Last Stand’s Letter to the City of Key West on Truman Annex Transient Licenses
RE: Truman Annex Transient Licenses
Dear Mayor Henriquez and Commissioners,
We are writing regarding the imminent expiration of the residential transient rental permits in the Truman Annex and the important decisions now before the City.
Keys Last Stand is an advocacy organization dedicated to preserving the natural resources and unique quality of life in the Florida Keys, which includes equitable and sustainable affordable housing. As a result, Keys Last Stand supports policies that protect and expand housing options for residents in ways that align with long-term community well-being and responsible development.
We are aware that many Truman Annex stakeholders want to see an extension of the transient rental licenses. Many others in the community want to see these units return to the permanent housing market.
As the Commission weighs these competing priorities, Last Stand urges the City to conduct a rigorous and transparent review of the legal, financial, and community implications of any decision on this matter. This should include a thorough analysis by the City’s legal counsel of the relevant statutory and legal considerations. Overall considerations should include:
Policy Matters:
Nonconforming Use: Transient use is not a permitted use in Truman Annex zoning district. The existing transient licenses are recognized as a “legal nonconforming use.” Per Sec. 122-30, “A nonconforming use shall be considered abandoned given expiration of the local, state, or federal licenses relevant to the alleged abandoned use...” Per Sec. 122-32, “A nonconforming use shall not be extended…”
Would a proactive resolution of the City Commission to extend the agreement conflict with either the letter or spirit of Section 122-32 of the City’s Code, which prohibits the extension of nonconforming uses?
Zoning District Intent: The subject zoning district was developed specifically to address the development and redevelopment of Truman Annex and Sunset Key. Per Sec. 122-986, this intent includes, among other things: “to promote… An increased supply of affordable housing which is accessible to targeted income groups over a longterm period” and “avoid replacement of permanent housing stock with transient lodging.”
Is it appropriate for the City to extend a nonconforming use in a manner that is not consistent with the intent of the zoning district?
Financial and Housing Market Impact: Many residents look forward to Truman Annex units reentering the permanent housing market, consistent with the original development approvals and the stated intent of the HPDR zoning district. Others argue these units would continue to be rented monthly as vacation rentals after the licenses expire and therefore would not meaningfully contribute to the long-term housing stock.
This raises critical questions:
Can this claim be dependably relied upon? Is it appropriate for the City to predicate public policy on a narrative that may or may not reflect market realities or property owner behavior? Can the City obtain independent, third-party evaluations of the likelihood of Truman Annex units converting to monthly vacation rentals vs. returning to the permanent housing stock?
What are the anticipated impacts on permanent and vacation rental markets outside of Truman Annex?
Last Stand is aware that some Truman Annex stakeholders are considering proposals wherein Truman Annex property owner associations would contribute to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, or donate affordable housing units, in exchange for an extension of transient licenses. If the Commission is to consider these offers, we implore the City to conduct a thorough, transparent analysis of the financial and policy implications of any such proposal which addresses, at minimum, the following questions:
What process would guide the negotiation of any such offers?
Is there a minimum contribution that ensures an extension would provide a demonstrably greater public benefit than expiration?
What would constitute a fair and appropriate fee structure and set of terms?
How would cash contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund be most effectively allocated?
If off-site affordable housing units are proposed in exchange for an extension, what specific conditions – number of units, location, and duration of affordability – would be required for this to exceed the public benefit of allowing the licenses to expire?
How would the City quantify and compare these scenarios in a consistent, data-driven way?
Without clear answers to these questions, it is difficult to see how any proposed trade-off could surpass the value of restoring these homes to the local housing market.
Legal Considerations: What legal risks or precedents might arise, especially in light of Florida Statute §509.032(7)(b), which preempts local governments from regulating the frequency or duration of vacation rentals?
Would extending this agreement risk legal challenges or unintended consequences under this preemption?
Would it risk the status of the City’s grandfathered transient rental provisions?
Would it open the City up to lawsuits from other property owners, who would not benefit from the same transient rental privilege bestowed upon Truman Annex property owners?
What other legal risks may exist?
Last Stand urges the Commission to resist any requests to extend the settlement agreement unless and until the decision-making process is guided by rigorous, transparent analysis that results in specific, measurable findings demonstrating a net public benefit.
Given the fast-approaching November expiration, it is essential that this review process begin promptly. We believe that the public deserves the benefit of an informed, transparent decision-making process. This would also offer the City the opportunity to realign with its goals regarding legal integrity, neighborhood character, equity, and the long-term expansion of affordable housing.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Board of Directors
Keys Last Stand
