||| FROM SEATTLE TIMES |||
As post-pandemic vacationing returns in coming years, tourists may find it harder to book an Airbnb near Leavenworth, Lake Chelan and other coveted areas in Chelan County.
County commissioners are considering new limits on short-term rentals and could approve restrictions as soon as next week. Though final details are still being debated, the rules could create a new permitting scheme and limit the number of short-term rentals starting in three years.
The debate has raged on town Facebook pages and in community councils that usually would be busy planning events like the annual Santa Breakfast (canceled this year because of the pandemic). Similar fights have played out in cities around the globe, as platforms like Airbnb draw travelers away from traditional hotels toward apartments, houses and condos.
Locals pushing for the new rules say the explosion of Airbnb, VRBO and other rental sites is transforming their residential neighborhoods and squeezing the local housing market. A consultant hired by the county estimated at least 1,200 rentals operate in unincorporated areas of Chelan County, up from just 76 in 2014.
Rental owners counter that their properties help fuel the region’s tourism-dependent economy and create jobs. An analysis by a Central Washington realtors group estimated that people staying in short-term rentals spent about $560 per party daily on food, recreation and shopping.
The proposed rules would affect only unincorporated areas of the county, bypassing cities like Leavenworth that already have their own limits. Many rentals are listed outside city limits, like those nestled along Lake Chelan and the Chumstick Highway.
When Seattle faced concerns that short-term rentals could deplete the city’s housing stock, the city passed new limits in 2017, though the rollout has been glitchy. San Juan County tightened its rules in 2018, when an estimated 7% of county housing stock was made up of vacation rentals. In Oregon, the popular town of Bend allows rentals in residential areas but requires them to be at least 250 feet apart.
In Chelan, a three-hour virtual public hearing Tuesday night drew more than 300 people as speakers debated property rights, nuisances caused by out-of-town renters and whether the regulations would kill jobs and amount to “wealth redistribution.”
A few miles outside Leavenworth in Peshastin, Stan Winters watched as the owners of two homes on his street transformed them into short-term rentals. Guests cycle in and out, causing parking irritations and a loss of “any sense of community,” Winters said.
“These houses just sit empty unless paying guests come,” said Winters. “A community of people who live here and work here, that’s what we want.”
Rental owners say frequent turnover is to be expected, and the short-term visitor housing is crucial for creating jobs.
Zelda Holgate manages six rental properties near the Wenatchee River. The cabins were some of the first vacation rentals in the area in the late 1980s, she said.
“Our economy is based on tourism,” Holgate said. “We advertise ourselves as ‘Washington’s playground.’”
READ FULL ARTICLE: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/debate-over-short-term-rentals-comes-to-washingtons-playground-as-chelan-county-considers-limits-on-airbnbs
There are many communities that have enacted caps on vacation rentals, both here in Wa. St., in the U.S., and throughout the world. The unfortunate reality (the bottom line) in San Juan County is that new regulations are looked at by such criteria as feasibility (enforcement costs), and the fear of lawsuits.
I liked it how Planning Commission Chair Tim Blanchard stated it at the Sept. 18 Planning Commission meeting when discussing vested property rights, and the need for new regs, including caps on the number of future vacation rentals,
“What can we realistically and legally do and keep the county from having to defend itself?”
Imagine… imagine if you had enough money to threaten the county with lawsuits everytime they tried to pass new legislation on something that you disagreed with.
We deserve better.
Michael, my belief.. which is worthless is, people will do what they want. The County can impose restrictions.. even make things more difficult (imagine that) BUT… And this is the rub, like many situations, it’s not the rule followers that run astray.
It’s the $$$, mind you, I like $$$.. I spend a lot of it my wife tells me!! But I chose to go about it in a different way.
I’ve been silent on this issue of transient rentals. Why,, because I own one.. well not actually. But I have a piece of paper that I spent $$$ on hiring a firm on island maybe 10 years ago so I could convert my garage or out building into a guest house. (Still haven’t used it) Yea that’s right. Even though I’m in the UGA I WAS Instructed I would need this if I want my mother in law to live with us. But not too close.. which seems silly, but seamed reasonable at the time.
My point is, it’s not black and white. And from what I’ve seen in this forum, there’s a lot of gray here.
As a contractor of too many years I can attest, those that want Do.
I’m grateful that I’ve been blessed to work with like minded individuals that adore this little precious Rock we all call home. So my three cents comment is, adopt a clear set of guidelines, hold us all accountable and get to what’s really important. World Peace. Merry Christmas.
The key word in Blanchard’s statement is “legally”. Also, permit caps are arbitrary, and are sure to create winners and losers based on random criteria, which will lead to lawsuits.
I’d be much more in favor of tax increases on rentals that can then go back and fund a land bank or affordable housing fund. Other vacation areas have successfully implemented fees on top all real estate transactions that also fund the same purpose. There are more options than simply banning rentals/permits.
I agree Clyde– accountability is lacking, guidelines are vague… it is too complicated.
But, it’s more than that D.L. It ‘s no secret that in SJC , like everywhere else, the threat of lawsuits can sway the decision making of those that run the show… just as much as “legality” has to do with it, so has also the prosecutor’s budget, and the feasibility of winning the suit… throughout the whole appeals process. This seems all to convenient for those that like things the way they are, (the status quo, if you will).
There is no one solution for the issues related to (over)tourism and vacation rentals, nobody is suggesting that limits on future vacation rentals by themselves is a cure-all for the causes related to the lack of affordable housing, and year-round rentals. But, in conjunction with other sensible legislation (including perhaps the affordable housing tax as you suggest), and yes, accountability… would be working in the right direction. I cannot disagree with your suggestions for alternative funding options (an affordable housing tax on VRs) in order to help provide more affordable housing… this, and other tax-related ideas have been on the plate for awhile. Part of the difficulty is Washington State’s regressive tax system, creating great difficulty in trying to initiate new tax laws. Many, myself included, feel that even though this would help fund more affordable housing, it’s just a bandaid on an open wound… it does nothing to solve the root problems associated with the issue, many of which are not related to the disruptions caused by the vacation rental industry in the real-estate and housing markets.
You said, “There are more options than simply banning rentals/permits.”
I agree… more should be done than just limiting the number of future vacation rentals.
Merry Christmas all.
If we don’t address and stand up to speculative land-grab-for-profit; If we don’t address unlimited capitalist growth (no, I’m not a Marxist!); if we don’t increase enforcement and fines for repeat violators of the existing watered-down regulations that invite ecocide – we can’t get to the root of what’s driving this juggernaut, and fix it.
Flat tax increases, including sales tax and property tax increases, hurt the poor and middle class, The only equitable tax would be graduated, and enforceable.
There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Families who are land-rich and money-poor may depend on existing VRBO income to pay their mortgages and stay on-island and pass something on to future generations. What would the criteria be for who’s accepted for a permit, while keeping things honest and fair? Won’t those with the most money to sue the county regularly, get their way – no matter what? If profit is the sole motive, we will continue to see this place pillaged, and the unscrupulous will continue to push protocol toward more and more exploitation.
YES, we want tourists; this is not THEIR fault. We want to attract part and full time residents who care about this place as much as we do. We aren’t saying, “pull up the drawbridge.” But we ARE saying we need a moratorium on new VRBOs until we have a workable plan that is equitable for all, and the laws and enforcement to back it.
In this pandemic, we’ have time and space to reflect. Ecologically, Time’s Up. We can’t go back to the “good old” days. They’re what got us here.
Merry Christmas to all on Orcas! As I have said before, this is actually easily controlled through permit fees and ferry schedules. And lawsuit over both of those are very difficult to pursue. If the VR permits were say $500/week (an adjustable number, but chosen to make my point) the number requested and used would drop to near zero, especially if the person had to have it even if the place wasn’t rented. That would mean that an owner would have to shell out 26,000/year just for the right to rent out the place, so it would change the rental calculus and make it a lot harder to turn a big profit by being a rental owner. Similarly, reducing ferry landings is easily accomplished (WSF would likely agree to stop there less frequently, if you ask) and so for a bit of community hardship for full time residents, you could reduce the number of visitors. And, if getting on and off is harder for the residents, they will be forced to support the local businesses even more! Enacting caps/quotas is hard and leads to easy lawsuits. Enacting permitting fees is usually much easier/simpler and safer. And, if you do it right, the value of existing homes will go down making them more affordable for the people who want only to be there full time.