Monroe County’s Calculated Pause: Opt-Out of State Short-Term Rental Registry Draws Fire as Future Re-engagement Looms

The recent decision by the Monroe County Legislature to formally opt out of the new statewide short-term rental (STR) registry system has ignited a firestorm of criticism, even as county leadership frames the move not as a permanent rejection, but as a strategic, measured pause. The bipartisan measure, reportedly passed on December 9 or 10, 2025, by a vote of 21-8, makes Monroe the sole major upstate county to decline immediate participation in the registration framework established by New York State law in late 2024 and refined in early 2025. While proponents cite the need for prudence and observation, opponents argue the action forfeits basic governmental transparency and surrenders potential revenue, all while being perceived as heavily influenced by industry lobbying.

The controversy centers on a state law that mandates STRs—including platforms like Airbnb and VRBO—undergo safety compliance checks and requires a uniform system for collecting state and local taxes, aiming to level the playing field with traditional lodging establishments and provide data on the housing market. The push to opt out, spearheaded by the County Executive’s administration, has faced strong opposition from local advocates and some lawmakers who believe the county should immediately adopt the oversight tools afforded to it by Albany.

The Possibility of Repealing the Opt-Out Decision Later

A central pillar of the administration’s defense against accusations of dereliction of duty rests on the technical flexibility embedded within the state legislation. Assurances from county spokespersons, including the Director of Communications, confirm that the current opt-out is structurally temporary, offering what they term “flexibility for future adjustments” based on observed external results. This position is grounded in the statute itself, which reportedly allows counties that pass a local law to opt out to later enact a new local law to repeal that decision and formally join the statewide system. This legislative safety valve ensures that the door remains open for Monroe County to transition onto the state’s platform at any point following the initial deadline for opting out.

Legislators who supported the pause characterized the decision as avoiding a “rush decision” and instead building a more deliberate approach to the evolving regulatory landscape. This technical allowance provides a built-in mechanism for reconsideration, effectively transforming the initial vote from a permanent rejection into a temporary deferral, permitting the county to benefit from the initial administrative growing pains experienced by its neighbors before committing internal resources to the platform.

Criticism of the Administration’s Timing and Motivation

Conversely, the process surrounding the opt-out vote drew sharp condemnation. Critics, including prominent County Legislator Rachel Barnhart, pointed out that the legislation to opt out was introduced with “urgency,” bypassing the standard committee process and holding the public hearing on the same day as the final vote. This compressed timeline was cited as evidence that the administration was prioritizing stakeholder interests over comprehensive public debate. Concerns have been raised regarding extensive lobbying efforts involving Airbnb and Ostroff and Associates, a firm employing the son of a close political ally to the County Executive. Opponents maintain that opting out denies residents the transparency afforded by a public registry, which is seen as a “basic tool of governance” essential for understanding the impact of STRs on the local housing stock.

Furthermore, the existing arrangement with Airbnb—a voluntary agreement in place since 2018 to remit the 6% hotel/motel tax—is viewed with skepticism by those in favor of the state registry. They argue this existing deal is “opaque,” lacking the transparency and accuracy assurance of the state-mandated system, even if it generated approximately $1.2 million in hotel/motel tax revenue in the year preceding the vote. A core tenet of the criticism is that opting out risks losing out on the data necessary to craft informed housing policy while simultaneously preserving an unclear revenue stream.

The Strategy of Observing Neighboring Jurisdictions

The administration’s primary justification for the deferral is a calculated “wait-and-see” strategy focused on the immediate outcomes in surrounding municipalities. By declining immediate enrollment, Monroe County has positioned itself as an observer of the early impacts in counties like Erie, Onondaga, and Albany, all of which have reportedly opted into the state system. This allows the county to gather tangible, real-world evidence regarding the registry’s practical application.

The key areas for this observation include:

• Administrative Efficiency: Monitoring how quickly and effectively neighboring counties establish and operate their local registries, including the burden placed on local government staff.
• Tax Collection Efficacy: Evaluating the stability and volume of occupancy tax revenue collected via the state platform versus the county’s existing voluntary arrangement. A specific concern is that opting into the state law could jeopardize the existing, successful voluntary collection agreement with Airbnb.
• Unintended Consequences: Assessing the broader impact on the local STR economy, including any adverse effects on the livelihoods of small-scale hosts who fear added fees, inspections, and regulations will render their businesses unsustainable.

This deliberate observation is intended to inform policy, contrasting with the immediate commitment made by other large counties in the region that have already moved to implement the state’s required framework.

The Condition for Reconsidering State System Adoption

The trigger for Monroe County to reverse its opt-out and formally join the statewide registration process is explicitly tied to a demonstration of superior benefit. County officials have indicated a willingness to opt in at a later date if the state’s mandated process proves to be demonstrably more financially beneficial or superior in its administrative functions compared to the county’s current, self-managed arrangement. This sets a high, data-driven contingency for future action.

If, for example, neighboring jurisdictions report a significant, measurable increase in tax revenue that substantially outweighs the administrative cost and the risk of losing the current voluntary collection agreement, the calculus for Monroe County’s leadership may shift. Similarly, if the state platform proves significantly more robust in data delivery or compliance enforcement than what the county can achieve through negotiation, the administration has signaled a readiness to pivot. This wait-and-see approach places the onus on the evolving regulatory outcomes elsewhere to provide the final justification for commitment to the state structure.

As of December 2025, Monroe County maintains its status outside the mandatory registry, continuing with its existing voluntary tax collection mechanism while the rest of the upstate region navigates the initial phases of the new state oversight. This strategic delay places the county at a unique, if controversial, vantage point in assessing the efficacy of New York’s first-of-its-kind statewide approach to short-term rental management.