Different Wording, Same Idea: Comparing Gillette’s Bill and Kentch’s STR Policy.

Aug 19

11 min read

A review of Arizona legislation shows the idea behind Mohave County’s short-term rental classification policy did not begin in 2026—and that both Republicans and Democrats have proposed it.

MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ — The debate over Mohave County Assessor Jeanne Kentch’s decision to classify certain full-time short-term rentals as commercial property has generated questions about where the idea came from, whether the approach is unprecedented, and which homeowners are actually affected.

A review of Arizona legislative records shows something important: the central concept behind the policy has been proposed at the Arizona Legislature multiple times, under different wording and by lawmakers from both political parties.

One of the clearest examples came from Mohave County’s own State Representative John Gillette.

Gillette’s HB 2316 Used the Same Core Classification Concept

In 2025, Republican Rep. John Gillette introduced HB 2316, “short-term rentals; property classification.” The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives Leo Biasiucci, Michael Carbone and Laurin Hendrix and then-Senator Hildy Angius. The official bill contained in the legislative record confirms Gillette was the prime sponsor.

HB 2316 proposed placing into Class One property real property and improvements that were:

“primarily leased or rented to lodgers for periods of less than thirty days.”

But there was an important exception.

The proposed Class One treatment expressly excluded property occupied by the owner as the owner’s primary residence. (Arizona Legislature)

That distinction is critical.

Gillette’s proposal was not written to simply declare every Airbnb, room rental, casita or occasional vacation rental commercial. The operative word was “primarily.”

The basic concept was to distinguish a residential property that happens to be rented from property whose primary use is providing short-term lodging.

Kentch’s Current Policy Uses Nearly the Same Basic Test

Mohave County Assessor Jeanne Kentch’s current policy uses different wording, but the central concept is remarkably similar.

Kentch has said the county is changing the classification of properties that are “primarily operated as full-time short-term rentals.” She also said the county is not changing the classification of owner-occupied primary residences or homeowners who rent their homes only during certain portions of the year. In our article.

Compare the language:

Gillette’s HB 2316: properties “primarily leased or rented” for stays under 30 days. (Arizona Legislature)

Kentch’s policy: properties “primarily operated as full-time short-term rentals.” (The Standard)

Those are not word-for-word identical standards. But they are plainly built around the same underlying distinction: primary residential use versus primary short-term lodging use.

Another connection between the two should not be overlooked.

The Arizona Capitol Times reported that Kentch helped draft HB 2316, which Gillette sponsored in 2025. Kentch later referred to the legislation as “my bill” while discussing its failure to receive a hearing. (Arizona Capitol Times)

In other words, these are not two completely unrelated approaches that happened to resemble one another.

The legislative proposal and the current county policy are connected.

What About Casitas, Guest Houses and Shared Homes?

This has been one of the largest areas of confusion.

According to Kentch’s published explanation, a homeowner with a casita or guest house on the property can remain residential as long as the property’s primary use remains residential.

The policy also specifically says owner-occupied primary residences are not being reclassified.

That means someone living in his or her home while renting a room, sharing part of the residence, or operating a qualifying casita on the same primary residential property is not what the policy describes as a full-time commercial STR.

Gillette’s HB 2316 similarly protected owner-occupied primary residences by expressly excluding them from the proposed Class One STR category. (Arizona Legislature)

Arizona’s Class Four language also recognizes certain owner-resident lodging arrangements, including residential property of up to eight rooms rented to transient lodgers by an owner who resides on the property.

Individual properties can still depend on their parcel configuration and actual use, but the public documents do not support the claim that every casita, shared home, or occasional rental is automatically being treated as commercial property.

Then Came HB 2362 — This Time Led by a Democrat

The same concept resurfaced at the Legislature in 2026.

HB 2362, titled “property classification; short-term rentals,” proposed placing short-term rental properties into Class One when they were rented for periods of less than 30 days for more than 180 days during a calendar year. (Arizona Legislature)

Once again, the bill exempted property occupied by the owner as the owner’s primary residence. (Arizona Legislature)

And this proposal was not led by a conservative Republican.

HB 2362 was introduced by Democratic Rep. Quantá Crews. The official legislative record lists Crews along with Selina Bliss, Patty Contreras, Sarah Liguori, and Betty Villegas. (Arizona Legislature)

Arizona Legislature records identify Crews, Contreras, Liguori and Villegas as Democrats. (Arizona Legislature)

So by 2026, legislation establishing a defined line between residential short-term rental activity and heavier commercial-style STR activity had become a bipartisan proposal, not something originating solely with Kentch or Republican lawmakers.

HB 2362 simply used a more specific numerical threshold: more than 180 days per calendar year for Class One treatment. The same bill kept rentals at 180 days or fewer within Class Four under its proposed framework.

Democrats Proposed Similar Class-One Treatment Even Earlier

HB 2362 was not the first Democratic effort involving this concept.

In 2024, Democratic Sen. Juan Mendez introduced SB 1543, joined by Senators Lela Alston, Mitzi Epstein and Priya Sundareshan.

Among numerous changes dealing with online lodging, SB 1543 proposed adding to Class One property residential properties solely leased or rented to lodgers for periods of less than 30 days.

Once again, the legislation expressly carved out property occupied by the owner as the owner’s primary residence. (Arizona Legislature)

The bill's official introduction lists Mendez, Alston, Epstein and Sundareshan as its sponsors. (Arizona Legislature)

That provides another important piece of context: commercial classification of dedicated short-term lodging properties has been considered across party lines for years.

Same Framework — Different Wording

HB 2316, HB 2362, SB 1543 and Mohave County’s current approach are largely the same policy, just written and phrased differently.

The details and thresholds vary, but the central idea remains the same: properties primarily used as short-term lodging businesses are treated differently from owner-occupied or primarily residential properties.

Gillette’s HB 2316 used the phrase “primarily leased or rented” for stays under 30 days, while HB 2362 used a more-than-180-days-per-year threshold. Both protected owner-occupied primary residences.

The “Big Government Liberal” Argument Raises a Consistency Question

The debate has also moved beyond the actual language of the short-term-rental policy and into political labels.

In a public Facebook discussion involving The Mohave Insider, political consultant Holly Dietrich, who has been publicly associated with Rep. John Gillette and his political efforts, defended describing Mohave County Assessor Jeanne Kentch as a “big government liberal.”

In explaining the phrase, Dietrich wrote publicly that:

“Big government liberal” means she is happy to expand government services and tax more to fuel that expansion, without the will of the people.

That public comment can still be found indexed in the Facebook discussion.

Dietrich’s criticism centered on the argument that Kentch is expanding governmental authority and increasing taxation beyond what the Legislature intended by applying commercial classification to properties being operated primarily as full-time short-term lodging businesses.

But that argument raises several important questions that deserve examination.

The Assessor Is Required to Review Property Classifications

First, reviewing the classification of property is not some newly invented authority of the Mohave County Assessor.

Arizona law specifically states:

“Each county assessor shall review assessment information, on a continuing basis, to ensure proper classification of residential dwellings.”

The same statute specifically discusses identifying property that may be rented while classified as Class Three and establishes procedures for determining when property is no longer properly classified as an owner-occupied primary residence. (Arizona Legislature)

Arizona law separately requires county assessors to make a diligent inquiry into taxable real property, determine its full cash value, and place that valuation on the tax roll. (Arizona Legislature)

Arizona law makes clear that reviewing property use, valuation, and classification is part of a county assessor’s statutory responsibility.

That is exactly what Kentch is doing: examining whether properties are being classified according to how they are actually used.

Calling that an expansion of government authority ignores the basic role of the assessor’s office. Ensuring that properties are properly classified and taxed is not outside the assessor’s job — it is a core part of it.

The disagreement may be political, personal, or both. Some critics, including Holly Dietrich and others who have publicly opposed Kentch’s approach, may view the issue through a political or personal lens.

But regardless of anyone’s political affiliation, personal opinion, or relationship with the people involved, Arizona law already requires the Assessor to review property and ensure it is correctly classified.

Political disagreement does not change the basic responsibilities of the office.

The Assessor Does Not Set Property-Tax Rates

The Mohave County Assessor does not set property-tax rates.

Mohave County’s own explanation of Arizona’s property-tax system makes that distinction clear: the assessor determines property value and classification, while the various taxing jurisdictions establish the tax rates applied to that value.

A change in classification can result in a property owner paying more because different property classes carry different assessment ratios. But that is not the same thing as the assessor personally raising the tax rate.

The assessor’s responsibility is to determine valuation and ensure property is properly classified. Taxing jurisdictions determine the tax rates.

This is not difficult information to find. Anyone willing to spend a few minutes doing basic research into the assessor’s job duties can understand the distinction between classifying property and setting tax rates.

Criticism is fair, but it should be based on an accurate understanding of what the Assessor’s Office actually does, not on claims that assign the office powers it does not have.

Then There Is John Gillette’s Own Bill

This is where the political criticism becomes particularly difficult to separate from the legislative record.

Republican Rep. John Gillette sponsored HB 2316 in 2025, along with Representatives Leo Biasiucci, Michael Carbone and Laurin Hendrix and then-Senator Hildy Angius.

Gillette’s legislation proposed putting into Class One property that was:

“primarily leased or rented to lodgers for periods of less than thirty days.”

The proposal expressly excluded an owner-occupied primary residence from that Class One treatment.

That is remarkably close to the fundamental policy distinction now being made by Kentch:

Is the property primarily being used as somebody’s home, or is its primary use the operation of a short-term lodging business?

The bills and county policy are not literally identical, and The Mohave Insider is not claiming otherwise. Their thresholds and statutory mechanisms differ.

But describing them as completely unrelated would ignore the obvious similarities.

Gillette attempted, through legislation, to place properties primarily used for stays of less than 30 days into Class One.

Kentch is applying a classification approach to properties she says are primarily operated as full-time short-term rentals.

And the following year, Democratic lawmakers proposed yet another version of the concept.

HB 2362 would have placed properties rented for stays shorter than 30 days for more than 180 days per calendar year into Class One, while again expressly excluding an owner’s primary residence.

Rep. Quantá Crews introduced that bill, and Democratic lawmakers Patty Contreras, Sarah Liguori and Betty Villegas were among its sponsors.

In other words, different legislators from both parties have attempted to address essentially the same policy question through different statutory wording.

So The Mohave Insider Asked the Obvious Question

When Dietrich characterized Kentch’s actions as those of a “big government liberal,” The Mohave Insider raised a simple consistency question:

If Jeanne Kentch is a “liberal” for attempting to classify full-time short-term lodging operations as commercial property, what does that make Rep. John Gillette, who sponsored legislation attempting to put properties “primarily leased or rented” for stays under 30 days into Class One?

That question is not an accusation that Gillette is a liberal.

It asks whether the same political standard is applied consistently.

If the policy itself constitutes “big government liberalism,” then logically the political affiliation of the person proposing it should not change that characterization.

If Gillette’s proposal was instead a legitimate Republican attempt to ensure properties were classified according to their actual use, then it becomes considerably harder to argue that Kentch is automatically a “liberal” for pursuing substantially the same underlying classification principle.

The disagreement may ultimately be about who has the authority to make that determination — the Legislature, the assessor, or both under existing statutes.

That is a legitimate legal and policy debate.

But it is different from simply attaching a partisan label to the county assessor.

This Is Also Not a Tax on Every Airbnb, Casita or Shared Home

The distinction remains important for homeowners reading the debate.

Gillette’s proposal specifically exempted an owner’s primary residence from its proposed Class One STR classification.

The 2026 proposal likewise excluded property occupied by the owner as a primary residence.

Existing Arizona Class Four provisions also recognize owner-resident transient lodging situations, including certain residential properties in which the owner resides while renting rooms to transient lodgers.

The debate is therefore not accurately described as an effort to turn every Airbnb, casita, guest house or shared home into commercial property.

The central question running through the legislation and Kentch’s approach has consistently been primary use — whether a property remains principally a residence or is principally being operated as a short-term lodging business.

That distinction should remain at the center of the public debate, regardless of whether the official making the argument has an “R” or a “D” next to their name.

The Legislative Record Matters

Whatever position someone takes on Mohave County’s current policy, the public record makes several facts difficult to dispute.

The idea of commercially classifying certain dedicated short-term rentals did not suddenly appear in 2026.

Rep. John Gillette sponsored legislation based on substantially the same classification concept in 2025. Kentch helped develop that legislation. Democrats have introduced or supported similar legislation. And multiple versions have protected owner-occupied primary residences rather than treating every person who occasionally rents part of a home as a commercial lodging operator.

The real policy disagreement is therefore not whether this concept has existed before.

It has.

The disagreement is over where Arizona should draw the line between a residence that earns some rental income and a property whose primary function is operating as short-term transient lodging.

And that is a much more accurate debate than suggesting that every Airbnb, casita, shared home or occasional rental is automatically being converted into commercial property.

When The Mohave Insider Asked for Clarification

The Mohave Insider directly asked Dietrich about the apparent inconsistency.

The question was straightforward: If Jeanne Kentch is being called a “big government liberal” for pursuing a short-term-rental classification approach that closely resembles legislation sponsored by Rep. John Gillette, does that same criticism apply to Gillette?

Rather than directly answering that question, Dietrich shifted the discussion and stated that The Mohave Insider was mischaracterizing John Gillette.

That response raises an additional issue.

The Mohave Insider has argued that Gillette’s HB 2316 and Kentch’s current approach are, in substance, the same policy expressed through different wording. That comparison is based on the actual legislative language and the shared goal of distinguishing properties primarily used as short-term lodging businesses from owner-occupied or residential properties.

Gillette’s HB 2316 proposed moving property “primarily leased or rented to lodgers for periods of less than thirty days” into Class One, while exempting an owner-occupied primary residence.

That is the basis for the comparison.

Calling attention to language contained in Gillette’s own bill is not, by itself, a mischaracterization of his position.

The legitimate debate is over whether Kentch currently has sufficient authority under existing Arizona law to apply that classification administratively, or whether the Legislature first needed to enact additional statutory language.

So The Mohave Insider again returns to the original question:

If commercially classifying properties primarily operated as short-term lodging is “big government liberalism,” why was the same basic classification concept acceptable when Republican Rep. John Gillette sponsored it in HB 2316?

That question remains relevant regardless of party affiliation.

The Mohave Insider reviewed publicly available Arizona legislative documents and published statements concerning short-term rental property classification. This article explains and compares the proposals and should not be interpreted as individual tax or legal advice.