— by Steve Mckenna —
Affordable housing has long been a recognized problem in the Islands where land values and cost of construction are high. OPAL, Homes for Islanders and other organizations are doing good work and have had some success in helping to alleviate the lack of housing but their resources are limited and costs are high. What is a more immediate issue is that we are rapidly losing “affordable rentals,” due in large part to the conversion of existing rentals into “vacation rentals,” that forces the long-term, working tenants out. Also many homes at the lower to moderate end of the price spectrum have been purchased in the last few years and are then converted into vacation rentals, taking them out of the long-term rental market. There are often 3 or 4 vacation applications listed in the “legal notices” and a few weeks ago there were 8 listed. That’s a lot of rentals becoming unavailable to the people who work in our stores, restaurants and construction firms, people who form our communities and send their children to our schools.
Does the County have a policy on Vacation Rentals and does it track the number that have been approved? I would suggest that an immediate, temporary moratorium on new, non-owner occupied vacation rentals would be an appropriate first step towards helping to solve this crisis in our wonderful island community. This would allow time to study the problem and not cause a rush to “apply before the rules change.” This moratorium would not apply to renting out rooms in owner-occupied dwellings as short-term vacation rentals. Such rentals can help low to moderate income households profit from our tourist economy and be able to afford to live here.
We are not unique in this problem, below is a excerpt from an ordinance passed in Kauai County, Hawaii.
The following is taken directly from the “findings and purpose” of the ordinance:
“While this type of visitor unit could be compatible with the character and nature of Kauai and while it has certain positive advantages to the community…the uncontrolled proliferation of vacation rentals in residential and other areas outside the Visitor Destination Areas…is causing significant negative impacts to certain residential neighborhoods…
“In oceanfront or other places of premium real estate value, second and third homes and vacation rentals…are displacing traditional neighborhoods where people of low and moderate income have been able to live in the past.
Besides contributing to a lack of affordable housing in the community, this is changing the social character of neighborhoods where neighbors used to know each other.
“The Council also finds that transient accommodation and general excise taxes on various vacation rentals are sometimes not being paid, causing a loss of revenue to state and county governments and a failure to pay for impacts associated with visitors.
“The purpose of this bill is to restore a balance between primary residences and single family transient vacation rentals by: 1) requiring registration of vacation rentals or nonconforming use certificates and setting standards for all vacation rentals, 2) explicitly prohibiting new single-family vacation rentals outside visitor destination areas (multi-family vacation rentals are already so prohibited), and 3) identifying and allowing nonconforming uses where single-family vacation rentals have been operating lawfully prior to approval of this bill.”
As I was writing this letter the news came out that OPAL has plans for adding 30 affordable rentals on North Beach Rd. This is great news for the Island, thank you OPAL, great work. However I believe it’s several years away and the rental crisis is now. We still need to look at the problems caused by vacation rentals now.
Your idea is certain to reduce the property value of all existing dwellings that are on the market. I understand the need for affordable housing, but to make vacation/2nd home owners responsible for solving this problem is a bad idea. Small, exclusive islands can solve the problem by raising wages and charging people for what the service/product actually costs. I’ve lived on islands before and they are more expensive. But, there seems to be no shortage of people lining up to buy expensive land and homes and why shouldn’t a seller get the highest price the market will bear? And, if your idea does drop prices, simply more outsiders will buy the properties with no guarantee that they will open them up as low income housing. It’s a lose-lose idea.
Neil, I cannot imagine how limiting the supply of houses available will lower the price of all houses….am I missing something? How does that work with your next thought, “there are unlimited numbers of people lining up to buy.” I don’t think either statement is true. Merry
Steve, I could not agree with you more. I live in a neighborhood of small lots with modest homes and with a population largely retired. My house is next to a vacation home, and I can testify as to the negative impact on both my home and the neighborhood in general by transient visitors. Enough said here, but I have a lot of thoughts on this issue.
McKenna asks the question, “Does the County have a policy on Vacation Rentals and does it track the number that have been approved? I would suggest that an immediate, temporary moratorium on new, non-owner occupied vacation rentals would be an appropriate first step towards helping to solve this crisis in our wonderful island community. This would allow time to study the problem and not cause a rush to “apply before the rules change.”
I would humbly suggest that before someone calls for “an immediate” albeit “temporary” moratorium, the person gets some answers to his/her own questions and become a bit more educated about this long-standing situation.
Paul & Merry: while classic supply/demand economic theory would suggest that fewer houses on the market would automatically mean higher prices (and thus everyone’s property value rises,) these are often second homes, and so prospective owners may only become buyers if they can generate some additional income to offset the cost of a second mortgage. This is an optional/luxury purchase where Keynseian theory doesn’t do a very good job predicting human behavior. This would limit the pool of prospective buyers. Realtors will tell you that fewer buyers drives down the price/value of houses (look at the last few years to see the objective proof.) Fewer houses sold and at average lower prices. Finally it has become a “sellers” market as defined by realtors based on units for sale, average days on market, and trend in selling prices. Lastly, to presume that the dwellings suitable as vacation rentals and as year round low income rentals is illogical. Clearly, the owners don’t see the clientele as the same.
I often wonder if these single vacation rentals are collecting AND paying the sales/lodging tax.
The county council needs to stop and think about this. Those who see our community as a location where real estate investment can be maximized in preparation for going elsewhere with the proceeds and advertise the community’s quality to their next buyer, seek to profit at the expense of the community claiming the right to that profit. At some point, the community needs to protect itself, which is the job of the county council in its responsibility of protecting the health and welfare of what, in colonial days was the “commonwealth.” The community’s welfare should not be translated into a property rights argument. San Juan County is a living community, not a wheat field.
As a party who brought a law suit in Superior Court in San Juan County in 1999 and the Court found that vacation rentals should be allowed, I feel well qualified to address this “Guest Editorial” (for the umpteenth time in my thirty year on Orcas.)
Neil Kaye summarized the entire issue well in his last two sentences.
Annually, I attempt to educate and advise prospective vacation rental owners when they have a marketable vacation home and when that same home is best suited as a long term rental. This is foremost dictated by whether the house is waterfront, or at least has a great ocean view. Secondly, the location, size, quality and neighborhood or zoning.
Many times an uninformed home owner thinks a home has vacation rental potential when it does not. With the time and money it takes to prepare a house as a vacation rental plus the cost of the County Permit, and the utilities and upkeep, a less than prime house will often be a better long term rental, (30 days or more) than as a vacation rental.
Additionally, the lack of housing on Orcas is not new and has never been an unusual issue. Every year a housing “crisis” arises. And interestingly it occurs in different months every year.
What is true is that unlike my company which has played by the rules for thirty years, paid the sales and lodging taxes, many of the new
do-it-yourself-owners have not registered their vacation homes as a business and do not pay the appropriate taxes. It has come to my attention just recently that San Juan County will be cracking down on those who are not playing by the rules – and this is just.
What is not just are those who are seeking housing, or have friends/family seeking housing who call out, as the author did, saying that all owners who rent are wrong, greedy and that if they couldn’t rent as a vacation rental, they would automatically make that same house a long term rental at an affordable rate. Many owners do have vacation rentals now which will be their retirement home when they move to Orcas. Or it’s a vacation rental, because they enjoy coming to the island and using the house themselves weeks/months of the year. If it were rented long term, the owner could not utilize it.
So while there are many hurting for housing, to say the entire result is because of vacation rentals is absurd. It may be altruistic to say, “Well if I had a nice Orcas Island home, I would rent it to someone as long term housing well below my mortgage rate.” I would say there are only a handful of wealthy owners in this category. The rest are working folks who have scrapped and saved to buy their piece of the rock and if you were in their shoes you too would want to optimize your income to make affording life or a future on Orcas as economically sound as possible.
Karen J. Key Speck
Cherie L. Lindholm RE.
As a long term renter and someone who has many friends struggling to find affordable long term rentals I have to agree with everything Karen said. As a housekeeper who has vacation rental owners as clients, I will also add that renting your house as a vacation rental where it is cleaned after each guest departs and a lot of guests basically use it just to sleep because they are busy and eating out while here there is not the wear and tear that long term rentals endure just from everyday living.Lets just hope the County Council does follow through and make sure they are all playing by the rules and collecting the taxes and fees and paying them to the county.
I agree with Steve McKenna. In my neighborhood, as in his, several long term rentals have been converted to vacation rentals. Unlike in the past, these rentals are NOT being managed by local property managers such as Karen Speck, but instead are listed on websites such as VRBO and AirB&B among others. i’m not sure how the county will even begin to track who is and is not paying their taxes, as it will be a time-consuming process to even identify which properties ARE transient rentals.
Most transient rentals sit empty most of the year, while working families live in RVs, tents, and even the backyard sheds of friends. Just because this situation has always existed on Orcas doesn’t mean it is right. I know several communities around the country that have limited the number of permits issued for transient rentals. Like Steve McKenna, I am a property owner who feels San Juan County needs to reexamine the transient rental issue yet again.
Steve Mckenna and several others argue that all vacation rentals reduce the number of houses available for rent at low rental rates. Karen and Cherie say that the homes that are desirable by the people renting vacation homes are typically on the water and on high value land. Homes for vacation rental and low rental rate homes are usually on different kinds of properties.
Let’s say that the County limited the number of properties that could be rented by people coming from off island. That would limit the dollars coming from off island. It would limit the income for those selling services to the vacationers. That means there would not be higher incomes that would allow locals to afford higher value properties and rents. So, a moratorium would produce the opposite result than what is desired.
A limit on how many vacation rentals would not produce any additional low rental properties. Assuming that the demand from off island for places to stay for a few days or weeks remains constant or grows, then a freeze on short term rentals will only increase the prices that can be charged for the limited supply. This will reward more people for “cheating” and bypassing the limits as they can make even more money now.
Consider the opposite suggestion. Don’t restrict short term rentals but rather encourage them. Increase the number of people coming to the island. Persuade visitors to stay longer and purchase more services on the island. If this happened, there would be more money coming to the island. It would allow those selling services to the visitors to have a higher income and, thus, be able to pay more in rent or to buy a bigger house or one in a more desirable location.
Nearly every community in the nation has the issue of not enough low rent properties. Orcas isn’t unique. There are multiple ways of addressing this.
Permit more places on the island to have high density housing. Right now, it is restricted to the Eastsound planning area, and this causes the cost of land to be higher. Limiting the number of houses per acre on most of the island translates into higher rents.
The county has a very restrictive zoning process. This causes anyone wanting to build for those with lower incomes to have to go through a time-consuming and expensive permitting process. Because the conditional use process is risky, it makes the purchase of land much riskier and discourages developers. This translates into higher rents.
Restricting short term rentals would make the problem worse. There are better ways to address the issue.
This assumes the real motivation is to encourage more low rent properties. Some appear to oppose short term rentals because they don’t like annoying tourists or because they dislike it when there are those who can afford to pay more in just a few days than what many locals can only afford to pay in a month.
Leif, I appreciate you taking me to the whipping post for naming the wrong economist. I apologize that my ignorance caused such a horror for you. You are correct (obviously) that I was referring to supply-demand theory and made an error by naming Keyes as an economist affiliated with that line of reasoning. I sincerely apologize and I’m sure all readers of this post have gained from your willingness to share your knowledge.
However, as many have noted, this is not a new problem nor is it unique. The majority of the people who work on Nantucket can’t afford to live there (and many commute) but neither can the majority of people who live in Manhattan (where most workers are also daily commuters.) I live in Wilmington, DE where the law requires city workers to live in the city. but many can’t afford housing. The same is true internationally and you could look at the Isles of Scilly as an interesting comparison.
To the best of my knowledge (and you clearly are more versed in history and economics and I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong,) no government, form of government, or other type of organized society has found a sustainable solution to the problem of feeding, housing, securing, and educating 100% of the population.
It is unfair and disingenuous to posit that everyone moving to Orcas wants to benefit financially by flipping houses (islands are notoriously bad for that and the day on market is quite long for high priced houses there.) Many in fact want to live in what they think is a very special place. Currently, about 6% of people move on the island each year while about 6% move off, so it is pretty close to a balanced ecosystem in that regard.
I am not sure that you are proposing jacking up taxes to the point of deterring anyone from moving on, but if you are, I see that as a bad idea as well. A tax increase would just make it even harder for those who are already just getting by. Remember, there is already a tax on houses sold that funds some of what is needed.
I don’t know of any land or homes available for sale on Sucia so you lost me on that comment as well.
I don’t understand the Orcas Island, not for sale comment. Public land isn’t being sold and the island is not a giant commune. It is largely privately owned land/houses (except for Moran.) Public beach access is embarrassingly minimal. Yes, land and houses are for sale, even if some of those who live there now don’t want anyone else to ever move on or to see any change or growth. I guess you could form a group and try to buy up everything on the market and control it all, but that’s expensive.
The main reason that we are making a third trip back to Orcas is that we love the people and the ability to dialogue honestly and openly and to discuss/debate ideas without attacking the person with whom one disagrees. I hope that this time we are able to answer the question if Orcas is the right place for our retirement. But, as we would only be able to afford this move by using an IRS 1031 Exchange, the IRS would require us to rent the place for a minimum of a year prior to occupancy. Have you considered how the IRS code affects buying/renting/moving?
It’s a very complex issue and I love reading the various opinions and being part of this illuminating discussion.
I look forward to meeting you in July.
Neil
Back from class: Marshall not Keynes: supply and demand, in classical economics, factors that are said to determine price, by correlating the amount of a given commodity producers hope to sell at a certain price (supply), and the amount of that commodity that consumers are willing to purchase (demand). Supply refers to the varying amounts of a good that producers will supply at different prices; in general, a higher price yields a greater supply. Demand refers to the quantity of a good that is demanded by consumers at any given price. According to the law of demand, demand decreases as the price rises. In a perfectly competitive economy, the combination of the upward-sloping supply curve and the downward-sloping demand curve yields a supply and demand schedule that, at the intersection of the two curves, reveals the equilibrium price of an item. Theories of supply and demand had their roots in the early 20th cent. theories of Alfred Marshall, which recognized the role of consumers in determining prices, rather than taking the classical approach of focusing exclusively on the cost for the producer as a determinant. Marshall’s work brought together classical supply theory with more recent developments concentrating on the utility of a commodity to the consumer. More recent theories, such as indifference-curve analysis and revealed preference, offer more flexibility to the supply and demand theories created by proponents of marginal utility. The theory of elasticity is significant as well: it shows how certain commodities will bear a substantial rise in price if there is not an equitable substitute available, while other easily replaceable commodities cannot do so without losing business to competitors.
In writing my guest “opinion” I was attempting to get the conversation started, or more correctly it seems, restarted, regarding vacation rentals and their effect on our Island communities. I do know, first hand, of homes, not waterfront and not great views, that have come out of the affordable rental market and turned into vacation rentals. So, the question remains unanswered; Does the County have a policy/ordinance regarding vacation rentals and or they just allowed anywhere and in unlimited numbers, and if this is the case is it good for our Island communities ? As Bill Appel states, the job of the County/ Council is to protect the whole Island community. They have to find a balance, between those who might speculate in real estate and those who live and work and rent here and want to be able to continue to do so.
We all know that we have lots of houses here that are empty 9+ months of the year and yes, many of those are waterfront/ water view / high value. The question is, as demand rises for vacation rentals, is there a policy that keeps those empty houses from popping up all over the island, thus making it harder and harder for people of moderate means to find an affordable place to live. Do we want to live in a diverse community, where we can go next door ( this is a euphemism folks !) for a cup of sugar, or go without the sugar because we don’t know the neighbors as they change every week.
And finally Karen/ Cherie, I, “the author” struggle to find where in my letter I say “all owners who rent are wrong (and) greedy “. Of course, the high value/view houses are not going to be rented at an affordable (let them eat cake ?) rate. I’m talking about the moderate value homes, the homes where those who serve our meals and lattes live, where the caregivers who take care of our elderly live, those people who help make this such a diverse, interesting and appealing place for all of us to live.
McKenna asks again, “Does the County have a policy/ordinance regarding vacation rentals and or they just allowed anywhere and in unlimited numbers, and if this is the case is it good for our Island communities ?”
And again, I suggest that he find the answer by asking CD&P. Perhaps he’ll share it with us.
While those who are homeless and those who say they can’t find “affordable” housing may not be the exact same cohort, there is some overlap. The homeless count for Orcas this year is 34, 17 of whom were temporarily living with others (friends and family) and 17 of whom were living outdoors. If you believe that it is appropriate for friends and/or family to do this (remember the old concept of extended families?,) that means only 17 people out of a population of about 4900 people or .34% are completely homeless. Now I would love there to be no homelessness, but the self flagellation for this low number seems somewhat alarmist. And, if Orcas guarantees affordable housing to everyone who wants to move on, how is that going to work out? There will be a job shortage and an ever growing cycle of welfare needs.
I know lots of people who would like to live on Orcas, or other Garden of Eden’s, but if they can’t afford to do that, why is it the government’s responsibility to assure it happens. I might prefer to drive a Rolls Royce but if I can only afford a Prius-should I get a subsidy? A smart business like Rosario knows it needs affordable housing for staff, so as a business, they “solved their own problem” by purchasing a lodge and provide housing as part of their compensation. On the East Coast, places like Ocean City, NJ and Rehoboth Beach, DE do likewise.
The island could adopt a whole set of ordinances and set rules as to who can live where, and under what circumstances, taking into account an endless array of variables: race, color, gender, sexual preference, density, how many people can live under one roof, how many SF/person is required, how large or small a house/land/lot, group people by income or savings, and impose innumerable other rules on the citizenry. I deliberately make this “absurd” argument to get people to wake up. Government planning for communities has a long history of failures in the USA and even on Orcas, the recent planning board process was painful and divisive.
Orcas has always struck me as a place where liberty is valued and the intrusion of government is both respected and rightfully questioned. I highly recommend against making the whole island a planned and regulated community. If you want that, look at Kiawah as an example. Let the passion of this moment pass and see how things resolve spontaneously.
Much of the new construction to which Bill refers is not low income rental construction. Banning new expensive homes won’t create more low income rentals.
Bill, Council may have a duty to protect the whole island community, but as these postings show, there is not a clear consensus on what it means to be protected by the government and even less consensus on how the government should go about exercising it’s police power to accomplish this.
Love the passion and thoughtfulness of everyone who is posting. Thanks.
Fred and McKenna: Yes, there is code, and the entire code is searchable on-line at https://www.sanjuanco.com/council/ordinances.aspx. I’d look at 06-2001 as a place to start.
Neil
Also of interest: News Release
News Release No. 2000-8
April 18, 2000
JUDGE ALLOWS ORCAS ISLAND VACATION RENTAL – BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSED
On April 10, 2000, Judge Hancock overturned the County Board of Adjustment’s (BOA) denial of a vacation rental on Orcas Island. Hancock ordered the BOA to issue Robert Greene a conditional use permit for the transient rental of his three bedroom home in Buckhorn Addition. The case was the first judicial interpretation of the County’s ordinance regulating transient or “vacation” rentals.
The Board of Adjustment’s decision to deny the vacation rental was based on the neighbors’ testimony that the residential character of the neighborhood was being eroded by the presence of at least six vacation rentals. The neighbors told the Board that the continual parade of vacationing strangers resulted in noisy parties, trespassers trying to find their way down to the beach and a loss of their sense of community.
Judge Hancock ruled that the neighbors’ testimony was based on fears and unfounded stereotypes. He said that the Board could not deny an application for a transient rental without particularized evidence that vacation rentals resulted in greater impacts than long-term rentals, which are allowed outright under County regulations. Karen Speck, an Orcas
realtor and vacation rental manager who represented Greene at the BOA hearing, had testified that people using vacation rentals were no different than long-term residents or renters and that there would be no negative impacts to the neighborhood.
The Judge’s ruling calls into question the County’s ability to limit vacation rentals in Rural Residential neighborhoods under the current ordinance. “The Court has set a very high standard in order for the Board to deny vacation rentals,” said Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Karen Vedder, who represented the BOA in the appeal filed by Robert Greene. “Judge Hancock has ruled that community displeasure with vacation rentals is not a sufficient reason for denying them. The Board is free to attach conditions which must be followed in operating vacation rentals. However, in the judge’s view, unless the neighbors can demonstrate with specificity that no conditions can be attached to moderate the impacts from vacation rentals,
future permits must be granted.”
The County’s development regulations allow transient rentals in most rural neighborhood land use districts through the use of an administrative permit which is automatically granted if certain specific criteria are followed. Only in Rural Residential neighborhoods, which have relatively smaller lot sizes, are homeowners required to obtain a conditional use permit to operate a vacation rental.
Permit Center Director Grant Beck believes the County should rethink the way it regulates transient rentals. “Under the current system,” says Beck, “it is virtually impossible to document an objective distinction between the impacts between vacation and long-term rentals. It makes more sense to have a County policy which either prohibits or allows transient rentals without the requirement of a conditional use permit.”
Whether the County will appeal the decision is uncertain. “We plan to discuss the decision with the Commissioners right away so we can plan what to do next,” said Vedder.
Randall K. Gaylord
San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney
96 Second Street, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 760
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
360/378-4101
The County did recently pass this: https://www.sanjuanco.com/council/docs/Resolutions/2015/Resolution%2012-2015%20Require%20Visitors%20Bureau%20and%20Chambers%20of%20Commerce%20to%20Assist%20with%20Lodging%20Tax%20Compliance.pdf
The Planning and Zoning page on http://www.sanjuanco.com has all of the information about vacation rental permitting.
County restriction of vacation rental conversions based on perceived supply-demand imbalance of long-term versus vacation rental property smacks of a socialist state. The County should keep their hands off private property (assuming it is meeting whatever health and safety regulations that exist and that the owners are paying any applicable taxes on the rentals). If too many properties become vacation rentals that short term situation will correct itself when the rental rate for those properties does not meet the owners expectations.
No place in the nation has enough affordable housing according to this article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/every-single-county-in-america-is-facing-the-same-crisis-2015-6
Sandy, great article reference. Says exactly what I had posted earlier. Affordable housing in not just an Orcas issue…
There have been proclamations of an affordable housing “crisis” on Orcas, and in the County as a whole, for as long as I have lived here, and before. At the same time, there is little consensus on the cause or even what “affordable housing” means. The proposal for an immediate moratorium on vacation rental permits presents problems for people who currently own eligible properties, and need the rental income to help cover the costs of the property, often due to being “upside-down” due to the recession. In addition, vacation rentals and long-term rental properties are often not the same pool of properties. An owner can live in a vacation rental, either off-season, or for periods in season, yet still obtain rental income to help the carrying costs of the property. Many of the properties in question are in actuality on the market for sale, but sales take a long time on Orcas; having a long-term rental interferes with the ability to successfully sell the property. Finally, the long-term rental experience of many owners has been decidedly negative, with the rental income barely covering the costs of repairing and restoring the property for its next use. Oddly, complete strangers renting for a week or a month seem to cause less wear and tear on properties.
As I understand it, the County has no firm data on the number of homes in the County, whether they are owner-occupied or rented, and whether the rental is long-term or vacation-rental. Neither does the County seem to have firm data on the number of people living and working (or retired) in the County, with specifics about whether they live alone, as a couple, or with a larger family. I doubt that the County has data on the number of summer employees vs. year-round employees we have here. Until these data are reliably obtained, all we have is anecdotal information, hardly the basis for policy making. Perhaps tracking down and collecting lodging taxes on the shadow rentals will provide some revenue to finance that data collection. Certainly, it needs to be collected before the Comprehensive Plan is revised in the next year or two.
We hear, anecdotally, that employers are having a difficult time finding employees due to housing costs. It seems clear that the fairest and most transparent way to address that issue is to pay employees what they need to find appropriate housing on the island, or to provide housing as an employment benefit. In either case, this increases business costs, but those costs are passed on to the people who use the services provided by the business. Seattle is undertaking the grand $15 minimum wage experiment, for good or ill, based on the belief that the increased costs will be passed on to the consumer, which–if you think about it–is where they belong.
The alternative of employers providing housing, especially for seasonal employees, would be far more practical if the County codes were liberalized to permit seasonal bunkhouses or “tiny house” clusters in areas near employment. And, of course, a return to the long tradition of building guest-houses on the island would allow many owners and potential renters considerable flexibility in housing without a material impact on our quality of life or environment. But that would require a reversal of the ill-considered virtual ban on guesthouses.
We cannot solve a problem without defining it and determining its scope. Each year, we hear of an affordable housing crisis, people wring their hands, and nothing is accomplished. We need reliable and relevant information on the size and scope of the problem before making any policy decisions, and we should begin gathering that information now.
First of all, let me thank Steve Mckenna for opening this discussion. It has obviously sparked a lot of thought-provoking comments. I would like to weigh in as one who has recently been directly affected by this situation.
I have lived on Orcas for twelve years as a person who has happily rented by choice, as I have my entire 69 years on this planet. I am not without means, and yet when the owners of the house my partner and I had been renting for six years told us that they were selling it, we were unable to find another place to rent. Not merely an affordable place, but any place at all.
Luckily, we own a boat that is big enough to sleep on and that is where we currently reside along with our two cats. While the adjustment has been OK for all four of us, it was not our choice and that is the point.
All the discussions above were theoretical, and I confess that I care not a whit for the economics of it all, not do I pretend to understand it. What I do know is this. In the process of searching for a place and telling everyone I know what our predicament has been, so many people have shared stories of their own that are similar or much worse. This is anecdotal to be sure, but must count for something in assessing the Big Picture of what is happening on this island.
Whether we stay on Orcas or not is very much up in the air at this point. The climate seems to have changed quite a bit in the past 12 years, and it may not be a good fit for us anymore. To be sure rentals are not easy to find in other parts of the country. But I lived in New York City during the housing crisis of the 1970’s, and always managed to find decent housing. And have ever since. Every place I lived until now! Trust me that 12 years ago when we came here, you could still rent a house on Orcas. That does not seem to be true anymore. And the houses that are for rent are over priced to say the least. Case in point. We were offered a cabin with no toilet and a rudimentary kitchen for $750/month. They had to be kidding!
I do not know what the answer is. But I do know that it does not lie in economics or the rights of property owners. Rather it seems to go hand in hand with compassion. Again, I am a person who is renting by choice and have the ability to pay a decent rent. Others are not so lucky. What will happen to them? And what will happen to such a small Eco-structure such as Orcas that cannot provide for its own? It is in the answers to these kinds of questions that the solution lies.
Fact gathering, changing policies, writing new laws and ordinances all take time. And this is all happening right now! And valuable people are moving away, or cannot come. People who provide services and people who provide love for this land and this island.
Of course, economics matter. And of course, property owners have rights. Those who bought their houses on this island many years ago are set! Those who are buying now have at least some financial security. Is Orcas to become an island that does not care about the rest of its population? Has Orcas lost its soul? I hope not!
Thank you! Thank you Susan! The Island is only as good (to live on)as those who inhabit it. It is not about non-profits and the generosity of those who receive laurels for donations, it is about disconnecting from the world view of the Mainland. Unfortunately, that world view came here with the Real Estate boon of the mid to late eighties which escalated in the nineties. The Growth Management Act separated the people according to wealth. Squeeze the workers into the Urban Growth Area (Eastsound) making the more peaceful areas accessible only to the “haves”.
When I came to Orcas thirty years ago, it was such an Inclusive place. It was truly a Community. Millionaires went to dances along with construction workers, gardeners, business owners, restaurant owners and workers. Now it is Very Different! It doesn’t even Feel like an Island Community anymore.
Spirit Eagle
Spirit Eagle: I agree that the Growth Management Act has upended the natural patterns of land use on the island, imposing a rigid plan that simply doesn’t make sense here. It is part of the general urban planning mindset–move people out of rural areas and into the city. Except we have no city; we have a lovely town that is now supposed to receive one-half of all population growth on the island, with a patchwork of rules that strangles small businesses. A few decades ago, as the first major wave of urban planning descended upon the County, land outside the “Urban Growth Area” was “upzoned” to mandatory minimum five, ten, or 20 acres lots, thereby eliminating the ability of many of modest to moderate means to buy parcels of an acre or so on which to build housing. At the same time, the UGA was “downzoned” to force those people into the “urban” core at very high densities. While some of this may have made sense on the mainland, it makes no sense whatsoever here. The Growth Management Act was also used to eliminate, in virtually all cases, the building of guesthouses and “mother-in-law” apartment, options that allowed people considerable housing flexibility; seniors could have a caretaker live in a guesthouse, parents could have grown children live in the guesthouses, or the guesthouses could be rented to provide additional income. The GMA costs the County millions of dollars in ridiculous and repetitive planning processes, keeping bureaucrats and consultants busy but doing little for the people who live here (or the critters we share this land and sea with, for that matter). One reason why you don’t see nearly as many construction workers–once the backbone of our economy–is that that industry has been decimated, literally reduced to a small percentage of what it once was. When the legislature finally heard the complaints of small counties about the cost and burdens of the GMA, OUR legislative representatives acted to exclude us from the remedy provided other small counties, for reasons known only to them. There are lots of better ideas that would allow the majority of us to live in the “peaceful areas,” but these are usually blocked at every turn by those who have decided that there is only one way to live–locked in rigid categories that just don’t work on an island–if anywhere. (In Seattle, the reverse is occurring–so much development is being forced into downtown that people cannot afford to live there and are moving out to the suburbs.)
To respond to your main point, I do not think that it is the people who have caused this shift; it is the bureaucrats and politicians who have manufactured the social divide that you sense, in their efforts to impose their ideas about how we should live, using as their excuse protection of our natural resources, which we seem to have done a pretty good job of protecting already.
Excellent Peg! People Need to know and hear about the Growth Management Act and its’ consequences. We have an opportunity to OPT OUT of it this year. How many people know about this opportunity? Yes, I do remember that our 3 person County Commissioners were very enthusiastic about the GMA and I agree, that it is an expensive, (on many levels) Boondoggle, but we are seeing the many negative consequences of having opted in to the Growth Management Act.
Spirit Eagle
It has been suggested that 500/month for a studio or 1200/month for a multi bedroom is the right rent. 1200/month basically represents the mortgage payment on a 150,000 house with a 15-year mortgage at 4%. Currently, per Zillow, there is not a single home for sale on Orcas at that price! The closest is a 240 SF studio asking 200,000.
So, that level of rental payment doesn’t cover much. Figure an owner has taxes (around 2,000-3,000 on Orcas for that value,) maintenance costs, insurance, etc. So if a renter is expecting a multi-bedroom house for 1200/month, they are really saying that they expect the owner to subsidize their living. Real numbers are sobering but can focus this discussion and move us all beyond the feel good answer of “of course, we all want everyone to have affordable quality housing.”
It’s also useful to consider utilities, which can be a major expense. Included or not-included in rent? OPAL’s new unit may be able to include utilities, but most rental houses cannot.