More than 20 U.S. cities collected over $935 million from short-term rentals since 2019

On June 26, 2026, a new analysis by OpenTheBooks.com revealed that local governments in more than 20 cities collected more than $935 million from short-term rental registration fees, taxes, and fines since 2019. The report highlighted how municipal regulations have created substantial revenue streams for local authorities while increasing the financial burden on property owners and travelers.

Rachel O'Brien, the deputy public policy editor at OpenTheBooks.com, reported that these layers of municipal costs are making it increasingly difficult and expensive for homeowners to operate short-term rentals. The organization argued that these policies limit the ability of property owners to generate supplemental income during a broader national affordability crisis.

What the data shows

The data compiled by OpenTheBooks.com documented that local governments collected more than $935 million from short-term rental registration fees, taxes, and fines since 2019. The vast majority of this revenue came from occupancy taxes charged to renters rather than direct fees on hosts. According to the report, approximately $845 million of the $935 million identified came from occupancy taxes charged to renters.

These occupancy taxes varied significantly by municipality. The analysis showed that cities including Atlanta, Georgia; Burlington, Vermont; and Lexington, Kentucky, assessed occupancy taxes between 8% and 9%. In contrast, San Francisco and Santa Monica, California, charged much higher rates of approximately 14%. These additional costs appeared at checkout, increasing the final price consumers paid beyond the advertised nightly rate.

In addition to taxes, registration fees represented another major cost category. The report documented wide variations in these upfront costs across the United States. New York City charged a registration fee of $145, while Atlanta charged approximately $150. In contrast, California cities imposed much higher registration costs: San Francisco charged approximately $925, San Diego charged roughly $1,000, and Hermosa Beach charged up to $1,600.

Fines and penalties for regulatory violations also generated significant sums for local governments. Clark County, Nevada, collected approximately $4.5 million in fines from short-term rental operators. Palm Springs, California, collected nearly $4 million, and New Orleans, Louisiana, collected roughly $1 million in penalties.

How it was measured

The figures were compiled by OpenTheBooks.com, a public interest group, through a review of financial records from more than 20 cities across the United States. The analysis tracked cumulative collections from short-term rental registration fees, occupancy taxes, and municipal fines over a multi-year period starting in 2019.

The primary source did not publish the complete list of the more than 20 cities analyzed, nor did it disclose the full administrative methodology used to gather the data from each local municipality's registry or tax collection department. The report focused on illustrating the scale of municipal revenue generation by highlighting specific cities with high fee structures, strict enforcement mechanisms, or significant tax rates.

The impact of registration fees and strict parameters

The report argued that registration fees and associated regulatory parameters have been used by some cities to restrict the short-term rental market. In New York City, for example, the registration fee itself was a relatively modest $145. However, OpenTheBooks.com argued that the city set highly restrictive parameters under which a short-term rental unit is considered legal. O'Brien stated that these strict rules effectively eliminated most short-term rentals in the city, suggesting that no reasonable person would consider the policy to be anything other than a functional ban.

In other markets, the sheer size of the registration fees served as a significant financial barrier to entry. While a host in Atlanta paid approximately $150 to register a property, a host in Hermosa Beach, California, faced up to $1,600 in registration fees. San Diego hosts had to pay roughly $1,000, and San Francisco hosts paid approximately $925. These upfront costs must be paid before a host can legally list a property, representing a direct financial risk for property owners who have no guarantee of booking volume.

Enforcement actions and municipal fines

Beyond upfront registration costs, some local governments established substantial financial penalties to enforce compliance. Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, emerged as a primary example of aggressive municipal enforcement. The county assessed fines of up to $10,000 per day against certain property owners who violated local short-term rental ordinances.

Furthermore, the county went beyond simple fines by placing liens on certain properties while enforcement actions proceeded. O'Brien reported that these aggressive tactics directly impacted homeowners' property rights. According to the report, Clark County collected approximately $4.5 million in fines, illustrating the scale of its enforcement campaign.

Other resort and tourist-heavy destinations also collected millions in penalties. Palm Springs collected nearly $4 million in fines, and New Orleans collected roughly $1 million. The report argued that while these properties have become a major source of revenue for local governments, the heavy fines do not help homeowners cover their mortgage payments, particularly when they are blocked from renting their properties legally.

The licensing bottleneck in Clark County

The situation in Clark County, Nevada, highlighted a significant bottleneck between state-level authorization and local-level implementation. A Nevada state law authorized Clark County to license up to 3,000 short-term rentals. However, county officials issued only a little more than 200 licenses since 2023. This slow approval rate left many property owners unable to operate legally, exposing them to the county's steep daily fines if they continued to rent their homes.

This regulatory bottleneck led to legal challenges from local property owners. The report noted that property owners achieved some success in court, with a judge temporarily halting some of the county's regulations while litigation continued. This legal friction underscores the ongoing conflict between municipal oversight and private property rights.

The debate over short-term rental regulations

The findings from OpenTheBooks.com sit at the center of a broader national debate over the role of short-term rentals in local communities. Supporters of strict short-term rental regulations argue that these policies are necessary to address critical community issues. They contend that limiting short-term rentals helps protect housing availability for long-term residents and preserves the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. Compliance with zoning laws and safety standards are also cited as key reasons for municipal oversight. Furthermore, local governments argue that occupancy taxes are a fair way to fund public services used by visitors, matching the tax structures already imposed on traditional hotels.

On the other side of the debate, critics argue that increasingly burdensome regulations and high fees make it difficult for ordinary families to earn supplemental income. This is particularly challenging at a time when many households face high housing costs and broader affordability challenges. Critics suggest that instead of regulating the market to ensure safety and compliance, some cities are using short-term rentals as a municipal funding source at the expense of local property owners.

“Most Americans are facing an affordability crisis. You have extra income available, but in many cities they're charging three or four types of fees or fines or taxes that are snuffing out the free market activity.”

What the data does not tell you

While the report provides a clear picture of the scale of revenue collected by these cities, there are several key details the data does not reveal. First, the analysis does not show the net financial impact on municipal budgets. While cities collected more than $935 million, the report does not disclose how much these cities spent on administrative overhead, software, code enforcement officers, and legal battles to collect those fees and fines.

Second, the data does not establish a direct causal link between short-term rental regulations and improved housing affordability. Although supporters argue that these rules protect housing availability, the report does not provide metrics showing whether long-term rents fell or housing inventory increased in the cities that collected the most fees.

Finally, the report does not track the number of hosts who were forced to sell their properties or transition to long-term renting due to the high costs of compliance. It leaves unanswered whether the reduction in short-term rental listings led to a shift toward unregulated, underground rentals that bypass municipal registration systems entirely.

What to take from it

For short-term rental hosts, property managers, and real estate investors, the growing trend of municipal fee collection represents a permanent shift in the economics of the hospitality industry. To manage these risks, operators should focus on several key indicators when evaluating current or prospective markets.

• Evaluate the total tax burden at checkout rather than just the nightly rate, as high occupancy taxes can significantly reduce a property's competitiveness compared to nearby jurisdictions with lower tax rates.
• Assess the ratio of authorized licenses to issued licenses in a market to identify potential regulatory bottlenecks, as seen in Clark County where only a small fraction of authorized licenses were actually granted.
• Factor upfront registration fees into the initial capital expenditure budget, recognizing that markets with fees as high as $1,600 require a higher volume of bookings just to break even on regulatory compliance.
• Monitor local court dockets and municipal council meetings for ongoing litigation, as legal challenges can temporarily halt aggressive enforcement actions and create windows of regulatory relief.