconstitutional as a taking of property,
it's just not empirically backed up. Same thing goes for this,

(44:39):
something goes for this housing concern. We don't have enough
houses in America. You're not going to create more houses
by telling people they can't rent out part of their
house to guests. We need to build more houses and
houses where people live, so where people you know, work
and whatnot.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
So I think that's that's that's that's the other issue.

Speaker 4 (44:57):
And you know, we have seen a giant social experiment
how this works.

Speaker 3 (45:01):
In New York. They passed Local.

Speaker 4 (45:03):
OI eighteen in October of twenty twenty two, the Tech
Effect October twenty twenty three that banned all short term
rentals in New York. Pretty much what's happened? Have rents
gone down in New York? No, Our apartments more available
in New York. No, what's happened? Hotel prices have skyrocketed
in New York. The average hotel room was up two
hundred dollars a night in New York since Local eighteen passed.

(45:23):
And you know, New'ork's basically pricing itself out of travel
for most people. And so you know, we see the
same thing place after place. It does not make banning
short to rentals, does not make more housing available for
long term rents, doesn't bring rents down, doesn't increase apartment availability.

Speaker 3 (45:39):
We have to build more housing.

Speaker 4 (45:40):
To do that, we need to reform permitting laws to
make it possible to build more housing.

Speaker 3 (45:45):
And so I'll just stop there.

Speaker 1 (45:47):
All.

Speaker 5 (45:48):
Did you have any comments you want to make?

Speaker 7 (45:51):
I mean, I would just say that, you know, in
listening to Tony and describe sort of you know, the
facts on the ground. I mean, you really do see that,
you know, the motivations for some of these restrictions are
you know, some of them are economic, some of them
are just pretextual. You know, it's the it's it's the
people who have the quasi you know, not monopoly, but

(46:16):
that you know, they have the vested rights in hotel rooms.
In another part of the county and they're because of
limits on development, are those are scarce and those are
a valuable resource.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
So there's a lot of different things.

Speaker 7 (46:30):
That go into these regulations, and you know, right now,
in some respects you can see almost the manifestation of
what happens when regulators are thinking about this as if
they're not constrained, they do things that really push the
limits of bear rationality.

Speaker 1 (46:51):
Ron talked about that.

Speaker 7 (46:53):
Sort of Las Vegas regulation about not within twenty five
hundred feet of a hotel. New Orleans has a one
per block restriction on short term rentals, and to the
extent there's more than one person on the block who
wants to rent, they have a lottery for who gets

(47:15):
to do it. These things almost sound simple, silly. I mean,
you know, in general, with something that is constitutionally protected,
you don't expect your ability to do it is going
to be decided by.

Speaker 1 (47:27):
A coin flip or a lottery.

Speaker 7 (47:30):
Tony described this system where they put caps on the
number of short term rentals without regard to what the
existing number of people that were allowed to do short
term rentals, and they have a cap that's below the number,
and you know, amounts to a takings. So I think
that you know, and maybe this is similar to the

(47:50):
point that Tony was making, but I think one of
the important things we can accomplish by getting people to
think about these regulations is not just being ordinary regulations
but subject to taking's clause analysis, subject to more rigorous
analysis is you know, I think if people have to
take the property owners right seriously, then you're going to

(48:15):
see there'll still be efforts to regulate. There's still going
to be some of these disguised sort of efforts to
get rid of the disruptive incumbent that the professor alluded to.
But I think just having the framework in place and
having people recognize that there actually are constitutional rights involved here,
I think is going to you know, be helpful in

(48:37):
terms of shaping some of the regulations, even in the
places where we don't necessarily have to go to court
to get them declared to taking.

Speaker 5 (48:45):
And we have several questions from the audience here, I
think a spirit of some of them is captured in
that last bit there, Paul, and I want to ask you,
so these things like you know, exorbitant permit fees, unannounced
inspection application hurdles, tax ree classifications str only fees, housing
caps or permit lotteries, those can kind of I think

(49:08):
you're saying, fit into perhaps a in effect a per
se category of takings, and maybe just a quick comment
on that. And then second is what about when we
get into the pen call Penn Central area. I think
at least we're having the conversation about property if we force,
if we recognize the right. But is there can anyone

(49:31):
on the panel kind of talk about, all right, what
about short of these drastic in effect per se takings,
how should the property rights analysis go in terms of
regulating this space? And are there any externalities that indeed
can be controlled through police power regulations?

Speaker 7 (49:50):
So I'll take a first crack at both pieces of it,
but I'd be very interested to hear other, you know,
Ron and Tony's perspective as well, just on the you know,
what I take to be sort of the initial question,
which is one of the things we've seen here is
you know there's almost like the first generation regulation and
the second generation regulation, and you know the first instinct

(50:12):
of some local governments is to just ban these things
entirely or.

Speaker 1 (50:15):
Ban them going forward.

Speaker 7 (50:17):
Maybe grandfather the people that sort of beat the regulators
to the space, and I think those are definitely susceptible
to per se takings analysis.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
Now some of the jurisdictions we're.

Speaker 7 (50:28):
Into the second or third generation, and some of those
I think are still quite susceptible to a per se
takings analysis. I mean, for the second house on the block,
there's no material difference between a law that says no
short term rentals and a law that says just one
short term rental per block. And so some of these really,

(50:50):
even though they're second generation, they're not that sophisticated. But
some of them, you know, eventually maybe it's the third
generation regulations get to the point where maybe it's harder
to fit them into the per se box. But I
do think this is an area, you know, there is
this tendency among people that work in the taking space

(51:13):
to kind of think about takings a little bit the
way you think about like First Amendment.

Speaker 1 (51:19):
We're in the First Amendment context.

Speaker 7 (51:21):
You know, generally it's like all about getting subject to
heightened scrutiny, and if you don't get heightened scrutiny, you're
going to lose, the government's going to win.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
And I think some people think about the taking.

Speaker 7 (51:31):
Space as either get in the per Se box or
if you're in Penn Central, you're going to lose. And
I think for some of the reasons that Ron alluded to,
this is actually a context where even if we're in
the Penn Central balancing, which you know instinctively, you know,
I never like.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
Balancing, But even if you're in that Pen Central balancing.

Speaker 7 (51:52):
I think there's a real chance of getting some of
these regulations struck down because if you do anything other
than rational basis, the purported justifications for this just don't wash.
The you know, the noise concerns, parking concerns, they just
don't wash if you actually do the analysis. We do

(52:13):
have real world experiments in some of these cases, so
it's not just a battle of an expert.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
We can really show that, you know.

Speaker 7 (52:20):
The the three one one calls are not coming from
the short term rentals. And then so I think this
is an area where you know there may be at
the same time we argue for per se takings, this
may be a context where you can use sort of.

Speaker 1 (52:35):
You know, call it Penn Central with teeth.

Speaker 7 (52:37):
But I think you can really make some progress even
if you're in the Penn Central Box.

Speaker 4 (52:42):
Any thoughts on that from ronn Er, Yeah, I would
just I would I would just echo what Paul said.
I think that obviously some of these restrictions are per
se takings and should just be invalidated altogether, but others
could be subjected to some kind of balancing, testers heightened scrutiny,
something beyond mere rational review, which is which passes everything.
So for example, you know, in in New Orleans we

(53:05):
have we're short murnals are banned in the French Quarter.
And someone challenged this before Paul got involved, and there's
so there's a case that was heard in the Fifth
Circuit recently on this where the City of New Orleans
lawyers said, well, it's because we're concerned about noise, disturbance
and community.

Speaker 3 (53:23):
Character in the French Quarter.

Speaker 4 (53:24):
One of the judges on the Fifth Circuit said, the
French Quarter bars are up in twenty four hours to day,
seven days a week in the French Quarter, and you're
worried that someone's staying in a house is going.

Speaker 3 (53:31):
To cause noise.

Speaker 4 (53:32):
And so I think, I think, you know, just any
kind of scrutiny at all of that restriction it falls,
and you know, and I just think a lot of
these things, so, as I said, are just kind of
pure anti competitive efforts by the hotel industry or hotel
unions to ban people from using their homes this way,
and w they aren't pursonal takings, they should be suggested
to some kind of rigorous analysis, so we don't get

(53:53):
the kind of horse trading that Tony was talking about.
I don't think anyone's personal propery right should be subject
to the kind of wild bargaining that went on in
Marin County to try to get a permit here and there.

Speaker 3 (54:04):
So I think that's I think.

Speaker 4 (54:05):
I think, you know, some kind of judicial supervision of
this is necessary. And while balancing tests also make me nervous,
some kind of heightened scrutiny makes sense.

Speaker 5 (54:14):
And I think with that horse trading example, we get
to the point of exactions, and is it really you know,
focusing on that in a way in which the power
that they're able to exert to force sort of a
settlement from people to give up their rights. The more
we recognize property rights, perhaps the less they less leverage
there is. Is Tony any thoughts on that or on
on the on the question before we turn to the

(54:35):
next audience question.

Speaker 8 (54:37):
Sure, one of the aspects of the West Marine Ordinance
that I highlighted is the limitation on number of short
term rentals that.

Speaker 1 (54:46):
Could be owned.

Speaker 8 (54:47):
And that's a condition placed on acceptance of a short
term rental permit that you know, I think is going
to be difficult to get through a Nolan and filter.
You know, you're giving up your right to do short
term rentals on other property in order to get the

(55:08):
short term rental permit for property number one. I think,
also building a little bit on Paul's observations about the
historic practice of short term leases in the Founding era
and more recently, one of the things this highlights is
how one how different a property rights approach to these

(55:34):
questions is from zoning, and a lot of these restrictions
are adopted as zoning ordinances, and I think the more
that the courts are confronted with zoning as kind of
an alien thing to property rights, the better. And in particular,

(55:56):
one of the things about zoning and the zoning culture
of most American communities is that it's very tightly bound
to the mid twentieth century business model, and so you know,
you wouldn't have this kind of conflict in nineteen fifty,
in nineteen sixty because you didn't have technology that made
it easy for you know, me and my home, you know,

(56:20):
in small town America, to just make it available for
vacation rentals or short term rentals business you know, business days,
things like that, and you know, that model very much
favored established hotel and motel districts and things like that.
Now the zoning is years behind the social and business

(56:46):
models that short term rental platforms use and actually returns
sort of practice, you know in communities back to something
that looks a lot more like older areas pre zoning
eras and and pre you know, large industrial area eras,

(57:09):
to something that's more peer to peer and you know,
entrepreneurial and less organized, if you know, for lack of
a better characterization, and looking at that practice, you know,
using short term rental platforms from a property rights lens

(57:30):
instead of through zoning is going to be into the
larger effort too, you know, free property rights from a
lot of those zoning overlay that limits them great.

Speaker 5 (57:44):
And we had a great supply of questions from the audience,
and I apologize that we probably won't get too much
more than this last question here and I want to
uh this is directed to you. Ron from one of
the audience members was do you know the lost transient
and sales tax revenue in New York City or really
anyone since any place where a band took a fact

(58:05):
and I might add to that, could you comment on
the effects on local businesses that would otherwise get some
of the tourist revenue from short term rental parties if
they were allowed, that gets lost as a result of
bands and or high restrictions.

Speaker 3 (58:25):
Yes, thank you.

Speaker 4 (58:26):
I don't have an exact n run New York because
it's hard to know if guests just switched to hotels
or stayed in New Jersey or where the revenue went.
But it's in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and
I think it's important to know that short term rentals
also play a vital role in civic infrastructure to host
special events. We saw this specially in Chicago when Beyonce

(58:48):
came to Chicago, and you know, people stayed in shortter
rentals and otherwise there woul't have been enough accommodation for people.
Cities that want to host The Republican National conch was
in Milwaukee, in twenty twenty four nominee President Trump, the
city of Milwaukee could not have hosted a national political
convention without short term rentals to accommodate guests. People had
to stay in Chicago and commute to Milwaukee. And you know,

(59:10):
these big events, the World Cup, super Bowl, all these
things need short term rentals to make it possible for
cities to host people. And also in the event of
natural disasters, we've seen in Los Angeles, every and b
is hosting thousands of people for free. In Los Angeles,
we were displaced by the wildfires, we.

Speaker 3 (59:27):
Had the hurricanes.

Speaker 4 (59:28):
In New Orleans, where there's not that many air shortter mentals,
people had to live in the super Dome and so
having short term rentals as backup civic housing is also,
you know, a critical part of their contribution to the community.

Speaker 3 (59:41):
But we also know that by.

Speaker 4 (59:42):
People staying in short term rentals, the benefit of special
events has spread throughout a community. So it's not all downtown.
People were staying out in the suburbs or in other
neighborhoods and they're patriotizing restaurants there and shops and whatnot,
and so people spend where they're near. As someone just
said in the chat, you know, and so we distribute
the spread through the spend throughout the city, and there's

(01:00:02):
broader economic benefits from these special events.

Speaker 5 (01:00:05):
Great, well, I think we're close to time. I'd like
to give each of our penelists thirty seconds to give
their key takeaway on all of this, and you might
include any predictions you have for where and when we
might see some courts weighing in on this in a
way that gives the kind of guidance that each of
you have suggested. So why don't we start in reverse
order and just take thirty seconds.

Speaker 8 (01:00:26):
Tony very simply stated, when it comes to your property rights,
law should supersede politics.

Speaker 7 (01:00:34):
Paul, hard to beat that for an aphorism, but I
will say, you know, these cases are headed towards a
courtroom near you. There are efforts to bring lawsuits that
are targeted the jurisdictions that have sort of the worst
of the worst. And you know, I do think this
is an area where it's really right for the courts

(01:00:57):
to come in and as Ron said, you know, get
some level of scrutiny to this so that property rights
are protected and that you know, people have what is
really just the most fundamental right to be able to
use their property in a way that allows them to
stay in their home or in the case of some

(01:01:18):
of these special events that Ron was alluding to, just
being able to rent your house for one weekend. You
can make your rent payments for three months and for
a big event, and to stop people from doing that
is something that we really need the courts to get
involved in.

Speaker 4 (01:01:33):
Ron, Well, I'm not gonna top either Tony or Paul.
I like Tony, I like Tony's aphorism, I like Paul's analysis.
I do think that this is coming to a court
near you soon, hopefully to a federal court, hopefully to
hopefully to appell at federal court soon, and maybe even
the Supreme Court in the not too distant future. You know,
this is just an important part of our society of

(01:01:54):
property rights that I think it needs some definitive laws
so we're not in these kind of endless trading and
political process all over the country. And so I appreciate
everyone's time and attention today, and I hope people will
keep this in mind going forward. Is a very important
issue of property and personal rights. And thank you for
the Federal Society for convening this session.

Speaker 5 (01:02:13):
Well, And I will add as a final note that
many of the comments we're asking about what are the
implications beyond just STRs for this conversation, And I think
if we had more time, we could spend another hour
explaining why, you know, recognizing property rights here will have
impacts in the HOA debates or in other development debates,
and so as with everything, the the you know, how

(01:02:34):
you use your property has implications across the board for
other types of uses. And so I think that we
have learned some lessons here for those that are critically
interested in str issues directly, but that the courts will
undoubtedly help us understand more about property rights more generally
as well. With that, I do also thank the Federal

(01:02:54):
Society's Regulatory Transparency Project for hosting this panel. I thank
you to all of the panelists for your great contributions
to this, thank you to the audience, and for the
great questions as well, which I'm sure will inform the
debate and then certainly makes it clear that we should
have another one of these sometime soon to hit some
of those issues. And with that, I'm going to turn

(01:03:15):
over to Livy to wrap us up wonderful.

Speaker 6 (01:03:18):
Thank you so much Professor Coachin for moderating, and thank
you again to everyone on our panel for joining us
and for sharing your insights today. Thank you also to
our audience for tuning in and for your excellent questions.
For more content like this from the Regulatory Transparency Project
here at the Federalist Society, discussing the regulatory state and
the American way of life, please visit us at reg

(01:03:38):
project dot org. That is our egproject dot org.

Speaker 2 (01:03:42):
Thank you on behalf of the Federal Society's Regulatory Transparency Project.
Thanks for tuning in to the Fourth Branch podcast to
catch every new episode when it's released. You can subscribe
on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, and Speaker For lays from
our TP, please visit our website at Regproject dot org.
That's r e G Project dot org.

Speaker 7 (01:04:11):
This has been a FEDSC audio production.