The Village of Oak Creek’s short-term rental landscape just changed in a major way — and most of the Village doesn’t know it yet.
At the VOCA (Village of Oak Creek Association) annual meeting on April 18th, the board announced that the HOA’s 2016 short-term rental amendment, which had banned STRs across most of the Village, has been determined to be legally unenforceable. The ban is effectively void, and homeowners within the VOCA HOA can now operate short-term rentals on their properties.
I immediately reached out to VOCA directly to verify. They confirmed it in writing.
When I emailed asking for the meeting minutes, here’s the response I received from VOCA:
We held our annual meeting on the 18th. I don’t have the minutes yet. There will be changes for VOCA. We have been advised that our short-term rental amendment is unenforceable. The board is working on processes that will be taken from here. We are in the beginning stages and I hope we have a solid procedure in place by June or July at the latest. The short answer here is that we cannot stop an owner who is doing short-term rentals.
That’s about as direct as it gets. The board isn’t choosing not to enforce, they’ve been advised they don’t have the legal authority to enforce. That’s a meaningful distinction.
What this actually means
A few important things to understand before anyone owner, buyer, neighbor, etc. gets too far ahead of this:
This applies to VOCA only. VOCA is the largest HOA in the Village and covers a substantial portion of homes there, but it doesn’t cover everything. Sub-associations and separate communities like Sedona Golf Resort, Pinon Woods, Firecliff, Las Piedras, and others have their own CC&Rs and their own rental rules. Those are unaffected by this announcement and I would assume that they plan to continue to enforce short term rental restrictions. However, with this decision coming from the parent HOA, it could bleed down to the sub HOA’s as well. If you’re a buyer, owner, or curious neighbor, the first question to ask is which HOA actually governs the specific property VOCA, a sub-association, or both.
Yavapai County and State STR rules still apply. Arizona state law and Yavapai County regulations around short-term rentals haven’t changed. Owners who operate STRs in VOCA will still need to follow county registration requirements (if any), tax obligations, emergency contact rules, and whatever else applies. VOCA itself is now working on what its own role looks like which could likely be modeled on the City of Sedona’s STR framework, though VOCA doesn’t have the same enforcement infrastructure the City of Sedona does.
As of this writing, it is only a 10-day-old development. The annual meeting was on April 18th. We are not yet seeing a flood of new contracts in VOC, but news of this kind takes time to spread, and the broader market hasn’t fully absorbed it yet.
VOCA’s official statement to members
On May 6, 2026, VOCA distributed a written statement to members detailing the legal history behind the unenforceability finding. With the timeline now on the record from the Association itself — including the original 2017 amendment, the lawsuits, the Kalway v. Dreamland precedent, and the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision — the picture is significantly clearer than what was available at the annual meeting.
The full text of VOCA’s letter to members:
The Village of Oakcreek Association was formed in 1981, and since that time the Association has maintained a strict no–short-term-rental policy. For many years, VOCA relied on the Yavapai County ordinance that prohibited renting residential property for fewer than 30 days.
In 2016, the Arizona Legislature passed a law preventing counties and cities from restricting how residential property owners rent their homes. This change left it up to HOAs to establish their own rules regarding Short-Term Rentals (STRs). In response, VOCA proposed an amendment to our Master Declaration in 2017 restricting rentals of fewer than 30 days. The amendment passed with strong support. Two separate lawsuits were subsequently filed by VOCA members seeking to invalidate the amendment, and in both cases, the courts ruled in VOCA’s favor, confirming the amendment as legal and valid.
In 2022, another lawsuit was filed challenging the STR amendment. The plaintiff argued that they had purchased their property prior to 2017 and had no notice that an amendment could later restrict their ability to conduct short-term rentals. VOCA lost the case. The case hinged on a Kalway vs. Dreamland ruling that required 100% membership approval for an amendment that was not listed in the original Master Declarations. Our original documents did not address short term rentals and therefore that ruling applied. Our lawyers appealed this very unfair ruling that used a six-unit HOA and applied it to an HOA of over 2,000 units. All HOA attorneys that we have spoken to have expressed the same sentiment. VOCA litigated this case through to the Arizona State Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, it therefore confirmed the lower court ruling, which struck down our argument.
At the time, based on legal guidance, we interpreted that ruling as applying only to that plaintiff. However, the same attorney who filed the 2022 case now represented another VOCA owner that seeks to STR. The attorney argued that the Court ruled the entire amendment was null and void. After consultation with our attorneys and four other HOA attorneys and a judge, we have concluded that our amendment is not enforceable and therefore void.
The Village of Oakcreek Association has long taken pride in being a community that does not encourage short-term rentals, but this situation is the one the legal system has presented to us. VOCA will continue to uphold our community standards to the fullest extent the law allows.
We have changed our attorneys and have contracted with a firm that has extensive HOA experience. Presently we are setting up rules and guidelines that we can present to VOCA members that want to engage in STR. What we are proposing will be that those that want to STR must register each year and submit their contact information — name, address, telephone number — along with the agency that will rent the property. We will then give them a list of conditions, using county ordinances, on what they can or cannot do.
To restate, the Arizona courts have ruled our 2017 amendment is invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, STRs are allowed within VOCA. Presently we have not seen a large increase in properties engaging in this practice. Hopefully the atmosphere and character that has been the norm of VOCA will continue and this legal dilemma will not have a long-term impact on the community.
What stands out in VOCA’s statement
A few things in this letter are worth flagging:
The 2017 amendment passed with “strong support” — and survived two earlier court challenges. This wasn’t a poorly drafted rule. The first two times it was tested, VOCA won. The 2022 case turned on a single legal precedent — Kalway v. Dreamland, originally a six-unit HOA dispute — being applied to an HOA of more than 2,000 homes. VOCA, multiple outside HOA attorneys, and a judge all consider that application to be a stretch, but the appeal was unsuccessful and the Supreme Court declined to weigh in.
VOCA initially read the 2022 ruling narrowly. The board interpreted the original loss as binding only on that specific plaintiff. The same attorney returning with a new client and arguing the ruling voided the whole amendment is what triggered the broader reassessment. This is why the news landed publicly only now — the board had to reach a conclusion before it could communicate one.
VOCA is still going to manage STRs, even if it can’t ban them. The board is building a registration framework: annual registration, contact information for owners and rental agents, and a list of operating conditions drawn from county ordinances. This is the closest thing to enforcement they have available, and how robust it ends up being will determine a lot about whether the Village character changes noticeably.
STR adoption hasn’t spiked yet. VOCA notes they “have not seen a large increase in properties engaging in this practice.” That tracks with what I’m seeing from the listing side — there’s buyer interest and curiosity, but not a wave of conversions on the ground. The market is processing this, not stampeding.
Why this matters for property values
Property rights and property values tend to move together. When a property gains a permitted use it didn’t have before in this case, the legal ability to operate as a short-term rental, whether you do so or not, absolutely affects its value in Sedona. Properties that can generate STR income typically command higher prices than otherwise comparable properties that can’t.
For context, homes in the Village have historically traded at roughly 20-25% less per square foot than comparable homes in West Sedona. Some of that gap is location, some is amenities, and some is the rental restrictions that made VOCA properties less attractive to investors. If the rental restriction is now off the table for VOCA governed homes, it’s reasonable to expect at least some of that price gap to narrow over time. How much, and how fast, remains to be seen…
As a third generation real estate professional in Sedona, I’ll be honest the Sedona real estate market is as unpredictable as ever. Anyone who tells you they know exactly how this plays out is guessing. What we do know is that buyer interest in the Village is increasing as this news spreads, and current pricing reflects a market that hadn’t yet priced in the rule change.
Why this is hard for some Village residents
I want to acknowledge directly that this news is going to upset a lot of Village residents who chose VOCA specifically because of its rental restrictions. Many people moved to the Village precisely because they wanted a quiet residential community without the turnover, noise, and commercial feel that STRs can sometimes bring. The 2016 ban wasn’t passed accidentally, it was passed because people wanted it.
The unenforceability finding doesn’t change those residents’ preferences. It just removes the mechanism they had relied on to maintain that community character. That’s a real loss for the Village, and it’s worth saying so.
How VOCA navigates the management piece going forward such as registration, emergency contacts, noise complaints, parking, etc., will matter a lot for how disruptive the change actually feels day-to-day. The board has indicated they’re working on it and aiming for a solid procedure by June or July.
What to do if you’re affected
If you own a home in the Village: First confirm which HOA(s) actually govern your property. VOCA’s announcement doesn’t override sub-association rules. If you’re VOCA governed and considering STR use, I’d wait for VOCA’s procedural framework to be published before launching anything. And confirm your county registration and tax obligations independently.
If you’re a buyer or investor looking at the Village: This is a developing story. The pricing window where VOCA properties haven’t fully repriced for the rule change is real, but it’s also genuinely uncertain how things will shake out. Don’t make decisions based on a blog post alone.
If you have legal questions about what this means for you specifically: Talk to a real estate attorney. Nothing in this post is legal advice, as the situation is evolving daily.
If you want to verify any of this directly: Contact VOCA at vocaonline.com or call (928) 284-1820. They were direct and responsive when I reached out.
My commitment
I’ll keep updating this post as VOCA publishes its procedural framework and as the market reacts. If you want to chat through how this affects a specific property, current listing, or buying strategy, give me a call.
Disclaimer: William Hamburg is an Associate Broker with Realty ONE Group Mountain Desert in Sedona, Arizona. This post reflects his personal observations as a 35+ year Sedona resident. Nothing in this post is legal, tax, or investment advice. Verify all rules with VOCA directly and consult appropriate professionals before making any property decisions.