— by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter —
Nearly 40 people packed the County Council chambers and an adjacent room for the Commissioner’s regularly scheduled meeting on November 5. Most hailed from Orcas, their purpose to advocate for a vacation rental (VR) moratorium that was the culminating takeaway of three public meetings on Orcas Island.
As VR Working Group Chair Yonatan Aldort noted before the meeting, “To date, the county supervisors have done very little to address the moratorium requests that have already come from the community, especially from the county’s own advisory committees (both the Eastsound and the Deer Harbor Planning Review Commissions). Perhaps it’s inertia. Perhaps it’s reluctance to try something new. In any case, the time is right to change the trajectory of vacation rental permit approvals, and the best vehicle to start that process is a county-wide moratorium.”
In describing the run-up to attending the meeting en masse, Toby Cooper of the VR group added that, “Our message to the council is clear. We are here to demonstrate widespread public support for positive change. This is not about taking away property rights or punishing honest property owners. Rather, it’s about the future. It’s about deciding what kind of island home we want San Juan County to be. And it is not too late to start.”
And given that Commissioner Rick Hughes of Orcas has made clear his resistance to such an action, the mountain went to Moses.
A Litany of Concerns
After a few brief formalities, Commissioner Jamie Stephens opened the Public Comment period by stating that, “We won’t be engaging in discussion but may have questions.” Nearly 20 people took advantage of the opportunity to speak about their concerns regarding VRs, along with a few who opposed the idea of a moratorium.
Jennifer Barcelos, staff attorney for Friends of the San Juans, began by announcing that a week-old petition asking the Council to immediately suspend the issuance of new VR permits had already gathered over 800 signatures (now closing in on 1,000) along with 50+ comments. “We need new regulations that meet the public need,” she said. “Yes, there are economic benefits, but over half of all VR ownership is off-island, and it’s causing numerous problems.”
“The Council is in a key position,” said Cooper. “We’ve done a lot of work for you on this issue and there’s a kind of rainbow coalition behind us. Let’s work together on this.” Pierrette Guimond, a candidate for Port Commissioner, said it was “time for the Council to listen to the people.”
Michael Riordan reminded the Council that “you ignored public input resisting a sidewalk on Haven Rd. even though each of these townhouses has accessory space for a possible VR permit. I also know of an instance where nine people were staying in a two-bedroom VR home. Realtors are marketing to clients with misleading claims of legal unit capacities. A moratorium is a moderate, imminently reasonable solution to sort all this out.”
Carl Butke, a retired consulting engineer, noted that, “current septic regulations allow for two people per bedroom, but when a house converts to a VR, you can add three more people! We need some control over this. Use a moratorium to develop new regulations to bring VRs into compliance with county health standards.”
While Penny Bucky acknowledged that, “Tourism is the price we pay to live is such a beautiful place,” she challenged the notion that VRs are “pro-business.” “I talked to some business owners,” she said, “and discovered that some local hotels have lost 20 – 25% of their business. Rosario hasn’t had sufficient staff to provide full services and are turning people away. Ship Bay may not serve Thanksgiving dinner because they are short on staff. Rose’s has an ongoing need for help.”
Craig Carpenter is one of those local innkeepers (owner of Deer Harbor Inn since 1982) losing business to the proliferation of short-term VRs. “In all the years I’ve been here,” he said, “VRs have been my biggest challenge. Just in the last few years, my occupancy has dropped from 61% to 55% to 49% to 44%. It’s worse than during the recession.
“At the same time, I have to comply with state regulations, standards, and inspections while VRs have no such operating costs or requirements.”
Among the few who challenged to need for a moratorium, one woman shared that, “I own a guest cottage that’s in full compliance. Without it, I could not live on Orcas. One of the proposals being floated is to prevent the transfer of a permit upon sale of a VR. This is my health care plan. I likely couldn’t sell it without such a permit.
“I feel that the current discussions have been biased by the VR working group. We need to take into consideration all factors and perspectives.”
Said Karen from San Juan: “We’ve had a 30-year dream to move here and did all the right things in creating a VR to help us do that. The moratorium would affect our property rights. The County already has the means to manage the issues raised here. I hear nothing that suggests there’s an emergency.” Echoing an inaccurate assumption still held by many, “Homes that are typically VRs are higher end and don’t displace affordable, long-term housing.” [An estimated 27% of all VRs have an estimated value of less than $400k; see previous article in this series.]
“At a minimum,” she concluded, “we need to hear from all the islands.”
We’re at a tipping point here on the island,” said Tiffany Looney. “There are lots of opportunistic off-island buyers and developers. Where is the right balance? We’re losing our environment, our rural sense, and our communities.”
Bob Gamble urged the commissioners to act quickly. “We once banned jet skis, the only county in the state. We dealt with it before the problem became too big. Don’t waste time with more committees to study this. Just do it!”
Stephanie Buffum, executive director for Friends of the San Juans, asked “What will our islands look like if we do nothing to address this? Friends has heard from many regarding negative impacts on sewage, noise, housing, infrastructure, and emergency responder overwhelm as well as threats to rural character and sustainability. Once natural landscapes get trampled, they don’t come back. There are currently no limits to the number of potential VRs in this county.”
She added that the Shaw Island subarea plan bans VRs.
Lastly, Kimberly Secunda, a member of the housecleaning industry, spoke about the challenges of finding a sustainable living situation on Orcas. “I speak for the labor force that takes care of these rentals, that ends up dealing with lots of health department issues,” she said. “When you are seasonal labor, you suffer from a lot of insecurity, lots of displacement. There’s a layer of social and economic shadow in this county.”
“We’re ahead of the ball.”
A lot was aired in an hour, much of which had been heard before. But it barely dented a recalcitrant Council that seemed to have made up its mind well before the session began. “I attended all three meetings [on Orcas],” said Rick Hughes, “and there’s a lot to consider. I appreciate those who don’t agree with a moratorium, who have questioned a process that has given less space to those in opposition. But until we can find new and more ways to bring more revenue to our community, we’ll keep doing code enforcement and let the new 2019 VR ordinance [Ordinance No. 02-2018] play out. The 60+ permits we issue next year will likely be offset by the same number of out-of-compliance units getting their permits revoked.”
“We spent 18 months trying to tweak the current regulations,” said Jamie Stephens, “and it’s generating a lot of fines. There are also ways to deal with bad neighbors, though property tax statements make it hard to identify off- and on-island owners.”
Bill Watson seemed especially unmoved. “I’ve heard a lot of urgency, but you’re about a year late. We’ve been proactive. We looked at every issue for 18 months, had public hearings (with little public input), and came up with a fair and balanced group of new regulations. I would love to see something that we can actually implement. You need to examine what you are asking us to do, provide a list of possible regulations, and make sure it’s in our authority to do them. You did us a disservice by not acknowledging the work we have already done on a complex issue. We serve at your discretion, but regarding this issue, we’re ahead of the ball.”.
What’s next?
So there it is. Orcas Islanders, acting somewhat independently but facing a higher proportion of disruptive impacts (one-sixth of all residential units on Orcas – more than 500 – are VRs), aren’t satisfied with the precision and effectiveness of those new regulations. The Commissioners are standing by them, content to let the chips fall for the foreseeable future. And yet the grievances and impacts will continue to pile up, and it’s anyone’s guess when or if the tide of VRs externalities will start to turn. There is no cap on permits nor are there locational restrictions, septic systems will continue to be stressed, and, under GMA rules, the Eastsound UGA must accommodate at least 50% of new island growth while the majority of new residential units are onboarding with VR priority.
The new ordinance does reflect substantial effort and is certainly a step in the right direction, but only a step. Additional resources provided by the DCD (Department of Community Development), and the intended integration of VRs into the current Comp Plan update, are additional signs that the issue is being taken more seriously. But larger concerns about their impacts on housing, community cohesiveness, rural character, and the island’s carrying capacity, are yet to be addressed – but could be by a moratorium.
Who or what would a moratorium actually hurt? A handful of potential VR owners, most of whom would likely be living elsewhere. And the county’s budget line item for VRs might stall for a time. But these seem small prices to pay given what’s at stake and what is now known. At this point in the process, it’s beginning to look like a faceoff between the needs of the few and those of the common good – which doesn’t preclude imaginative solutions.
The VR group, with considerable public backing, has made a strong case for a moratorium, at least for Orcas Island. With the impacts of VRs expected to accumulate, an updated ordinance is inevitable – or should be. And given the often glacial pace of such changes, why not start now, with renewed intention and a collaborative structure? The clock is ticking.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Is this an editorial? If not, your reporting of this story should be unbiased, not full of your opinion.
In answer to Mr. Christopherson, yes, Matthew doth parenthetically editorialize here but so what. He’s the one who has been to the meetings and followed the bouncing ball. Which is to say, he’s entitled. Nor is he wrong. If the ‘cannabis moratorium’ can sail through with a wink and a nod extension and the VR Moratorium is obfuscated to death then what does that say about the priorities of the council?
Or public process?
Of course, those most impacted are the one’s with skin the game for better or worse, for richer or poorer. Dig?
Please don’t make statements about what “Orcas islanders” want in what purports to be news reporting unless you’ve found the results of a County initiative that presents the question to the public for a vote, not just people who attended unofficial meetings.
Most of the problems cited by the self-appointed work group (which apparently wants Council to accept its work product) were addressed in County rulemaking less than two years ago. The resultant changes in qualification and enforcement have been in effect for only a short while. As I read the statistics, almost half of the permitted VRs failed to apply for continuation and pay the required fee this year. These will be dropped from the rolls as the enforcement mechanisms come into play. The enforcement officer whose salary is supported by the new VR fees is waiting to take complaints and move against the permit holders, but few of the people at the first meeting of this group were even aware that the new rules existed. I believe that there are now grounds for calls to the sheriff in case of serious violations. If you are aware of an unpermitted VR, CALL the enforcement officer. Many have received hefty fines. If you have problems with existing permitted VRs, make your complaints so that they will be part of the record to be considered when renewal comes up again.
The County published notices and held publicized hearings about all of these issues already. It only makes sense to see how the lapsed permit numbers shake out and how well new enforcement mechanisms affect the complaints such as noise and overcrowding before imposing another moratorium. (Remember the guesthouse moratorium that lasted for seven or so years? What good did that do?)
Finally, there has been just as much evidence that most VRs would never be available as affordable housing as to the contrary. Perhaps this is an issue that we need to do real research about; not meetings, petitions, or “surveys” without statistical validity. And we need to focus as much energy on WHY it costs so much to build affordable rental units in the County that no private builders or investors can be encouraged to do so. Perhaps OPAL will be able to report on its experience is the rapidly rising April’s Grove.
P.S. About the “data” on home values cited in these press reports: First, the units evaluated included every vacation rental permit ever issued. The numbers are far smaller now that the new renewal requirement is in effect. Second, even $400,000 homes aren’t considered “affordable,” and I suspect that many of the units that dropped out of the permits are valued lower due to age. In any case, we need real numbers.
Just the fact that we have so many illegal vacation rentals should be a reason to take a pause and do a study on how all vacation rentals are affecting San Juan County. Recently 5 people were shot at a AirB&B rental in California where it was rented for Halloween and promptly advertised as a party on Instagram and attended by 100 guests. AirB&B says that they will make sure that this does not happen again ? How are they going to do this ? First all rental entities should post the permit # to make sure of the rental validation. The damage from the vacation rental comes first and then the battle to rectify begins. I had 4 illegal rentals near my property on a private dirt road that jeopardized my safety and peaceful rural environment. Rural residential area is now commercial ? Other communities all over the world are dealing with this problem and actions are being taken.
Even though they come across as hysterical and primarily self interested, I think the “reporter” and the self appointed Orcas VR workgroup have done valuable work in opening the door for the sort of actions and discussions that will really help our islands moving forward. Some other useful approaches that I’d like to see considered:
1. A local income tax on all income above a certain high amount (perhaps $250k a year per family).
2. There should also be a local income tax on all capital gains income above a certain amount (perhaps $10k a year per family).
3. A revision to local property tax code that removes the “open space” and “ag” exemptions that are mostly just tax loopholes for the 1% who can afford the large pieces of property required to qualify.
4. A tax on all property owners who are not full time residents of the islands (demonstrated by 9 months or more of actual nights spent on island per year).
Income generated by these proposals would be applied towards: schools, health and mental health care, affordable housing, senior services, parks and recreation.
Fact is that the islands (and especially Orcas) have become havens for those looking to preserve their wealth (inherited or earned elsewhere). WA States regressive tax structure and San Juan County’s near impossibly low property tax rates have created this dynamic.
I do wonder how many of the Orcas VR crowd would support approaches to better our community that hit their own pocket book (and there are lots of trust finders and wealthy from before folks in that crowd), or are they just interested in telling others what to do?
Historically, my pieces for Orcas Issues tend to be a hybrid of straight reporting and various degrees of editorializing. My intent is always to first establish a baseline of facts – with an occasional narrative accent – before sharing a more personal perspective that I hope gives readers some context as well as additional motivation to engage and respond. In this case, the majority of the article is a straightforward account of what took place, followed by support for what I felt was a reasonable call for permitting restraint until larger issues of VR impacts are sorted out.
It’s true that most of the heat is coming from Orcas (for good reason), and given that Shaw has its own controls, perhaps something similar should be considered for Orcas. The signatures of 1,000 people, along with widespread participation at the recent series of meetings, are clear indications of a problem that current County efforts, however well-intended, are not resolving, and I’m not convinced that more time is the answer — and a moratorium would not displace those efforts. I also suspect that underlying much of the resistance to a moratorium is fear that it would automatically lead to draconian measures of suppression rather than enlightened responses that will help preserve our rural character and capacity for truly sustainable growth.
Here’s the video of the council’s meeting including all comment and responses from each councilman. It starts a couple minutes in and runs for about an hour:
https://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=5a3b5c7b-b8e3-41b5-8728-4d89fbf66c79&prefilter=30%2C5838&fbclid=IwAR21grRnkxT8ma7lbQNYjiMoV1xsRyyopkeJdt4LMwmlGG52nr1zMo2y7QM
Why do we need more revenue brought into our community? When is enough….enough?
And….three of the four vacation rentals surrounding my home are owned by off islanders that my family has never met.
Petetions are one thing. Elections are another. Hughes and Watson are up in 2020; Stephens 2022.
The three Councilmen deserve respect for the work they did on the new vacation rental rules which became effective in March. Give the new rules time to work instead of jumping to conclusions.
SJC Staff Committee Report conclusions on the Nantucket Report (June 2/2000)
“Staff’s expectation from this analysis was that the consultant might find some characteristic of the San Juan Islands that differentiated it from the situations in these communities that have transitioned to a dual market in which long-term residents and local workers are squeezed into narrower choices and disrupted lives. The report does not provide such hope for the San Juans. On the contrary, the similarities in size, scale, access, environment, and trends make us look very much like these communities as they were 20 to 30 years ago.”
2002 American Farmland Trust / Friends of the San Juans Cost of Community Services Survey
“The major conclusion of the report is that residential land uses receive far more in public services than they contribute in revenues, while the other two major categories receive far less. The implication of this conclusion is that as open space and agricultural lands are converted to residential, the revenue benefits of the open space category will be reduced, while the pressures for additional services will increase.”
Without diving into the actual question at hand specifically related to Vacation Rentals, I must ask the following-
Who has decided that a $400k home is somehow the magic threshold of affordability that would make the home somehow a reduction to long term rental housing stock? Such a determination of that as the threshold of affordability, let alone a value that would lend itself to a viable rental investment is almost laughable and does nothing to further the discussion of affordable housing. Unless, of course you consider $3,000/mo affordable, then I suppose I just function in an alternate economy than you.
I think it’s time to understand and support the vacation rental rules we do have. So far there is a lot of work to do in correcting the problems so many have with vacation rentals. There a much bigger problems than whether a permit exists. Occupancy numbers and use of properties for parties and gatherings have not been reviewed parking and generally respect for rules. Where you see problems complain, that’s how the rules are enforced. Then after time passes you will see what there really is to complain about. Regarding displacement, the 400 k value statements were a crock anyway. A vr owner may have well over 100000 into a property and still someone will say it’s value is only 400k that’s useless and inaccurate and has no worthy mention in the discussion. It just may be that property owners many of them will find keeping neighbors happy is harder than it’s worth and that may be what turns things around. Then again is 3000 to 5000 a month or more in rent affordable? And what of the damage deposits and depreciation of assets most islanders couldn’t afford to live in these homes anyway. Many of these so called 400k homes have at least 50 To 100 k of readily destroyable appliances and floor coverings then there are the finishes how many islanders renting homes are going be able to cover the losses for damages to such items. Most VR are not outfitted to suit the standard rental market except to a varied few. We all may have good reasons to complain about vacation rentals, just like some of us have reasons to complain about neighbors, at least with the vacation rental there are enforceable rules. Unlike the Potential neighboring long term rental. You know the one with 4 cars parked in the yard, parties every week parking up and down the street. 7 persons living in a 2 bedroom house. You know standard stuff.
Martha–One of my concerns about this discussion is that we have not heard from the County’s attorneys. We should be provided some legal opinions regarding what is and is not possible under federal, state and county law. Otherwise, many people are spinning their wheels in struggling to find solutions to the problems they see in the County.
For example, of your four proposals, I believe at least two, and likely three, are unconstitutional (WA Constitution)(income taxes and disparate taxes on non-full-time residents). I have never understood the hostility toward “part-time” residents since they pay full freight in property taxes but clearly use fewer government services: no kids in school, and 3/12 of sheriff and emergency services, for example.
I agree that the open space and ag tax exemptions need attention, as many are reducing our tax base without much benefit to the citizenry.
Pierrette–
We need to use the new regulations. If you have neighboring illegal vacation rentals, report them. They will be fined ($2300) and shut down. If they are legal, but do not enforce the regulations regarding noise, parking, trespassing, etc., report them, and in addition to potential immediate action for serious violations, the reports will go on their records and support a denial of renewal.
As for the California example, that seems a bit of a stretch. The VR owners I know exercise great care in taking reservations and require deposits accordingly.
The County already requires the permit number to be included in ads. The new rules can be found here: https://www.sanjuanco.com/1579/Vacation-Rentals-Information-and-Applica.
Michael–The two pieces you cited are hardly science, and are almost 20 years old. In particular, the piece purporting to estimate the costs of development strikes me, as someone who did extensive work in cost accounting and allocation for decades, as way off the mark. The other, a planning paper, suggests that we must today BE Nantucket. We are not. (I forget the reference, but someone took a look back and determined that the Nantucket forecast has been used for many decades in the County. It’s still not proven particularly relevant to our situation.)
Evelyn–It may be another discussion, but certain long-term rental housing in the UGA raises serious health code questions for me about how many people are living in what are effectively mobile home “park models” that seem to have 7-8 cars apiece and deteriorating walls and roofs. The need to provide decent rental housing is real. We need to study why it is so difficult to produce.
Peg, why it’s so difficult to produce. Most builders with enough time and experience are readily able to tell you why it’s so difficult to produce.
It’s Expensive, there is no viable recovery process to regain even a non profit investment. Our county outlawed the only affordable private means to provide rental housing privately. We do not allow mobile home parks long or short term, we do not have tiny home villages, we made the ability to easily develop Guest accommodations highly restrictive and severely limited.
Other effective cost conscious approaches to providing rental housing requires serious impact on the entire populous of the county and most cost is lost to administration. So you have a complete catch 22 experience which doesn’t provide any real light to the end of the tunnel.
Housing coops can and do work where many supporters join and support the cause. Look at homes for islanders for example an excellent program hopefully we will see more from.
We spent several years developing affordable housing in bellingham and many people were able to Aquire their first home because we developed a program that involved many parties joining to succeed in producing housing as quickly and efficiently as possible with the support of housing lenders and the city.
We, our county have entertained the idea that housing “nice” housing for renting should simply just exist. Never mind that this is an impossible ideal that is presented to the public by those completely separate of Understanding simple reasonable facts, If employers need employees, then support programs better able to make the necessary changes in county regulations to make it possible.
And possible without displacing the population that barely manages to retain what they have. Many for whom find it utterly necessary to vacation rent their homes during the warm dry summers to keep up with rapidly increasing property taxes, as well as other dramatically increasing costs.
This counties tax base has climbed very rapidly and continues, as well and many other of the costs of living.
Also to the employers out there if you own a business and need employees your gonna have to pay for it out of profit. Or accept that like other small Businesses you may well have to manage it on your own, if that isn’t possible let it go
So there is a start, hows that
That’s a fair question. Who determines affordability? As a friend related to me the metrics of the average salary here, and the average cost of a home don’t equate. Looking at it from that standpoint is dead-on. But even so-this has & is being done using a variety of creative financing arrangements… everything from loans from parents, or affordable loans from local financiers, there’s entire family’s that share rent/house pymts. to make it work, and many homes have house-mates, and there’s sometimes a number of partners on the land deal, etc., etc., etc.. Though it’s sad… I agree, this is not a good sign, but it is also fact that it happens… it always has. I live in an OPAL house… I feel blessed.
Nobody I know has ever said that vacation rentals were solely responsible for the current lack of affordable housing throughout the County. That’s simply not the argument. It could, however, easily be said that the trend of increasing vacation rentals in our neighborhoods has over time and continues to date, to exacerbate that which is already in limited supply. The vacation rental industry is a known driver of increasing home values, increasing real-estate prices, as well as increasing monthly rents– with all of these being prime stressors in regards to affordability. More aptly said perhaps, would be that– vacation rentals are more and more responsible for (absent the re-sale market), there being “almost NO housing available throughout San Juan County.” The fact is that the growing vacation rental market while increasing our property values, our rents, and our taxes, is also a stressor on our infrastructure and resources while it continues to consume more & more properties throughout our neighborhoods. It’s time for a moratorium. Talking only about the economic advantages of vacation rentals without looking at the negative side of the industry is lacking. One can look at many community’s that have been through this before us and see that an overabundance of vacation rentals is not in our best long-term interests (on many levels). Community or Commodity? You can put a dollar sign on almost anything… but even so, there are some things that are priceless. I can’t say it any better than one of the speakers did in front of the County Councilmen last week,
“The growing presence of vacation rentals limits our community’s access to affordable housing; it taxes our critical infrastructures; degrades the natural environment; and threatens the very reasons why many of us choose to live here — why many of us made investment-backed expectations to live in a rural community that wasn’t a hotel room next door.”
Peg, it’s the only science on this thread–
Host Compliance (Jeffrey Goodman) 4/22/16– Could You Abnb My Neighbor A PLANNER’S TAKE ON THE SHARING ECONOMY
“More damningly, some reports cut at the heart of Airbnb’s supposed benefits: tourism dollars. San Francisco’s Office of Economic Analysis, considering the reduction of long-term residents and housing caused by full-time hosting, wrote that for every 1,000 units lost to short-term tourist rentals, the city’s economy loses more than $250 million each year, far exceeding the benefit from visitor spending and hotel taxes.”
Michael–There is simply no science in this chain. I’m still puzzled how vacation rentals increase taxes; San Francisco is hardly an analog here. And why exclude the resale market from available housing? We need proper framing of the issues and credible data about them. We also need to look at the data from the County as the first full year of enforcement comes to an end.
Peg– https://www.vacationrentalsorcas.org/
Michael–I am aware of the site, but there is no relevant science/data there.
Is The Rise Of Vacation Rentals, AirBnB and VRBO Negatively Impacting the Residents of San Juan County, WA?
https://islandersvoice.com/2019/08/03/is-the-rise-of-vacation-rentals-airbnb-and-vrbo-negatively-impacting-the-residents-of-san-juan-county-wa/
After listening to all the public comments, I was dishartened by the council’s responses. After months and many hours of work and meetings, the Orcas group took the vote and passed on the people’s request for a moratorium on vacation home, to allow for time to find solutions to this urgent problem. The response gas lighted and negated us. Mr. Watson seems more interested in credits, then in doing his job. It is the counsil’s job to find solutions and yet he was complaining angrily, that the group has not been offering solution.
We are ready to help. We have spent many hours and do have a list of ideas we would be happy to share with the council. This meeting was not about that. It was about a moratorium, to allow for time to sort out such solutions. The reason we, the people, have to put so much time into it, is that our counsel members are working against us instead of with us. Accusing us of not saying anything 18 months ago (Watson) is gas lighting. And, it is also a lie. The EPRC requested a moratorium half a year ago, and it was denied. And, it takes time to realize that something is not working right (often way into the process) and then to organize and communicate. Saying “why didn’t you tell us before” is just gas lighting. We are telling you now. And, we told you before through the EPRC, as soon as it became clear that there is 1) A serious problem. 2) That the council is our obstacle.
Mr. Watson also said that the council worked at it and created a ‘balanced’ plan, yet an essentially free for all plan is not balanced but is the problem. It is our job to inform the counsil of problems (when, alas, they ignore them), and it is the council job to come up with solutions.
Likewise I found Hughes and Stephens words empty, patronizing, non committal and lacking any intention to respond to this urgent need. In essence they were saying ‘no’ AGAIN, clearly going against the wish of the people.
I can just wonder whose side the counsil is on. Profit or the people, money or preserving this island and our community. I invite the council to take this problem to heart and start the moratorium, followed by gathering ideas and forming an actually balanced plan WITH the people and not against the people.
These are some (not all) of the complexities I see, which, IMO, support enacting a moratorium on any NEW vacation rentals until some of these are ironed out and all data is in:
1) Carrying capacity – the county keeps dragging its feet on this one. Just do it!!!!
2) Income disparity – Real need for the income vacation rentals give to families who may be “land rich” and “money poor,” vs speculative land grab and profiteering by outside people and entities uninterested and uninvested in our community or preserving our rural character.
3) Off-island owners and LLC shell games (“trading” lands so that it’s never really known who or what entity “owns” them, should they be out of compliance; how do you fine when you can’t even pin down who owns what?)
4) The fact that the brunt of Vacay rentals are in UGAs – areas purportedly set aside for YEAR ROUND RESIDENTS to be squashed into, at the seeming permanent sacrifice of fragile marine and wetland watersheds and the forests needed to support their function and habitat diversity (Eastsound UGA in particular is the most vulnerable).
5) Repeat offenders; shouldn’t fines increase with each offense? $2300 is nothing to those who can afford millions and have tax loopholes galore.
6) Cost vs benefit of unlimited vacation rentals; not just monetary or economic costs, but all costs equally considered, including environmental, quality of life, ETC
7) council needs to release their data on how well the ‘fining’ system’ is working so far. Do we even have a code enforcement officer yet? How are complaints registered? Response times? ETC
8) Taking federal and state “grant” monies with strings attached that do NOT fit a rural place; it’s how we got into this mess we’re in.