SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – After lengthy litigation on the citizen’s initiative Measure T, which prohibited short-term vacation home rentals (VHRs) in residential areas, El Dorado County’s Superior Court deemed that the measure’s wording was unconstitutional and struck the entire measure. The city of South Lake Tahoe is now deciding whether or not to file an appeal once they receive entry of judgement.

Measure T was passed in November 2018, though the South Lake Tahoe Property Owner’s Group (SLTPOG) contested it just a month after it was enacted. In September 2020, the court issued an order that found their “unconstitutional” claims were unsubstantiated. SLTPOG appealed the order and requested a stay on the measure while the appeal was in place. The court of appeal denied a request for a stay in April 2021, so Measure T proceeded as written.

Now, Superior Court Judge Gary S. Slossberg’s ruling from the November trial last year has deemed a key part of the measure as unconstitutional: the permanent resident exception. This exception allowed permanent residents to rent their properties on a short-term basis, for up to 30 days a year.

The court found that the city violated the dormant commerce clause, and that the permanent resident exception did not advance “a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by nondiscriminatory alternatives.” This was the crux of SLTPOG’s argument, as they claimed the measure discriminated against out-of-state property owners in favor of local residents.

The city acknowledged that some of the methods that could reduce nuisances, such as full cost recovery for VHR complaints, establishing a minimum required stay, limiting the number of VHR nights per year, and restricting VHRs from operating in single-family structures had not been tried yet—ideas that the court found as reasonable, nondiscriminatory alternatives, along with alternative ideas in the 2017 study sponsored by the city titled “Socioeconomic Impacts of Vacation Home Rentals in South Lake Tahoe.”

Previously, the city argued that providing income to offset housing costs, which promoted housing affordability for residents was a legitimate local purpose—but it wasn’t brought up during this trial, and thus was deemed waived. Slossberg noted that that outcome could also be accomplished without the exception.

According to the city’s press release from public information officer Sheree Juarez, the city argued that “even if the permanent resident exception were unconstitutional, it should be severed from the remainder of Measure T so that the rest of the measure could continue to be implemented.”

But Slossberg disagreed. He ruled that the entire measure had to be struck down because the exception was unseverable from Measure T without changing the character of what was presented to voters. “Finding that the remainder of Measure T is severable would be putting in place a prohibition on all VHRs in residential zones, a measure that was never put before the voters and therefore not fully considered by them,” he wrote.

The court has not yet officially recorded the court’s decision, a process known as entry of judgement. However, once this occurs, the city will have 60 days to decide if they will file an appeal.

Eli Ramos is a reporter for Tahoe Daily Tribune. They are part of the 2024–26 cohort of California Local News Fellows through UC Berkeley.