GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga. — A Gwinnett city says it hopes to combat crime with a new set of laws aimed at long-term stay hotels, but homeless advocates warn it could have “unintended consequences” for homeless residents.
Snellville’s new city ordinance, which is already in effect, includes a limit on how long guests can stay; 180 days consecutively is the maximum, and those who stay 180 days cannot start a new stay for 90 days.
Before the ordinance’s passage, there was no time restriction for long-term hotel residents. The city also requires hotel residents to have a car and register it with the hotel.
In addition, the ordinance bans hourly room rentals and prohibits air-drying of clothes on clotheslines, balconies or outdoor railings. Hotels that violate the ordinance can be declared a public nuisance and forced to close.
For now, the rules apply to only one long-term stay hotel in the city limits — Intown Suites — but any hotel that opens in the future must also comply.
The ordinance is intended to prevent crime and promote public safety, said Councilman Dave Emanuel. The ordinance cites research from the U.S. Department of Justice that found extended stay hotels can become hubs for crimes including sex trafficking, prostitution, and drug manufacturing and sales.
“They’re potential public safety hazards,” Emanuel said. “We tried to pass an ordinance that will minimize or eliminate those problems because we have 20,000 residents we have to worry about.”
The Gwinnett County Solicitor General’s Office recently cited similar concerns about crime at extended stay hotels. Five Gwinnett County hotels, all in the Norcross area, were the source of 300 misdemeanors between September 2018 and September 2019, according to the solicitor’s office.
Extended stay hotels, located throughout Gwinnett County, differ from regular hotels in that they typically offer weekly rates and may have features like kitchenettes. For some who can’t afford downpayments and rent on an apartment, the hotels become a temporary home.
Snellville’s ordinance explicitly bans the use of extended stay hotels as “housing of last resort,” which the city defines as “a public or private housing shelter for indigent care.” But in Gwinnett, a “significant” number of the county’s homeless residents use extended stay hotels for just that, said Matthew Elder, director of HomeFirst Gwinnett, an initiative to combat homelessness.
Gwinnett has no homeless shelter currently, but the county’s homeless population is approximately 10,000, according to Elder. A new shelter with about 20 beds for women and children is expected to open in March, Elder said.
“Too long the extended stay system has functioned as a de facto shelter system,” Elder said. “I don’t necessarily even disagree with the city about what they’re trying to address, but we want to make sure there are not any unintended consequences on this population.”
In a 2019 study, the city of Norcross found that 84% of people in that city’s nine extended stay hotels considered them their place of residence. About 66% said they had lived in an extended stay hotel for a year or more. People who live in extended stay hotels can often fall into a “trap” of paying so much for their lodging that they’re unable to save for an apartment deposit, Elder said.
“They see a weekly or daily rate that seems affordable,” Elder said. “But over time they end up paying more than they would in rent, and they cannot afford to get out of it. It’s a vicious cycle.”
Extended stay hotels can also become the only option for people who are struggling financially and have a difficult time getting approved for a lease because of credit history or past evictions, Elder said.
An attorney for Intown Suites said at the December City Council meeting where the ordinance was passed that Intown Suites believed the ordinance to be unconstitutional, but so far no legal challenge has been filed. Intown Suites’ attorney, Eric Stolze of law firm Paul Hastings, did not respond to more than a dozen phone calls for comment.
Councilman Emaunel said he and his colleagues “aren’t concerned” and do not believe the ordinance violates the state or federal constitution.
“I don’t see how protecting someone’s public safety can violate anyone’s constitutional rights,” Emanuel said.
This article was written by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution