Limited Residential Lodging Act; established, penalty. (SB416)

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER, RETURNING TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR, SENATE BILL 416, THE FINANCE SUBSTITUTE WAS AGREED TO, AND THE SENATOR HAS FLOOR AMENDMENT. CITY FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, IF I COULD TAKE UP FOUR AMENDMENTS, NO. 1 AND NO. 2 IN THE BLOCK, AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST WAIVING READING OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE READING OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS NO. 1 AND 2 BE AGREED TO? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. AYES HAVE IT. READING FROM SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY. I REFLECT, WHICH I LOATHE TO DO, IT DOES OCCUR TO ME THAT PERHAPS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SENATORS WHO HAVE NOT HAD THE PLEASURE TO BE EXPOSED TO THE UNDERLYING BILL AND MY FLOOR AMENDMENTS ARE DRAWN TO A NARROW SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE BILL, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE PATRON TO EXPLAIN THE BILL OR I CAN PROCEED TO DO THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF I COULD HAVE YOUR ATTENTION JUST FOR A MOMENT, THIS IS A BILL, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS TO IT AND FLOOR AMENDMENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DRAWN TO SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE BILL. IT INVOLVES AN INTERNET PLATFORM WHEREBY ROOMS IN RESIDENTIAL HOMES ARE ADVERTISED FOR RENT, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POLISHES THAT I'M NOT GETTING INTO, BUT THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE BILL WHICH REQUIRES THAT PLATFORM AB AND B WHICH THEY CAN FUNCTION AS COLLECTING THE TAXES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE ROOM WHICH WOULD BE TRANSIENT AUTOPSY TAXES OR IN MY LOCAL CALT THEY HAVE A 2-DOLLAR PER NIGHT ROOM TAX FOR ADVERTISING, AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN THAT THE AB AND B PERFORM MAY REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND IF THEY DO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, THEN THERE IS A MECHANISM THERE FOR AB AND B TO COLLECT THE TAXES AND REMIT THEM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION WILL CAPTURE THE STATE SHARE AND REMIT THE LOCALITY SHARE, AND THE PROBLEM IS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE OF MAY, AND WHAT THE AMENDMENTS DO THEY SAID THEY SHALL REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS IF AB AND B DOES NOT REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, WE FIND OURSELVES EXACTLY, EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND THAT IS THAT IT IS COMPLETELY AN HONOR SYSTEM WHERE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DOING THE AB AND B OUT OF THEIR HOMES WILL HAVE TO COME FORWARD AND REPORT THEMSELVES, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME FORWARD AND REPORT THEMSELVES. SO IT SEEMS TO ME A BETTER POLICY THAT AB AND B SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION SO THAT WE HAVE SOME MEANS OF DOING THIS, AND THE INTERESTING THING IN THE BILL IS THAT THERE IS A PROHIBITION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT KNOWING WHO THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS ARE THAT ARE DOING THIS, AND THERE'S A FURTHER PROHIBITION THAT THE COMMISSIONER REVENUE OR NO FISCAL OFFICER CAN CONDUCT AN AUDIT. IF WE HAVE AB AND B SHALL REGISTER, THEN THEY WILL PRESENT AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THAT WHICH HAS BEEN COLLECTED AND WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE, AND THE SECOND THING DURING THE PRESENTATION OF THE BILL THAT CAPTURED MY ATTENTION AS RELATED TO THIS IS THERE WAS DIALOGUE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD BE CURRENTLY DONE UNDER AB AND B'S PLATFORM AND SYSTEM, AND WHAT WAS VERY CANDIDLY, AND I APPRECIATE THE FORTHRIGHTNESS IS ANOTHER COMMONWEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND SPECIFICALLY PHILADELPHIA IS ALREADY REQUIRING THIS, AND AB AND B IS REGISTERED WITH THEIR DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, WHICH SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO ME IT MIGHT BE TROUBLESOME FOR THEM TO DO THAT, AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST, MR. PRESIDENT THAT I THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT DO HARM TO THE BILL, BUT IT CREATES A STRUCTURE IN PLACE AND AT THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION WILL BE ABLE TO COLLECT BOTH THE STATE TAX AND THE LOCAL TAX AND REMIT IT, OTHERWISE THERE'S NO SYSTEM WHATSOEVER IN PLACE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAUQIER, SENATOR VOGEL. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO THE FLOOR MOMENT AND WITH THE INDULGENCE EXPLAIN THE UNDERLYING BILL. I WISH THAT I COULD ACCEPT THE FLOOR AMENDMENT, THE UNDERLYING MOVE OF THIS BILL IS TO DO SOMETHING VERY SAMPLE AND THAT IS TO COLLECT AND REMIT LOCAL TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TANKS AND NEW TAXES FOR THOSE WHO ARE RENTING ONLY IN THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCES A ROOM TO SOMEBODY THAT WISHES TO GO ON THE AIR IN THE PLATFORM. IT'S HERE, AND IT'S HAPPENING IN OUR LOCALITIES, AND ACTUALLY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. IF I GO TO A BED AND BREAKFAST, THEY ARE PLAYING THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES, AND IT'S NOT HAPPENING FOR DOING IT IN THE OWN HOME. THE BEAUTY OF THIS FLOOR AMENDMENT IS IF YOU SAY THAT THE TAXPAYER IS ACTUALLY THE HOMEOWNER, AND AGAIN, I THINK WITHOUT HAVING STEPPED BACK TO EXPLAIN THE WHOLE BILL, IT'S ONLY APPLYING TO THE HOMEOWNER AND YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, AND THE TAXPAYER IS THE HOMEOWNER, AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. IF YOU HAVE B AND B, THERE'S NO FRAMEWORK WHICH THE HOMEOWNER CAN ACTUALLY PAY THAT TAX, THEY ARE NOT DOING IT. IF YOU SAY TO THE AIR B AND B OR WHOMEVER IT IS WHO HAS COME TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND SAID WE WISH TO BE A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN, WE WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTARILY STEP INTO THE SHOES OF A HOMEOWNER AND COLLECT AND REMIT, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS AROUND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND WE REALIZE THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY LEFT ON THE TABLE FOR LOCALITIES, AND THIS IS MONEY FOR LOCALITIES. I WOULD LIKE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM AND COLLECT AND REMIT AND PAY THIS BACK. THE PROBLEM IS THIS IS NOT THE TAXPAYER, AND THE MAY OR SHALL, I HAVE TO DECIDE DO I HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FLOOR AMENDMENT. HAVING JUST A MOMENT AGO HAD LEGISLATIVE SERVICES AND THE TAX DEPARTMENT OPINE ABOUT THIS MATTER, I AM TOLD THAT THIS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. FURTHER THAT THERE'S NO NEXUS IN WHICH TO TAX THE PERSON WHOSE ACTUALLY JUST THE ONLINE PROVIDER. SO IF YOU CONSIDER THAT -- IT WAS INTERESTING. IT CAME UP WHEN WE WERE THIS FINANCE COMMITTEE AND HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. IT WAS CLEAR TO ME BY THE SENATOR OF JAMES CITY COUNTY SAW IT THIS WAY. IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME TO ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT IT AS THE TAXPAYER. I THINK OF THEM AS LIKE EBAY OR EXPEDIA, THE PLACE WHERE YOU ACTUALLY GO TO MAKE THE CONNECTION, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE ACTUAL TAXPAYER, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT LEGISLATIVE SERVICES HAS SAID, A CORPORATION MAY HAVE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL PRESENCE, IF YOU ALL KNOW, IN THE STATE IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE THEM PAY OR COLLECT A SALES TAX, AND UNDER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING AND ACQUITTAL, PHYSICAL PRESENCE IS THE ESTABLISHED TEXT FOR NEXUS. THEY HAVE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL PRESENCE OTHERWISE THERE'S NO NEXUS TO COLLECT THE TAX. I WAS TEXTING AND SAYING CAN I ACCEPT THIS FLOOR AMENDMENT. WHILE THE MOTIVE, THE UNDERLYING MOTIVE WAS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD HERE AND ADDRESS A VERY, VERY NARROW ISSUE, AND THAT IS IN YOUR OWN HOME, IF YOU ARE HAVING -- IF YOU WISH TO AIR B AND B, AND WE ARE NOTq OR SUBMITTING THE SALES TAX, AND THE OUTSIDE AIR B AND B PLATFORM WHICH IS TO COME IN AND ACTUALLY COME IN AND BE A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN, AND COME UP WITH THE UNIFORM PROCESS, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THEY ARE NOT THE TAXPAYER, AND TO SAY THAT THEY SHALL IS A MAJOR ISSUE. I WOULD HAVE TO DISRESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU REJECT THAT FLOOR AMENDMENT. THANK, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY. YIELD FOR A YES. SENATOR FAULK FIELD FOR A QUESTION. IF AIR B. AND B ADVERTISES AND PUTS FOR ITSELF AND ESTABLISHES A REGISTERED AGENT, FOR EXAMPLE, ISN'T BY DOING THAT, BY CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE STATE, TRANSACTING BUSINESS IN THE STATE HASN'T ADMITTED A NUMBER OF COMMENTS BY ACQUITTAL? NOT IF THEY DON'T HAVE A LOCATION OR EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE ONLINE. THEY HAVE AN ONLINE PLATFORM, AND THEY ARE NOT BASED. YIELD FOR A YES. YES, I VEALED. I ASK -- NOT HAVING W-2 EMPLOYEES AT YOUR BEHEST AND DON'T HAVE THE SAME BRICKS AND MORTAR STRUCTURE AND YET THEY STILL PAY TAXES, WHETHER IT'S AN ONLINE RESELLER OR UBER, JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE EMPLOYEES, CAN'T THEY HAVE A SUFFICIENT NEXUS TO PAY TAXES? MR. PRESIDENT, ONE COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. THIS WAS BEING TEXTED TO ME AS I WAS BEING PREPARED TO ADDRESS THIS FOR A MINUTE. YES, THEY ARE NOT THE TAXPAYER. THE HOMEOWNER IS THE TAXPAYER, AND THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY THE TAXPAYER HERE. NO. 2 THE TAX DEPARTMENT SENIOR SENATOR THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE COMPANY COMES TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MIDDLEMAN. THEY ARE A FACILITATOR, AND THEY ARE NOT THE HOMEOWNER, TAXPAYER AND NOT THE PERSON LIABLE FOR THIS TAX. FINAL QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. YIELD FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. AND THIS IS TRULY MY FINAL QUESTION. I SAT THROUGH GENERAL LAWS, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE SOLE BENEFIT OF THE LEGISLATION WAS TO PERMIT US TO COLLECT TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE COLLECTED IF WE ARE NOT REQUIRING AIR B AND B TO PAY IT OVER, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THE LEGISLATION? I'M NOT BEING FACETIOUS, BUT WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THE LEGISLATION. I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THE UNDERLYING BILLS WHEN I CAN. BUT THE UNDERLYING BENEFIT OF THE LEGISLATION IS ACTUALLY COLLECT AND REMIT THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND WHATEVER LOCAL TAXES ARE BEING LEVIED FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE REPRESENTING MORE THAN ONE ROOM. IF YOU ARE A BED AND BREAKFAST OR HOTEL, PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT IN THEIR OWN HOME, SHOULD BE PAYING THAT TAX, INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS, THAT WAS THE WHOLE IDEA, WAS TO COLLECT AND REMIT THAT TAX. WHAT WE HAD ARE IS AN OUTSIDE COMPANY SAYING WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO DO WITH EVERY LOCALITY, AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT LIABILITY, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO STEP IN TO THE SHOES OF THE TAXPAYER, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY AND SOFTWARE AND ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE TAX DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA AND COME UP WITH A WAY TO UNIFORMLY COLLECT THAT TAX AND REMIT IT BACK TO THE LOCALITIES, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE SOFTWARE TO DO THAT THAT CAN COMMUNICATE THAT BACK AND ACTUALLY TAG IT TO INDIVIDUAL LOCALITIES, WE WILL DO THAT FOR YOU FOR VIRGINIA, AND IT SEEMED LIKE A GREAT WAY TO -- A SIMPLE WAY TO SOLVE A RELATIVELY COMPLICATE TD PROBLEM AND FOUND MONEY FOR LOCALITIES. THANK YOU, GENTLE LADY. MR. PRESIDENT, ADDRESSING THE BILL, SENATOR PETERSEN ACTUALLY WAS ON TO SOMETHING HERE, AND ORIGINALLY THIS BILL WAS MARKETED, AND I USE THAT TERM VERY APPROPRIATELY, MARKETED THAT IT WAS GOING TO ALLOW THE COLLECTION OF TAXES THAT WERE CURRENTLY NOT BEING COLLECTED, THAT THERE WAS A BUSINESS THAT EXISTED ON THE INTERNET OUT THERE WHERE BOTH THE STATE TAXES AND LOCAL TAXES WERE NOT BEING COLLECTED. IF WE PUT THE MECHANISM IN PLACE, THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO COLLECT TAXES, AND THE MECHANISM WAS CREATED WHERE THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION WAS WILLING TO CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE THEY COULD RECEIVE BOTH THE STATE TAXES AND THE LOCAL TAXES, AND THEN AFTER THEY HAD GOTTEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THEY WOULD RETAIN THE STATE TAX AND REMIT THE LOCAL TAXES TO THE LOCALITIES. THIS IS AN AIR B AND B BILL. THEY CREATED THE MECHANISM IN THE BILL WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION TO COLLECT THESE TAXES AND REBUILD. BUT THE REAL SUBTLETY WAS THAT AIR B AND B IS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, BECAUSE YOU HAD TO READ THE BILL LIKE A LAWYER TO FIND THAT IT SAID THEY MAY DO IT. THEY MAY TO IT. THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO IT AND IT SEEMS TO ME IF THEY WANT TO CREATE A PLATFORM OR HAVE IT LEGALIZED IN VIRGINIA AND WANT THE TAXES COLLECTED ON A STATEWIDE BASIS AS WELL AS A LOCAL BASIS, THEY OUGHT TO BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT. THEY OUGHT TO BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. AND THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE BODY THAT COMMITTED TO THE ROOM THAT HAVE NO IDEA OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE BILL. BUT ON THIS VERY NARROW ISSUE, I SUGGEST THIS TO YOU: PENNSYLVANIA REQUIRED AN AIR B AND B TO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. SIMPLE. THEY CAN DO IT. YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE IS VERY SIMPLE, MR. PRESIDENT, IN THIS STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE HOMEOWNERS OF PENNSYLVANIA ARE THE TAXPAYERS. THEY ARE THE TAXPAYERS, BUT YET THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH AN INTERNET ADVERTISING AGENCY WHICH DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE ADDRESS OR THE IDENTITY OF THE PROPERTY THEY ARE LEASING, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO GET TO THAT INFORMATION, BUT I SUGGEST TO YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, IT SEEMS VERY DISINGENUOUS FOR ME FOR SOMEBODY TO CREATE THE MECHANIC INFORM AND SAY WE MAY OR MAY NOT DO IT, BUT YET WE CAN DO IT AT ANOTHER STATE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM, SENATOR OBENSHAIN.

Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg): MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT MY FIGHT. I HESITATE TO WEIGH IN. BUT I DID LISTEN IN COMMITTEE AND I LEARNED A LITTLE BIT. A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT. ONE IS I DIDN'T HEAR THAT PENNSYLVANIA HAS THIS LAW, BUT WHAT I DID HEAR IS THAT PHILADELPHIA HAS CITY LAWS AND CITY ORDINANCES ADDRESSING AIR B AND B, AND IT'S HOMEOWNERS THAT UTILIZE THAT PLATFORM, AND SO I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE IS A SINGLE STATE IN AMERICA, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NOT A SINGLE STATE IN AMERICA THAT COMPELS A PLATFORM SUCH AS THIS TO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND ACCEPT A SPOPT FOR RESPONSIBILITYFOR PAYMENT OF TAD PARTY. THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE. THAT'S WHAT THIS FLOOR AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I MAY BE WRNG. WRONG. BUT I ALSO LISTENED TO REPRESENTATIVES OF AIR B AND B. WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF REGISTERING WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX, AND WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF PAYING THE TAXES THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO PAY ON BEHALF OF THE CONDUIT AS THE CONDUIT FOR OUR HOMEOWNERS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE ARE GOING TO BE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE SIMILAR PLATFORMS, AND INDEED THERE ARE SIMILAR PLATFORMS LIKE EXPEDIA AND OTHERS, AND WHAT THIS ENVISIONS IS REQUIRING AIR B AND B OR SIMILAR PLATFORM TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES OF A THIRD PARTY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT'S WHAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS FOR US AND OUR CODE TO COMPEL AIR B AND B OR ANY OTHER PLATFORM TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES INCURRED BY A THIRD

[Unknown]: THANK YOU. PARTY. THE SENATOR FROM FAUQUIER, SENATOR VOGEL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, TO CLARIFY THE LAST PIECE, THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY, THE UNDERLYING MOTIVE HERE IS TO COLLECT AND REMIT THE TAXES AND LET LOCALITIES ACTUALLY RECOVER THE FOUND MONEY. THAT'S THE REASON THEY WANT TO FINANCE. IF THERE WAS A WAY I COULD COMFORTABLY ACCEPT THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY'S FLOOR AMENDMENT AND SAY SHALL, I WOULD. THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM WITH IT, AND I WAS TEXTING BACK AND FORTH, HOW CAN I HANDLE THIS AND HOW CAN YOU MANAGE IT LEGALLY, AND THE ANSWER IS YOU CAN'T COMPEL THEM TO REGISTER BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A TAXPAYER, AND YOU CAN'T COMPEL THEM TO COLLECT THE TAX ON BEHALF OF A THIRD PARTY. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. IT'S NOT COLLECTION PIECE, BUT COMPELLING THEM TO REGISTER PIECE. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT, AND WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK YOU REJECT THAT FLOOR AMENDMENT. IF I COULD, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THE BILL. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR SHALL THE FLOOR AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR OF AGREEING TO THE FLOOR AMENDMENT SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED NO. I'M UNSURE. SO THERE WILL BE A RECORDED VOTE. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO RECORD THE VOTES AYE, OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. AYES 17, NOS 22. AYES 17, NOS 22. FLOOR AMENDMENTS ARE REJECTED. SENATOR, THERE'S ONE OTHER FLOOR AMENDMENT. I WITHDRAW THAT. WITH THAT OBJECTION, THAT FLOOR AMENDMENT WILL BE WITHDRAWN, AND THE SENATOR FROM FAUQIUER. I MOVE PASSAGE TO THE BILL IN SPEAKING TO THAT MEASURE. SORRY. I MOVE WE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING. THE QUESTION IS WILL THE BILL ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING. IT'S ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THE THIRD READING. >> THANK YOU, I MOVE PASSAGE TO THE BILL IN SPEAKING TO THAT MOTION. WE NEED TO SUSPEND THE RULES. SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE WE SUSPEND THE RULES AND DISPOSE OF THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READING.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR, AND THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THE RULES BE SUSPENDED AND THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READING BE WAIVED WAIVED. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 38, NOS 1? AYES 38, NOS 1. MOTION IS AGREED TO THE SENATOR FROM FAUQUIER. NOW CAN I MOVE THE BILL PASS? THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE BRIEF AND MAKE THIS AS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE. THIS BILL HAS BEEN ACTUAL FULLY HEARD IN GENERAL LAWS, AND FULLY HEARD IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND I APOLOGIZE WE DID GET A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF OURSELVES, AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONVOLUTED, AND CERTAINLY I WANT TO SAY AT THE OUTSET, I RESPECT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE BILL, AND I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE TWO THINGS TO THE BODY. IF I BELIEVED THIS IN ANY WAY WAS IMPOSING ON THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL CATTLE TO DO WHAT LOCALITIES DO, AND THAT IS TO ADOPT ORDINANCES AND LOCATE THE WAY THE LOCALITIES NEED TO, I WOULD NOT HAVE INTRODUCED THE BILL, AND I TRULY MEAN THAT. 2, IF I BELIEVE THIS HAD ANY HARM OR IN ANY WAY WAS A DETRIMENT TO THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT THIS BILL. CERTAINLY I HAVE FAMILY THAT'S IN THE HOTEL BUSINESS, AND I KNOW THAT THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY IS CRITICAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, SO IF I FIRST CONSIDERED THIS BILL, IT WAS REALLY, REALLY SIMPLE, AS I CONSIDERED WHAT THIS BILL DID. THIS WAS NARROWLY DRAWN TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS A HOUSE, WHO WISHES TO GO ONLINE AND MAKE THAT PART OF THEIR HOME, ONLY THEIR RESIDENCE AVAILABLE TO SOMEONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO RENT THAT ON AIR B AND B. IF YOU CONSIDER WE ARE IN A NEW ECONOMY, NEW SHARED ECONOMY WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE NOW TODAY SAY, I HAVE A CAR, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE MY CAR FOR A PORTION OF THE TIME. PEOPLE USED TO SAY, THAT'S REALLY STRANGE. SAME THING GOES WITH YOUR HOME. YOUR HOME SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY, AND HOW YOU USE YOUR PROPERTY AND HOW YOU MAKE MONEY ON YOUR PROPERTY IN MY VIEW, AND NOT EVERYBODY WILL AGREE, IN MY VIEW SHOULD BE TREATED VERY, VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN IF YOU HAVE A BED AND BREAKFAST AND LIVE IN YOUR HOME OR RUN SOME KIND OF OTHER BUSINESS OUT OF YOUR HOME. I FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE THAT THAT'S TRUE. I ALSO FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE IF YOU HAVE A BED AND BREAKFAST OR OWN A HOTEL OR RENTING MULTIPLE PROBLEMS AND PAYING TAXES AND REGISTERED AS A BUSINESS, THEN WHY SHOULDN'T YOU ALSO, IF YOU ARE RENTING AND MAKING MONEY IN YOUR OWN HOME HAVE TO PAY THE SAME TAXES THAT THE GUY WHO IS RENTING THE BED AND BREAKFAST TWO DOORS DOWN FROM YOU ALSO HAS TO PAY. THE NOTION WE ARE NOT COLLECTING THOSE TAXES ONE SEEMED FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR, AND TWO, WHAT WE HAD WAS SOMEBODY WHO WAS COMING TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND SAYING WE ARE HERE, AND WE HAVE A PROBLEM WE ARE NOT COLLECTING AND REMITTING THE TAXES AND IT'S FRANKLY A LOT OF MONEY, AND IT IS GOING TO BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER TIME, AND IF WE HAVE A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN WHO SAYS LOOK, I'M WILLING TO VOLUNTARILY COME TO VIRGINIA, WE CAN'T COMPEL THEM, AND WE UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA, THERE'S NO NEXUS, AND WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO REGISTER AND FORCE THEM TO ASSUME THE LIABILITY OF A TAXPAYER, WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE TAXPAYER AND NOT THE HOMEOWNER, BUT IF THEY ARE WILLING TO VOLUNTARILY COME TO VIRGINIA AND SAY WE WILL SIT DOWN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAX, AND WE WILL RESOLVE THE ISSUE. EVERYBODY ELSE IS PAYING TAXES, AND WE ARE WILLING TO DO THAT ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNER. AND AND MY HUSBAND SAID TO ME, HOW DO YOU PAY TAXES ON THIS. I CAN'T FIGURE HOW YOU DO IT IN FAUQUIER COUNTY. I THOUGHT IT WAS IRONIC, AND ANYWAY, IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DO IT, AND WANTS TO VOLUNTARILY COME TO VIRGINIA AND SIT DOWN WITH THE TAX DEPARTMENT, AND THE TAX DEPARTMENT SAYS WE CAN DO THIS. WE CAN DO IT UNIFORMLY, AND WE HAVE A SOFTWARE THAT CAN COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR SOFTWARE, AND WE CAN ACTUALLY COLLECT AND REMIT THIS THROUGH A UNIFORM PROCESS AND MONTHLY PASS THAT BACK TO THE LOCALITIES, AND WE HAVE A WAY TO TAG IT AND A WAY TO AUDIT YOU, AND WE HAVE A WAY TO GO BACK AND MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE YOU ARE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY. BECAUSE IF LEFT TO YOUR DEVICES AND WE DON'T SET UP A UNIFORM PROCESS, YOU, AIR B AND B IS NEVER GOING TO VOLUNTARILY COME TO VIRGINIA AND TRY TO WORK WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL LOCALITY. BECAUSE EVERY INDIVIDUAL LOCALITY TACKS DIFFERENTLY. YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SALES AND USE TAXES, AND AS I WAS TALKING TO THE CENTER AT JAMES CITY COUNTY THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT TAX, YOU WILL NEVER, EVER GET THEM TO DO THAT VOLUNTARILY. BECAUSE YOU WILL GO TO A COUNTY THAT HAS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THEIR HOME THAT WAY, AND IT WILL NEVER WORK. WITHOUT THE BILL, AND WE CAN ALL AGREE TO DISAGREE. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAX A BILL, WE ARE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED. WE ARE NOT COLLECTING AND REMITTING, AND OUR LOCALITIES ARE OUT THAT MONEY, AND WE ARE NEVER GOING TO HAVE HOMEOWNERS VOLUNTARILY STEPPING UP AND PAYING THAT MONEY. AND THE SECOND THING THAT THE BILL DOES, AND THIS IS WHERE OUR LOCALITIES ARE NOT NECESSARILY HAPPY, THE SECOND THING THE BILL DOES IS IT SAYS LOCALITIES CANNOT COME IN AND PASS AN ORDINANCE AND SAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS IN YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, AND AGAIN, WE MIGHT FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE, BUT THINK IF IT'S YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND IT'S YOUR PROPERTY, YOU MIGHT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE PROPERTY THAT WAY TO MAKE MONEY IF YOU WANT TO. FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND USED SENATOR CARRICO AS AN EXAMPLE. IN SOUTH VIRGINIA WHERE SENATOR CARRICO LIVES, THEY RENT OUT A PORTION OF THEIR HOMES TO SOMEBODY WHO IS COMING FROM OUT OF TOWN, AND THEY MAY DO IT ON AIR B AND B AND THEY DO IT, BUT THEY DO IT AND MAKE MONEY. WHAT RIGHT DOES A LOCALITY HAVE TO COME IN AND SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THEY MAKE ENOUGH MONEY ACCORDING TO SENATOR CARRICO, THEY CAN SOMETIMES PAY FOR VACATION OR TAXES FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. FUNDAMENTALLY IF THAT'S YOUR HOME, YOU CAN DO THAT. IF YOU SHARE AN ECONOMY, YOU MIGHT AS WELL EMBRACE IT, AND THE SAME ISSUE WITH UBER AND LIFT. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TAX WORKING THROUGH ALL THESE ISSUES AND I THINK WE HAVE A SOLUTION. NOW, I GET IT, IF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE SOLUTION DON'T VOTE FOR THE BILL. IF WE GET TO A POINT WE SAY WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE LOCALITY AND EVERY LOCALITY WANT TO GET INVOLVED AND MICRO MANAGE IT, NOBODY VOLUNTARILY WILL COME IN AND HELP US COLLECT AND REMIT THE TAXES AND WE DON'T GET THE MONEY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTHY I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER PASSING EXPLANATION. THE BILL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SPEAKING AGAINST THE BILL. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. MR. PRESIDENT, SOME OF THE BEST PEOPLE I KNOW ARE SUPPORTING THIS BILL, BUT I HAVE TO BE HONEST, I WAS SKEPTICAL WHEN I HEARD IT AND IT HAS CONTINUED OVER THE LAST 20 MINUTE. WHEN IT CAME BEFORE US IT WAS THE LAST GIST WE WILL COLLECT THE MONEY, OTHERWISE YOU WILL GIVE UP A LITTLE OF YOUR ZONING AUTHORITY. NOW YOU GIVE UP A LITTLE OF YOUR ZONING AUTHORITY AND BY THE WAY, THERE IS NO ACTUAL REQUIREMENT THEY REMOTE THE TOT TAX BUT TRUST ME IT WILL HAPPEN. NOW, I WAS BORN AT NIGHT, WASN'T BORN LAST NIGHT. IF SOMEONE DOESN'T AGREE TO SOMETHING IN THE CODE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WILL AGREE TO SOMETHING WHEN IT'S NOT IN THE CODE. IT'S FUNNY THE ISSUE OF THE TAXI CANS WAS BROUGHT UP, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE HOTEL BUSINESS, I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE TAXICAB BUSINESS, I'VE BEEN REPRESENTING TAXICABS FOR 20 YEARS, I SAW HOW IT WAS IMPACTED BY UBER, I REPRESENTED THE TAXICAB INDUSTRY LAST YEAR AND I SAW HOW I WAS AT A HUGE COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE PLACED AGAINST UBER AND LIFT. SAME THING WILL HAPPEN, STANDARD HOTEL CHAINS WILL BE AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY WILL CHARGE TOT TAX BASED ON THE LAW AND SUBJECT TO COMMERCIAL ORDINANCES AND ZONING ORDINANCES WHILE OTHER PERM WILL BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE BECAUSE THEY CAN USE IT AS A RESIDENTIAL USE. I AGREE WITH THE GENTLE LADY 100% WE ARE IN A KNOTTER ECONOMY AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE MASTERS OF THEIR PROPERTY. I BROUGHT A BILL TO WEAKEN THE AUTHORITY TO MANAGE YOUR OWN THE DEAL IS WHEN YOU GO INTO A AUTHORITY. HOTEL INDUSTRY AND ASK SOMEBODY TO COMPETE IN AN UNREGULATED BUSINESS YOU WILL ALWAYS BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. AS I UNDERSTOOD THE BENEFIT OF THE BILL IS IT WOULD ALLOW US TO COLLECT TAX WE WERE NOT COLLECTING AND THAT'S BENEFIT OF THE LOCALITIES. RIGHT NOW NOT A SINGLE LOCALITY IS IN FAVOR OF THE BILL, I'M GETTING TEXTS LIKE CRAZY SAYING THEY ARE OPPOSED TO IT. I'M NOT HERE AS A SHIELD FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SOMETIMES THEY LIKE ME, SOMETIMES THEY HATE ME BUT BOTTOM LINE IS I DON'T SEE THIS BILL DOING THEM ANY FAVORS. I AGREE THE ECONOMY HAS CHANGED BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, AS WE RESPECT THAT, WE BRING PEOPLE TO THE TABLE AND AT LEAST FOR OOBER AND LYFT, AT LEAST THE CAB COMPANY HAD A CHANCE SAYING SOMETHING ON WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY GETTING A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING, I THINK WE OUGHT TO SLOW DOWN THE TRAIN. I UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE SAYS, I JUST FEEL LIKE I DISAGREE. MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAK BEING AGAINST THE BILL. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. WHEN I CAME TO THE SENATE THERE WERE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES I KNEW ABOUT THE BILL. THE IS YOU CAN UNANIMOUSLY STAY AT A HOUSE WITHOUT REPORTING WHO YOU ARE, DON'T HAVE TO REPORT TAXES OR ANYTHING ELSE SO YOU CAN ANONYMOUSLY STAY AT A HOUSE, APARTMENT OR ROOM. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT FOR A MOMENT. THINK ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT WANT TO STAY NEXT TO A SCHOOL ANONYMOUSLY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO STAY NEXT TO A SCHOOL, THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE WITHIN 500 YARDS, A MILE FROM A SCHOOL. THINK ABOUT THESE FOLKS ABLE TO STAY ANONYMOUSLY AT A SCHOOL IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT? NOT ME. AND ALSO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE SAYING WE DON'T WANT THIS. YOU CAN LITERALLY RENT OUT A ROOM ON AIRBNB AND HERE IS ONE OUT OF NORFOLK, STAY FOR $46, A COMFORTABLE COUCH, SOME BLANKETS AND SOME BEER. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN STAYING THERE. AS WE WALK THROUGH THIS, IT'S A GREAT CONCEPT, SIMPLE CONCEPT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES THAT GET COMPLEX. ANONYMOUS REGULATIONS. IMAGINE THE LOCAL SEX OFFENDER PICKING OUT WHERE THEY WANT TO STAY. YOU HAVE DONE AWAY WITH THIS, DONE AWAY WITH UNDERLYING ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS. I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IN SANDBRIDGE AND AT THE OCEAN THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE RENT OUT THEIR HOUSES, PRIMARY RESIDENCES FOR THREE OR FOUR MONTHS A YEAR BUT WE HAVE EXISTING ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS THAT ALLOW THEM TO PAY THEIR TAXES, NOT TO TURN IT INTO A PARTY HOUSE, NOT TO TURN IT INTO A METH LAB, NOT TO TURN IT INTO SOME CRAZY OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST. WE HAVE LAWS AGAINST THIS, BUT IT GOES BACK TO YOU CAN ANONYMOUSLY BOOK AND STAY ANYWHERE YOU WANT, THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT. AND I WON'T CONTINUE GOING ON AND ON ON THIS BUT I WILL SAY WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THIS BILL PUTS IN FRONT OF US. THERE'S A REASON UBER AND LYFT WENT OUT AND STUDIED YOU BEFORE COMING BACK TO THIS BODY. I HOPE YOU FIND THE RED BUTTON AND VOTE AGAINST THIS. SENATOR MCDOUGAL. RISE TO SPEAK TO THE BILL. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I'M GOING TO ECHO A COUPLE COMMENTS THE GENTLEMAN MANY THINK FROM NORTHERN FAIR FAX ARTICULATED ABOUT THE LEGISLATION YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AND I'M NOT ARTICULATING IT'S A BAD CONCEPT FOR US TO ENTER INTO AN EFFORT TO TRY TO COLLECT THESE TAXES, I'M NOT GOING TO ARTICULATE IT'S A BAD CONCEPT FOR US TO LOOK AT PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO RENT THEIR HOMES OUT IN THIS MANNER, I'M JUST GOING TO ARTICULATE THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT DO ALL THOSE THINGS AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WE AS LEGISLATORS OUGHT TO DECIDE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA BEACH TALKED ABOUT UBER AND LYFT AND WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LAST YEAR IN THIS BODY TALKING ABOUT UBER AND LYFT, THAT WAS THE PROCESS. THAT WAS THE PROCESS DONE AND THAT IS A TECHNOLOGY FORMAT JUST LIKE AIR BNB OR OTHERS ARE TECHNOLOGY FORMATS. THE PRODUCT IS STILL ON THE GROUND IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, JUST LIKE UBER AND LYFT, INDIVIDUALS WANTED TO USE THEIR OWN VEHICLES TO DRIVE PEOPLE AROUND, THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS WANT TO RENT OUT THEIR HOMES AND MAKE SOME EXTRA REVENUE. THAT MAKES SENSE BUT THERE ARE THINGS WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT. IF SOMEBODY GETS INJURED AT THAT HOME, WHO IS LIABLE? WHO'S INSURANCE GOING TO PAY? IS YOUR HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE YOU DID NOT DISCLOSE YOU HAD SOME INDIVIDUAL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS GOING ON, ARE THEY GOING TO BAY? WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT. MR. PRESIDENT, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION TO THE EXTENT IT SAYS ARTICLE 10, SECTION 7 NO MONEY WILL BE PAID OUT OF THE STATE TREASURY, HOW ARE WE GETTING IT BACK TO THE LOCALITY, UNLESS WE PUT IT BACK IN THE BUDGET THEY WON'T GET ANY IF WE WANT TO DO THIS, LET'S DO REVENUE. IT THE RIGHT WAY, LET'S GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE QUESTIONS VERY DELIBERATELY, WE MAKE DECISIONS ON WHAT TO DO OR WHAT NOT TO DO, WE WILL PROBABLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES, WE WON'T ALL BE HAPPY BUT WE WILL BE THE ONES SETTING THE POLICY INSTEAD OF TAKING WHAT IS BEFORE US THAT IS NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT AND MOVING IT OUT ON THE PUBLIC OF VIRGINIA. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY, SENATOR NORMENT.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): I REALIZE I'M A LITTLE OF DON QUIXOTE AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING I SAY WILL CHANGE THE MIND OF ANYONE IN HERE BUT SOMETIMES INFORMED CONSENT EVEN WHEN YOU MAKE A BAD VOTE IS A GOOD THING. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LOCALITY IN VIRGINIA THAT HAS COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. INCLUDING NORTHERN VIRGINIA, PORTSMOUTH, NONE OF THEM. YOU MIGHT FEEL LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS INTRUSIVE, I DON'T FIND THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS INTRUSIVE, I THINK SOMETIMES WHEN THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL POLICY CHANGES THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED. WHAT ARE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT? THOSE FROM RICHMOND, THERE IS A PROHIBITION AGAINST AIRBNB. THIS PREEMS AND VOIDS THAT LAW. THIS PREEMPS AND VOIDS ANY EXISTING BILL OF ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE OF THIS BILL. I CHALLENGE YOU TO THINK WHEN WE HAVE DONE IT AS A POLICY IN VIRGINIA BEFORE. MANY OF YOU DID NOT READ THE ORIGINAL BILL, AND I'M NOT BEING UNKIND WHEN I SAY THAT. THERE WAS A PROHIBITION OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU COULD KEEP IN YOUR HOUSE LIKE IF YOU HAD A FIVE-BEDROOM HOME. WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. PRESIDENT, IS A REASONABLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO STAY IN A FIVE-BEDROOM HOME NEXT TO LA LUXURIOUS HOME YOU HAVE? HOW ABOUT 14. 14 PEOPLE AND THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE RELATED COULD STAY IN THAT ONE HOME UNDER THIS BILL. THE CURIOUS THING IS OBVIOUSLY THAT CONSTRAINT WAS NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE NOW THERE IS NO CONSTRAINT IN THIS BILL WHATSOEVER AND YOU WONDER WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS GETTING EXCITED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOU BUT AS I HAVE TRAVELED IN MY MODEST WORLD I HAVE STAYED AT A NUMBER OF B AND B'S. AND WHY DO THEY CALL IT A BED AND BREAKFAST, BECAUSE MEALS ARE SERVED THERE AND FREQUENTLY THE HOST AND HOSTESSES ARE VERY KIND AND THEY NIGHT IN THE EVENING PUT OUT A SASPARILO AND A GOOD BORDEAU OR OTHER WINE. WHAT THIS BILL IS DOING IS DEMOTING B AND B'S TO AN INFERIOR POSITION TO AIRBNB, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE LICENSED. A MOMENT AGO ONE OF OUR FELLOW SENATORS WAS READING AN ADVERTISEMENT ON AIRBNB TO US ABOUT RENTING A ROOM -- RENT A ROOM AND GET BEER! PART OF THE PRICE YOU ARE PAYING. BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE, DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A WHY IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT UPSET LICENSE. AGAIN? THERE IS AN EXPLICIT PRO LABBIST UNOF LOCAL COMMISSIONERS REVIEWING THE FINANCES OF THESE OPERATIONS. WHEN IN THE WORLD HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT PROHIBITION? SO, I APPRECIATE THE ENTHUSIASM, I APPRECIATE THE DEAL MAKING THAT HAS GONE ON ABOUT THIS, THIS BILL HAS GOT SO MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO GRASP AT THIS PERIOD OF TIME AND I KNOW I'M NOT CHANGING ONE VOTE, I THINK ALL OF US ARE VERY HONORABLE IN HERE AND WE TELL SOMEONE WE WILL SUPPORT A BILL FOR WHATEVER REASON BUT THIS IS NOT A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX, SENATOR SASLAW.

Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield): I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN, MR. PRESIDENT. WE HEARD FROM THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA BEACH. THERE WILL BE CHILD MOLESTERS AND DRUNKS, ONLY ONE YOU LEFT OUT WERE TERRORISTS. WHAT ABOUT INSURANCE LIABILITY. IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION BE YOU WILL SEE NOTHING WILL PROHIBIT LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM ADOPTING AN ODDER NAPS REQUIRING MINIMUM OF $500,000 OF INSURANCE. YOU ALL NEED TO READ THIS BILL, RIGHT NOW -- AND THEN WE HEARD OKAY? THE HOTEL INDUSTRY IS GOING TO GO UNDER. I WOULDN'T RUN OUT AND SELL YOUR HILTON STOCK AND MARRIOTT YET. THOSE COMPANIES ARE DOING FINE. BY THE WAY, AIRBNB IS CURRENTLY OPERATING IN THIS STATE AND EVERYWHERE ELSE. THE DIFFERENCE IS -- SO THE HOTELS ARE ALREADY HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT AND THEY ARE HERE AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THIS BILL. RIGHT NOW IF WE WALK AWAY AND DON'T DO ANYTHING IT STAYS THE SAME AS IT IS NOW, NO REGULATION, DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. I GOT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING, IF THIS BILL PASSES AND MY GOVERNMENT ONLY GETS 20 CENTS FROM IT, THAT'S 20 CENTS THAN THEY ARE GETTING NOW. I MEAN IT WOULD BE THE HEIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS AND NOT AT LEAST PUT SOME GUIDELINE OR STRUCTURE IN THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. LISTENING TO THIS TODAY I THOUGHT WE WERE DEALING WITH THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION. FOR CRYING OUTLOUD, IT'S JUST AN OVERNIGHT STAY AT A HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, FIVE, 10, SIX, 18 OF THEM ANYWAY DOUBTERS. THAT'S SOMETHING -- BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THEY CAN CONTROL PARKING AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF TO CONTROL WHAT GOES ON THERE. SO RIGHT NOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE GETTING ZERO. THIS PRACTICE IS GOING ON HERE IN VIRGINIA AND EVERYWHERE ELSE. THE HOTELS WHO WERE SUPPOSEDLY AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE, IF THAT IS ACCURATE THEY ALREADY ARE. IF WE WALK AWAY AND DO NOTHING, WHAT CHANGES? LIKE I SAID, IF MY COUNTY GETS 20 CENTS OUT OF THIS BILL AFTER IT GOES INTO EFFECT, THAT IS 20 CENTS THAN THEY ARE GETTING NOW. SO, I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU ALL WOULD PASS THIS BILL. THIS IS A GENUINE CASE WHERE SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING, IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE FOR US TO WALK AWAY AND NOT DO ANYTHING AND THERE IS NO NEED TO STUDY THIS BILL, NONE, ZERO.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDON, SENATOR BLACK.

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT MIGHT AMAZE SOME PEOPLE, THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED HOME EXCHANGES AND MY SON AND HIS FAMILY HAVE GOT A HOME OUT IN PEBL BEACH, VERY NICE AREA -- BEBB HE'LL BEACH, VERY NICE AREA, EVERY YEAR THEY GO TO EUROPE, GO TO NETHERLAND, ROME AND TUSCANY AND EXCHANGE HOMES BACK AND FORTH, LIFE GOES ON, IT'S UNREGULATED, THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T GET INVOLVED, DOESN'T HAVE TO DECIDE EVERYTHING THEY DO. AND, IN FACT, MY GOSH, THEY EVEN LEAVE A BOTTLE OF WINE ON THE COUNTER WHEN SOMEBODY ARRIVES. AND LIFE GOES ON. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT GOING TO JUST FINISH, THERE WILL BE LITTLE TWEAKING THAT GOES ON. BUT, HONESTLY, I AM JUST AMAZED THAT WE THINK THAT ENTERPRISE, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE FOR, YOU KNOW, SMALL THINGS, NOT THE GIGANTIC THINGS BUT THE ORDINARY THINGS, WE THINK THEY CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT OUR IN-DEPTH OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE OUR CLAWS IN EVERYTHING. AND AS FAR AS A METH LAB OR SOMEBODY DRINKING TOO MUCH, I'M SURE THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN A HILTON OR A MARRIOTT. I'M SURE THEY HAVE NEVER HAD A WILD PARTY OR HAD SOME DISREPUTABLE PEOPLE ENTER THROUGH THEIR PORTALS. PLEASE, I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY DOABLE, IT'S GOING TO ENRICH THE ECONOMIC FABRIC OF THE STATE AND WE OUGHT TO DO IT AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK, WE WILL BE DOING -- YOU KNOW, FOR THE NEXT TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS, WE'LL BE TWEAKING IT, MAKING LITTLE MODIFICATION, BUT LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN, LET THE INDUSTRY START AND THEN WE CAN DO A LITTLE BIT OF REGULATION. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PASS THIS THANK YOU. BILL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, SENATOR PIKE. SPEAKING TO THE BILL. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. THIS BILL IS ABOUT FOLKS EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR PROPERTY AND LAND, FRANKLY THEY ARE DOING IT NOW, THIS PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK TO GET ON THE BOOKS, ALLOW THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS TO TAKE PLACE. THIS IS A COMMON SENSE BILL, IN FACT MY SEAT MATE AND I WERE PER USING THROUGH THE -- PERUS GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THIS IS NOTHING BUT MONEY GOING BACK TO HELP OUR SCHOOLS AND LEVELS THE FIELD. IT'S TIME WE PASS THIS BILL. THE -- SENATOR VOGEL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I JUST HAVE TO SAY I REALLY, REALLY MISJUDGED THIS BILL. WHEN IT CAME TO ME AND I SAT DOWN AND CONSIDERED HOW THIS WOULD GO AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO BE SURE THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY WILL BE OKAY WITH THIS, THIS IS JUST YOUR RESIDENCE AND WE WORKED THROUGH THIS, ONE OF THE THINGS I DIDN'T MENTION AT THE OUTSET THAT IS IMPORTANT IS WE WORKED WITH THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY TO SAY WE KNOW WHERE THIS IS HEADED AND WE KNOW THAT OUTSIDE THE NARROW SCOPE OF THIS BILL WHICH IS HOMEOWNERS, WHICH I'M TRYING TO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, PREVENT FROM OVERREGULATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, I'M CONCERNED WHERE I THOUGHT THE MUTINY WAS GOING TO COME FROM WAS IRATE HOMEOWNERS WERE GOING TO BE UPSET THAT I WAS TAXING THEM. WHO KNEW THAT PEOPLE WERE GOING TO FLIP OUT THE OTHER WAY, JUST SHOWS YOU SOMETIMES I AM TRULY DUMP AS WOOD. MOVING BEYOND THAT I THOUGHT THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY WOULD EMBRACE THIS BECAUSE WHAT WE WERE DOING FOR THEM IS SAYING ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT WE WILL STUDIED AND, FRANKLY, IT WASN'T GERMANE TO THIS BILL BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, DOESN'T APPLY TO HOTELS AND B AND B'S. ALL THAT STUFF IS NOT IN THIS BILL. WE SAID IF YOU READ THE BILL THAT ALL OF THAT GOES TO A STUDY AND THAT'S THE PART THAT EVERYBODY IS STANDING UP AND TALKING ABOUT AND SAYING THAT NEEDS TO BE STUDIED. THAT NEEDS ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS SIT DOWN AND CONSIDER ALL THOSE ISSUES ABOUT AN ONLINE THIRD PARTY COMING IN AND CONSIDERING HOW WE WILL MANAGE THAT. AND TO ALL THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, I JUST WANT TO SAY IN DEFENSE OF THIS BILL AND CERTAINLY ANYBODY WHO HAS LOCALITIES CONCERNED, ANYBODY WITH FOLKS IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY CONCERN, FOR SURE YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT THE BILL BUT I NEED TO ADVOCATE FOR THE BILL AND SAY FOR ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS, OUTSIDE OF THIS LIMITED SCOPE OF YOUR OWN HOME, ALL OF THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED AND THAT LONG TERM STUDY. TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, GOSH, WHAT IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN FOUR PEOPLE STAY AT THE HOUSE OR WHAT ABOUT FIRE OR WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE LOCAL ORDINANCES. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE LOCAL ORDINANCES CAN STILL EXIST. A LOCALITY CAN PASS ALL THOSE LOCAL ORDINANCES. THOSE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, GLAD THEY WERE RAISED AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT. LOCALITIES, THAT IS WHAT LOCALE 'TIS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU CAN LIMIT AND REGULATE ALL THOSE THINGS, HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BE IN THE HOME. THAT'S 100% STILL UNDER THE PERVIEW OF THE LOCALITY AND TO THE EXTENT ANY OF THOSE BAD THINGS ARE HAPPENING, TODAY THOSE LOCALITIES CAN PURSUE ANYBODY WHO IS BREAKING THE LAW RIGHT NOW IN VIOLATION OF THOSE ORDINANCES. WITH THAT, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE BODY PLEASE CONSIDER THE BILL AND PASS THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE CITY, SPEAKING TO THE BILL. SENATOR EDWARDS. SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS WASN'T ON MY RADAR SCREEN UNTIL RECENTLY, I LOOKED AT IT AND READ IT AND I'VE HEARD NOTHING BUT NEGATIVES FROM MY LOCAL GOVERNANCE, WHICH IS TO BE EXPECTED. THIS SEEMS LIKE IT WAS THE UBER BILL, TOOK A YEAR TO GET IT READY TO GO. THIS BILL IS NOT READY FOR PRIME THE ISSUES ARE COMPLEX, THEY ARE TIME. NUMEROUS. IT SAYS PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. HAVE WE THOUGHT THROUGH ALL THE LAWS THAT ARE BEING PREEMPTIED HERE? THE COMMONWEALTH IS PREEMPTING A LOT OF LAWS. ZONING ISSUES, INSURANCE ISSUES, TAX ISSUES, THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY I'M SURE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS. THERE IS A REASON WHY EVERY LOCALITY I'M AWARE OF IS OPPOSING THIS. THERE'S A REASON AND WE SHOULDN'T JUST BRUSH THAT ASIDE. I THINK AT A MINIMUM, MR. PRESIDENT, WE NEED TO STUDY THIS FOR A YEAR, LOOK AT ALL THE COMPLEXITIES. EVERY TIME I READ THIS I'M THINKING WHAT ABOUT THIS, WHAT ABOUT THAT, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER THING? I THINK IT DEFINITELY NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME, WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE, I ASK THE BILL BE CARRIED OVER AND STUDIED FOR THE NECK YEAR, THAT'S THE ONLY PROPER THING TO DO. THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, SENATOR GARRETT.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, QUICKLY. [LAUGHTER] THE ONLY THING PASSING THIS BILL

---

[Unknown]: LIMITED LODGING ACT WITH A SUBSTITUTE. I MOVE THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THIS IS KNOWN AS AIR BNB BILL. THE SUBSTITUTE ADDS, WELL, FIRST ADDS A REENACTMENT CLAUSE THIS MUST BE REENACTED DURING NEXT YEAR'S SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND DISTRICTS THE HOUSING ADMINISTRATION TO ESTABLISH A WORK GROUP PROVIDING STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES RELATED TO FRAMEWORK SET FORTH AND ALSO, ADDING ON PAGE TWO INTO LOCAL, WHAT LOCALITIES CAN DO, THEY CAN ADOPT ORDINANCES, ETC. THIS WILL PUT THE BILL IN A POSTURE THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE OTHER BODY. AND I JUST DIGRESS, THIS IS LIKE THE LIA DUTY ACT AND THERE WAS A WORK GROUP ON THAT ISSUE. I THANK THE BODY. MR. SPEAKER? GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. MARSHAL.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: I YIELD.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, I UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN SAID THERE IS A REENACTMENT CLAUSE. THE GENTLEMAN INDICATED THERE ARE ACTION THAT'S WERE TO TAKE PLACE BY OFFICIAL BODIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH. HOW DO WE COMPEL THESE BODIES TO UNDERTAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS? MR. SPEAKER, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC, MY WIFE GETS ON ME ABOUT THAT. FIRST OF TWO SECTIONS WILL HAVE TO BE REENACTED. THE FOURTH HAS HOUSING COMMISSIONS IN IT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX SULLIVAN.

[Unknown]: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUICK QUESTION? THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUICK QUESTION? HOW QUICK? I'M LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2016, BEFORE OUR NEXT SESSION? WHAT LINE ARE YOU REFERENCING? IF I'M IN THE RIGHT BILL IT'S LINE 161? I'VE GOT REENACTMENT CLAUSE, LET'S SEE. IS THE GENTLEMAN LOOKING AT SENATE VERSION OR HOUSE SUBSTITUTE? I THINK THE SENATE VERSION. IF EVERYONE ELSE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, I AM, TOO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T A TYPO IN THERE. YES. IT SHOULD BE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE WHICH IS A NUMBER ON THAT. I DID PROMISE A SHORT QUESTION, MR. SPEAKER, I APOLOGIZE. THIS WILL NOT OCCUR UNTIL DECEMBER 1, 2016. THEY HAVE TO REPORT BACK TO US FOR CONSIDERATION DURING 2017 SESSION. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. YOU'RE WELCOME.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE BILL PASS? CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

---

[Unknown]: COME TO ORDER. SERGEANT AT ARMS. WELCOME DELEGATE LOUPASSI. [ INAUDIBLE ] THANK YOU, SENATOR. DESK WILL RECEIVE. COME TO ORDER. PURSUANT TO THE JOINT ORDER, IT IS NOW IN ORDER THAT THE ROLL BE CALLED. AS MANY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE NOMINEE OF THE SENATE AS NAMED BY SENATE RESOLUTION NUMBER 65 TO BE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE. OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY -- MR. PRESIDENT, MR. PRESIDENT? SENATOR FROM ROANOKE CITY. CAN THE CLERK ANNOUNCE THE PERSON ON THE LIST. THANK YOU. WE WILL STRIKE THE BOARD. THE HOUSE HAS NOMINATED THE HONORABLE JANE M. RAUSCH OF FAIRFAX AS JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA FOR A TERM OF 12 YEARS COMMENCING MARCH 1ST, 2016. SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. AS MANY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE NOMINEE OF THE SENATE AS NAMED BY SENATE RESOLUTION NUMBER 65 TO BE A A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE. OPPOSED NO.

---