A short-term rental restriction can look like law before it becomes law. It can also remain printed in a code after a court has limited when the city may enforce it. Both errors can distort compliance, market, and policy analysis.
Albuquerque offers the cleanest example. In January 2026, four councilors introduced a fully drafted ordinance that would have prevented approval of a short-term rental permit within 330 feet of another approved permit. The draft contained exceptions, a compilation clause, and an effective-date clause. Then it failed.
Five different legal states
| Jurisdiction | Record path | Current disposition | Analytical consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Albuquerque | Draft 330-foot buffer, amended, final motion failed | Failed and nonoperative | Preserve as a proposal, never as current code |
| Austin | Initial package replaced; operator and platform provisions split by date | Operative in phases | Match each duty to the regulated party and effective date |
| Annapolis | Permanent blockface cap followed by temporary moratorium | Codified rule with uncodified overlay | Search both the code and later ordinance list |
| Honolulu | Ordinance enacted, then permanently enjoined in part | Partly nonoperative for qualifying prior lawful uses | Code text and court order must be read together |
| Arizona | State prohibition on local bans, later expansion of local enforcement tools | Operative state ceiling on municipal action | A local proposal cannot be read without state authority |
The record is a legal lifecycle
- Introduction or filing
- Committee action and amendments
- Final legislative vote
- Executive approval, veto, or other required action
- Effective date and codification
- Administrative implementation and enforcement guidance
- Litigation, state preemption, expiration, repeal, or replacement
Those stages often appear in different systems. An agenda contains the proposal. A signed ordinance establishes adoption and effective dates. The code shows the compiled rule. A department page explains implementation. A court order can limit what the code appears to allow. A later ordinance can temporarily overlay a permanent rule.
Albuquerque: ordinance-shaped text that never became law
Albuquerque O-26-5 was introduced January 5, 2026. The draft proposed a 330-foot separation rule, with exceptions for rooms in owner-occupied homes and accessory dwelling units when the owner occupied the primary residence. It was detailed enough to look operative when extracted without its vote history.
The official legislative record lists the ordinance as Failed. On February 2, the motion to pass it as amended failed. The enactment number, enactment date, and effective date are blank.
Albuquerque still requires a valid permit before advertising or renting an STR, according to the City's current FAQ. The proposed separation rule never became part of that permit program. It remains relevant as a policy proposal, not as a compliance requirement.
Austin: adoption did not create one effective date
Austin adopted an initial STR package in February 2025, then repealed and replaced its owner, operator, and platform chapter through Ordinance 20250911-012 on September 11, 2025. The owner and operator provisions took effect October 1. The platform article took effect July 1, 2026.
The distinctions are material. On sites with three or fewer housing units, an individual may operate as many as two STRs, with additional sites generally subject to a 1,000-foot rule. On qualifying mixed-use sites with four or more residential units, the limit is the greater of one unit or 25 percent of the units the person owns or leases. On multifamily residential sites without commercial uses, it is the greater of one unit or 10 percent.
Platform rules belong to a different party and date. Austin's current implementation page says platform requirements took effect July 1, 2026, and that the City began requesting removal of unlicensed properties on that date. The useful record is a set of obligations joined to party, geography, threshold, and effective date, not simply Austin passed an STR ordinance
.
Annapolis: permanent code and temporary law coexist
Annapolis adopted O-17-25 on October 13, 2025. The blockface rule limits non-owner-occupied STR licenses to 10 percent of residential units. A blockface with fewer than 10 residential units may have no more than one. The ordinance includes a transition for existing licenses on blockfaces already over the limit.
Five months later, the Council adopted O-40-25. It created a 12-month moratorium on new non-owner-occupied STR licenses beginning March 9, 2026, while allowing compliant renewals and qualifying owner-occupied applications.
The later measure identifies itself as an uncodified ordinance. A code-only search can miss the temporary moratorium. A recent-enactments-only search can miss the underlying cap and transition. Both rules are operative, but they have different scope and time horizons.
Honolulu: printed text is not the whole legal state
Honolulu enacted Ordinance 22-7 on April 26, 2022. It took effect October 23 and sought, among other changes, to increase the minimum rental period for certain non-resort properties from 30 to 90 days.
On December 21, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii entered a permanent injunction. It bars Honolulu from enforcing Ordinance 22-7 insofar as it prohibits 30- to 89-day home rentals lawfully in existence on October 23, 2022, or advertisements for those rentals.
The court declined the broader request to invalidate the entire ordinance. The accurate status is therefore neither 90-day rule fully operative
nor 90-day rule struck down
. The ordinance and the limited injunction must be linked, with prior lawful use treated as a required factual condition.
Arizona: state law sets the municipal ceiling
Sometimes the decisive STR rule does not originate in city hall. Arizona's 2016 SB 1350 became effective January 1, 2017. The current municipal provision, A.R.S. section 9-500.39, says a city or town may not prohibit vacation rentals or short-term rentals.
The statute still permits enumerated local controls, including specified health and safety rules, generally applicable nuisance controls, emergency-contact requirements, permits or licenses, neighbor notices, license-number display requirements, insurance requirements, penalties, and suspension procedures. The Legislature expanded local permitting and enforcement tools through SB 1168 in 2022 without restoring municipal power to ban the use.
A restrictive local proposal in Arizona cannot be evaluated from the municipal docket alone. State law defines the outer boundary of local authority.
The valuable field is disposition
These records describe five distinct states:
- Albuquerque: proposed and failed.
- Austin: adopted, replaced, and operative in phases.
- Annapolis: codified permanent rule plus temporary uncodified overlay.
- Honolulu: enacted and partly limited by permanent injunction.
- Arizona: operative state preemption with specified local tools.
Each measure needs a disposition, event history, effective date, code relationship, enforcement source, litigation relationship, and link to anything that later amends, suspends, supersedes, or expires it.
What these cases support
- Detailed draft text is not evidence of enactment.
- One ordinance can assign different duties to different parties on different dates.
- Uncodified measures can temporarily change the operative rule.
- Court orders and state statutes can define the enforceable boundary of local code.
What they do not support
- No case determines how a rule applies to a specific property or business.
- No directional national trend or policy-diffusion rate is claimed.
- No failed proposal is treated as proof of later enactment.
- The five jurisdictions are illustrative, not a representative sample.
Sources and method
Research was checked through August 2, 2026. Each measure was traced through its available legislative action, signed text or statute, effective date, implementation guidance, and controlling court or state record.
- Albuquerque: O-26-5 text and failed vote; current STR FAQ.
- Austin: executed Ordinance 20250911-012; current implementation guidance.
- Annapolis: O-17-25 blockface rule; O-40-25 moratorium.
- Honolulu: December 21, 2023 permanent injunction.
- Arizona: current A.R.S. section 9-500.39; 2016 SB 1350; 2022 SB 1168.
This is a public-record legal-lifecycle example. It is not legal, compliance, tax, land-use, hospitality, financial, or investment advice.