||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||
On the table at the Planning Commission’s October 15 meeting was a public hearing on the commission’s deliberations over setting a cap on vacation rental permits before the moratorium on new permits runs out in January. If any issue has run a cycle of seemingly endless debate and discussion, it is this one, which plays out as a proxy for the tension between those who are happy with the pace of development and growth in the county and those who see warning signs and threats to quality of life.
The battle lines have been drawn for some months now, and the issues are clear enough, though time has brought further refinements to some of the arguments and a clearer sense – short of an island-wide survey – of where people (and their agendas) stand.
Competing Realities
Approximately 50 people showed up virtually to the hearing, and most had something to say. The issue at hand was whether to honor the PCs original recommendation to cap the number at “complaint and active” (413), accept its revised proposal of “all compliant” (650), establish a higher number, or abandon the idea of a cap altogether. Again, it was noteworthy that no one who spoke from San Juan advocated for a cap, while the split on Orcas, which has been strongly in favor of the most rigorous limit, was more balanced.
The sentiment on Lopez was mixed. One speaker claimed that 95% of Lopezians were in favor of a cap, while a survey of VR owners by Lopez-based Hosting on the Rocks reported that only 17% of those surveyed would turn their rental into long-term housing if their permits were revoked – a possibility that, well, has never been a possibility unless they failed to comply with the current ordinance. Then again, the finding suggested that the connection between VRs and available housing was more tenuous
than some would have you believe, though without better data, this remains a speculation.
The stark contrast between competing interests was made clear by the two surveys presented. The Vacation Rental Working Group’s latest boasted 619 signatures and 295 comments; Hosting on the Rocks claimed 369 signatories in opposition. The point was also raised that one of the groups most affected by issues around rentals and housing – the county’s Hispanic population – has not had a voice at the table. And so without adding too much to what has already been debated over the previous months, a few observations/comments stood out:
- The lack of a cap essentially advantages “those who are not yet owners over current residents and community needs” and “incentivizes VR rentals over local housing solutions.”
- “Do we want teachers and plumbers or more visitors?”
- The “loss of a sense of community” continues to echo on Orcas Island where the concentration of VRs is far higher than elsewhere.
- “What about the people who come after us? What will our legacy be? Who will our decisions attract? What message are we putting out?”
- “The ferry system is broken and you want more tourists?!”
Those against emphasized the following:
- “VR owners are being scapegoated for problems created by over-tourism.”
- “What about local residents who really need the income, or may not need it now but will in the future if they want to stay on the island?”
- A cap will drive unpermitted rentals.
- Long-term renters cause more damage (and arguably use more resources) than tourists.
- “A cap will not help generate the number of housing units the county needs (1,500, according to the 2019 Housing Needs Assessment).”
- And always the veiled threat of lawsuits. . .
Two hours later, it was time for the commissioners to deliberate.
Pending Council Approval . . .
Commissioner Mike Pickett wasted no time getting to the crux of the issue: “The question is: How long do we want to freeze this thing?” Planner Adam Zack updated the commissioners on the status of the DCD’s enforcement efforts, guessing that “a year from now, there might be a many as 700 compliant permits.”
Nick Knoellinger added that, “I don’t expect much attrition. A cap may have the opposite effect, and we’ll never get down to whatever number we set.”
Sheila Gaquin noted that, “The moratorium was originally designed to give us time to get questions answered, and we’ve only focused on caps. We still need time to deal with these other issues.” She then made a motion to uphold the original August decision to cap the number of permits at 413 (“compliant and active” as of July 28).
Surprisingly (or not), the motion wasn’t seconded. The commission was clearly willing to slow down the decision process after their own ruminations and the latest rounds of public comments. They then circled back to last month’s decision to cap the number at 650 and whether to add a time limit to see the results of the DCD’s enforcement efforts, which “will force another round of fact-finding.”
Their shift in sentiment also seems to speak to the limits of a cap in solving more complex problems. It’s essentially a blunt instrument that doesn’t address such issues as island-specific needs or differentiating between local and corporate ownership or determining resource limits to population or visitor growth. But it does bring such issues to the surface.
David Kane than made a motion to amend the amended ordinance recommending a cap of 650 by adding “for a period of five years.” It was seconded and then followed by a discussion over the wisdom of a shorter or longer time frame. In the end, the commission voted 6 – 1 in favor of the motion.
Discussion then pivoted to “the findings” (see previous Orcasonian article), which are intended to provide both justification and context for the recommendation. When the conversation bogged down over what to emphasize, such as the impacts on housing, the need for a consultant, the benefits of VR revenue to owners, and so on, Zack reminded the commissioners that, “Whatever the findings, the County Council will make their own decisions.”
Ultimately, the commissioners agreed to delete the findings from their recommendation, leaving the cap # and time limit. The proposed ordinance now goes to the Council, which will not only decide on the findings, but the cap itself. And there’s no guarantee that even 650 will get by the watchful eyes of Jamie Stephens and Christine Minney.
By-the-way, Planning Commissioner Sheila Gaquin is the most thoughtful of the commissioners. She said, “The moratorium was originally designed to give us time to get questions answered, and we’ve only focused on caps. We still need time to deal with these other issues.” She then made a motion to uphold the original August decision to cap the number of permits at 413 (“compliant and active” as of July 28).
I would like to comment on the arguments by people who oppose a cap:
They do not address the deepest wound caused by over-concentration of short-term vacation rentals: loss of a sense of community. This is acutely felt on Orcas Island where the percentage of short-term rentals is the highest.
VR proponents talk about their fear of losing income, but the cap would not deprive anyone who current has a compliant and active permit from doing business. Those who have compliant, but inactive permits, have chosen not to have the short-term vacation rental income.
It is true that our lack of affordable rental housing will not be completely solved by restricting short-term vacation rentals, but even a small shift from short-term VRs to year-round rentals will help.
As for lawsuits, restrictions on short-term vacation rentals have been in place for many years in many areas in the United States. Show me the lawsuits that have prevailed. Then we can avoid those very limited provisions that might not have withstood legal scrutiny.
There are ways of dealing with short term rentals that minimize impacts on residentail neighborhoods. Vacation rentals are not allowed in residentially zoned neighborhoods in Anacortes. The only form of short term rentals are BnBs which have more stringent requirements than vacation rentals. Anacortes allows vacation rentals in commecrial areas such as the CBD, and marine commercial.
Ok, thanks again Matthew gilbert no
It’s worth pointing out that the newly instituted annual Vacation Rental Certificate of Compliance fee is $145 online or $160 if you prefer paper or email. Multiply that by 650 permits and you get $94,250 – 104,000 per year in FEES that come straight out of the pockets of tax paying citizens who simply want to utilize their own property as they see fit. Property that they bought and paid for and ALREADY pay ever increasing property taxes on. Is it any wonder that it is so difficult for a middle class family to live, work and grow old in San Juan County? According to the SJC EDC an estimated 50% of the population of Orcas Island qualifies for food assistance! One of the reasons this is becoming a place only populated by the very rich and the very poor, with not very many of us left in the middle, is the excessive taxes, fees and ridiculous regulatory barriers to starting, owning and operating a small business. Compliance fees are a perfect example of this insanity.
$145.00 a year for the compliance fee? The VRs that surround my house are full ALL year round. At least a hundred bucks a night minimum. I think the middle class will be just fine.
Two council members were promoted into office by a minute grassroots anti vacation rental “not in my back yard” group. This group has and will never quantify a “problem” with vacation rentals. Only the emotional kind of “problems” Too much traffic, sucking the neighborhood dry of spirit, taking away from low income housing, overuse of water resources, filling up of septic tanks, garbage being thrown unto other’s yards, horses being left on private property, children play “horsie” on the neighbor’s propane tank. Not one of these “emotional” “problems” can justify the attack on private individuals running thier own “cottage” industry businesses, of course as long as they comply with the rules and regulations of the governing body. Those that don’t get fined and permits revoked. This is a direct asult on a citizen’s “right” to do what they wish with thier hard earned property. I have listed and listened and observed this continued “statement of a problem” . This “Cap” on vacation rentals is a blow to free enterprise on this Island. It is an attack that will trickle down to where ever they want to illegally restrict your right to operate anything. Have any of the opposition ever sat down with an owner (who by the way is your neighbor that you shop with.) and even cared to see what it takes to operate a vacation rental? Of course not, we have been the “fall” guy for those who’s real agenda is to restrict tourism. They believe that if there is no where to stay, no one will come. If you know anything about the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans. Where there is a need, it will be filled by someone. The opposition has frozen the number of permits to be issued. They are next going to try and get inactive permits thrown out by raising the annual compliance fees. What they have done though is effect the natural balance of attrition and growth. They have made the ownership of a permit, even more valuable. They will make the “inactive” permits, become active…thus increasing thier perceived “problem”. Too much taxpayer’s money and time has been spent on this “Anti Tourism” attack on islander’s businesses. In “fixing” a non existent problem, you have actually instigated an increase in VRBO’s activities. Way to go.
Norris, when you say “who, by the way is your neighbor that you shop with”. Is an incorrect statement. None of the VRs that surround my home, with three young children, live here. EVER. Never met them. In 5 years. They are businesses, owned by off islanders. I agree that there are some VRs out there as you described, but fewer than you think. 650 is probably a good number, unless you, of course own a local BNB or hotel that is empty.
Thanks for a new VR article. It gets too quiet on this site without that topic to get everyone riled up!