@Lyn13 Their not going to be able to do it. The Attorney General of Texas is fighting Austin's rules and San Antonio would get knocked down also. Here the highlights from one article. I believe the case mentioned down below against Austin was schedule for the courts the end of Spetember and is still on going and the Attorney General is helping with it.
Texas Supreme Court sides with short-term renters, likely bolstering state’s fight against Austin’s ordinance
Friday's ruling doesn't directly address regulations implemented by some Texas cities restricting homeowners' use of services like Airbnb. But it bolsters the case against the City of Austin's short-term rental ordinance in several major ways, lawyers said.
The Texas Supreme Court has sided with short-term renters, delivering a win to Texas homeowners who hope to take advantage of websites like Airbnb and HomeAway, and likely bolstering a separate, ongoing case against the City of Austin’s short-term rental ordinance.
Separate from deed restrictions, there are also local ordinances on short-term rentals in place in more than a dozen Texas cities. While Friday’s ruling doesn’t directly concern those restrictions, the strong attention it gives to property rights and the court's unanimous support for it may well bolster the case of a group of short-term renters and guests who have sued the city of Austin, alleging that its short-term rental ordinance, one of the state’s oldest and strictest, unconstitutionally infringes on their rights.
In that high-profile case — which has drawn the support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — a small group of plaintiffs, represented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, argue that by restricting short-term rentals, the City of Austin prevents homeowners from using their property as they see fit, and treats short-term renters differently than it treats long-term renters.
Rob Henneke, a TPPF lawyer representing those plaintiffs, said Friday that “the Texas Supreme Court got it right.”
“This is a decision affirming private property rights,” he said, noting that the reasoning in the case supports his argument against Austin’s ordinance in several major ways.