— by Steve Mckenna —
One year ago I wrote a “Guest Opinion”, referenced here ( orcasissues.com/guest-opinion-moratorium-on-vacation-rentals-needed-immediately/), suggesting a moratorium on Vacation Rentals until the County addresses the issues caused by their continued proliferation. While the County appears to be starting to take a look at Vacation Rentals I would suggest that they engage the public in that look, and have some public meetings and discussions to determine what all Islanders think about the issue, or for that matter, whether it’s an issue at all.
In 2015 the county issued 81 permits for VacRs (numbers provided by planning staff) with approximate 25 on Orcas. So far this year , through the first week of June, there have been applications for 33 VacRs county wide, 16 on Orcas, and as the applications are essentially rubber stamped, I assume that all or most of these will be approved. So at the current rate that is 160-170 homes in 2 years that may have otherwise been available as homes for our teachers, firemen, carpenters, caregivers, restaurant and store employees etc. These houses are only occupied sporadically for 3 or 4 months then sit empty the rest of the year. Many of these are definitely not high end waterfront and view homes, they’re average homes that would otherwise rent at an affordable rate. I personally know of many of these and a look at the published addresses clearly shows many more. Businesses that can afford to are having to buy housing so their employees have a place to live, but what about other businesses that can’t afford that, where will their employees live ? Will our schools have to start buying housing for teachers, our fire departments for EMTs and first responders ? When “investors” buy up houses with the apparent intent of turning them into VacRs to pay off their investment, that takes those houses out of either the supply of rentals that islanders might live in or affordable homes that islanders might buy. Do we owe investors the right to make money at the cost of loss of the livability and community in our Islands? Do we want our Islands to become even more stratified, our workers to ride over on the ferry then leave at the end of the day ? That doesn’t build community, put children in our schools, or diversity in our lives.
There are also many other issues caused by VacRs, some of them are: noise (party time, often here for weddings etc), overuse of water supplies, (particularly problematic in systems shared by adjoining houses) and septic systems abused by overcrowded houses and people who are used to city sewers, not septics. While these issues are fairly easy to solve, dealing with them should not be construed as dealing with the vacation rental “problem”, which is I believe, that there are just too many of them.
The first CUP (conditional use permit) was recently approved by the County for the Viewhaven neighborhood just west of Eastsound. Though the Homeowners Assn resisted the application, it was approved in a “cookie-cutter” decision like the hundreds before it dating back well over ten years.
The argument of our Assn was that such transient use tended to change the character of the local neighborhood. A single such use is not an issue. Rather the precedent set that could result in 5, 6, 10 more over time causes angst within our neighborhood.
The Assn Board is currently reviewing the CCRs for Viewhaven insofar as the County has not yet defined the impacts of transient rentals on neighborhoods such as ours. We have no objection to rentals, per se, as we have several though a minimum rental period of perhaps thirty or more days would eliminate the market for AirBnB type revolving door rentals.
There is much work to be done on this matter. We expect to engage the County on the discussions regarding such short-term/transient housing.
Not sure why this was even published. Mr. Mckenna vented his spleen last year (as noted via the link above) and the public response on this site was one of the loudest and longest in recent memory. I encourage everyone to go back and re-read the letters. He has not added anything new, but is obviously entrenched in hating renters and more unwelcoming than anyone we have ever met on Orcas. Thankfully, our experience is that most residents are not like him and do welcome tourists, visitors, friends, family, and even future home owners. Tourists are a vital part of the island economy.
Orcas is both a place to live and a place to visit. That is unlikely to change. If Mr. Mckenna prefers to live in a place where only permanent, year-round residents exist and growth and progress are prohibited, he should move, as it is clear from the State and County growth projections that Orcas (and the SJI’s in general) will see a population growth every year until at least 2035.
The easy solution to the problem of housing that is used for only two, three, or four months would be to require that the property owner provide a home for a year-’round caretaker family on-site.
This way the underused property is protected from squatters and maintained properly while vacant, and at the same time a teacher’s or a worker’s family would get basic housing there in return for maintenance work, and perhaps nominal rent.
I have been told that this solution is a problem of eminent domain, or even an illegal taking, and therefore that it would be impossible.
I believe that there must be ways to implement the solution I propose. But I am not versed in Washington law, so I have to leave to those more knowledgeable than I the search for a method for making it happen.
I am absolutely certain that letting usable housing sit vacant for most of the year in an area where working families go begging for homes is almost a crime against humanity.
I hope that a solution to this problem may soon be found.
Steve: I do not think that “Eminent Domain” which is a governmental “taking” would be an issue in this case nor in this County. I have known people on the Island who were Caretakers and had houses to live in year round on the property. Your suggestion is certainly doable IF the owners are agreeable.
Spirit Eagle
Some years back an individual was denied a transient rental permit and sued the County. The court ruled that they could not be denied. That is why all applications are “rubber stamped”. Denying one would be violating a legal ruling.
Naomi and I moved to Lopez in the fall of 1992. After a few days on the island introducing myself to realtors while I was looking for work, and getting a feel for Lopez I came home after work one day and told Naomi that the the island was just a rich suburb that you get to by boat. That was 24 years ago.
I appreciate Steve’s willingness to raise this issue, an issue which I believe deserves a thoughtful community conversation, much more than I appreciate Neil’s harsh and somewhat dismissive comment
May I ask why it is ok for those who moved here before to do as they please with their land, then to turn around and complain that others are doing just the same. For or against the vacation rentals, they do bring in money to the islands. Money that provides for families. Is it fair that there are so many that can not afford to live here and are forced to live in deplorable conditions? No. Should this be on a lack of housing or on a lack of pay to pay for the housing that is here. When we learned that affordable housing is over $300,000.00 I asked what and how did that price become affordable? The realistic question is at what point will we rule out our community with so many rules that people will not want to come here or even live here. Careful how we judge those who feed us. I know the housing situation is so horrid, but making others who are wanting to make money feel bad is wrong. This is still a land of making money through commerce. Those who choose to rent THEIR homes out to WHOEVER is not really the business of those around. Seems to me too many hens in the hen house.
VacRs don’t enrich or contribute to the community in any way. Anywhere. Ever.
They only enrich their owners bank accounts.
If we have reached the point where the majority of rental property owners on Orcas are only motivated by making the absolute maximum profit regardless of the cost to the community as a whole, and there isn’t enough vocal members of the community to push back and alter this trajectory, it’s time to embrace the inevitable….
Orcas as a simulacrum of its former self: Theme park Orcas!
At least it will be profitable.
The County has been conducting meetings of a “housing workgroup” without notice or public participation for a few months. I think that public meetings to explore these issues with input from the people affected would be worthwhile.
The reason Steve’s suggestion won’t work is that the lots these houses are on aren’t zoned for more than one single family home. The county never should have caved in and agreed to no more guests houses or ADU’s when the Friend’s of the San Juans filed suit claiming guest houses doubled the density and our population would become unsustainable. That is the problem. 10 or more years where property owners couldn’t build a guest house has left a hole in the rental market so the fewer rentals there are makes the price unaffordable to the workers on the island.
As a housekeeper/cleaner for vacation rentals as well as private clients and businesses I can say that most vacation rentals if denied a permit would not be long term rentals anyway.and all those permit applications Steve McKenna mentions are not new vacation rentals. The owners are just going legit because they know the County is going to be looking at who has a permit and who doesn’t, and who is collecting and paying the lodging tax and who isn’t. These owners want to use the property themselves on occasion and make it available for friends and family too. Renting it out short term makes that financially possible. Most guests who rent these barely use them except to sleep. They are out enjoying themselves and spending money in our stores and restaurants. They don’t move all their stuff in, most don’t allow pets, and they are cleaned every time a guest leaves. Guests also pay a refundable damage deposit. There is a lot more wear and tear on long term rentals.
There is a housing crisis that can’t be ignored but vacation rentals are not the cause.
Perhaps we need to view the housing issue as a public health issue.We all need a safe and fair priced place to reside in. As renters most are responsible therefore fair priced rentals should be available.As a landlord being able to provide housing year round with as little government interference as needed. We all need to take care of one another. Therefore we need to remind the county from time to time that they work for us and we the citizens have solutions and all we ask is that they take time to listen .
thans again,
scott gianola
aka (the grumpy barista )
Fred, I’m sorry you find the truth harsh or perceive me as dismissive. If you review our prior exchanges last year when you first posted the same thought, I wrote lengthy and thoughtful comments. Please, don’t shoot the messenger. I have great respect for everyone on Orcas and we have bid (unsuccessfully) on 3 homes there as a place for our retirement. Even with a good income, moving there is prohibitive for some…
It has been suggested that 500/month for a studio or 1200/month for a multi bedroom is the right rent (Orcas “Affordable Housing Study 2015). 1200/month basically represents the mortgage payment on a 150,000 house with a 15-year mortgage at 4%. Currently, per Zillow, there are only 2 homes for sale on Orcas at that price! That’s actually up from none about a year ago! There are 7 at or below 250,000.
The study showed that people defined “affordable” as 1200/month for a multi bedroom place. 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. and utilities.
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 is also rather un-American to insist that there is something wrong with a person who can afford a second home to use sporadically and force them to rent it out when they aren’t occupying it. And, they pay taxes year-round, even if it is empty and subsidize the school, roads, etc. without using them! That’s a pretty good deal for the year-round population. It also seems pretty intrusive from a freedom/liberty and keep government out of my business perspective to force owners to rent their homes when unusued. Some of them might just like privacy.
Neil…you wrote: “I’m sorry you find the truth harsh or perceive me as dismissive”…allow me to clarify. When I read a comment which starts by questioning why a guest column was allowed to be published and describing its author as one who has “vented his spleen”, is unwelcoming and who “should move” away, that’s what I found to be harsh and dismissive.
The issues of housing affordability, the vitality of our island community, how we accommodate visitors, growth and development while prospering and managing resources for sustainability are complex, nuanced, and interrelated. They deserve a respectful community conversation.
I can see a public/private cooperative effort. Whatever target figures on monthly rent levels need to be met might be partially subsidized while homeowners might be eligible for some sort of tax relief if renting to year round residents. I have advocated at least half of the one percent real estate excise tax which has been directed towards the land bank up until now. Yes, I would rather invest in people at this point. Failing that, an additional one or 1/2 percent real estate excise tax directed toward providing affordable rentals, whatever that ends up being defined as.
Hang on! Y’all want to tell people what they can do with THEIR land and THEIR homes? My only caveat would be that short term rentals ( AIRBNB, etc) should be subject to the same rules and regulations to which resorts and hotels are subject. Otherwise, let the market do its work and get gubmint out dah way!
Fred, I appreciate your clarification and didn’t mean to offend a potential future neighbor. I was simply making the point that this issue was aired extensively last year. Perhaps every year we should revisit it on this page and see just what has changed. Based on the above comments, I conclude that not much has changed since last year…
I am eager to see how anyone can solve this issue. As I pointed out last year, every county in the USA has reported this same “affordable housing crisis” and so it is common. If anyone has the answer I’m sure it’s people on Orcas. But, they haven’t solved it since last year when we all write about it, and I’m somewhat pessimistic.
The more subsidies the more attractive Orcas becomes, and so the island could easily attract even more who are financially ill-prepared for reality of life there.
The one potentially viable idea I have is for wages to be increased. Of course that means costs would also increase for goods and services, but higher wages could potentially allow workers to afford more.
Personally, can I sign up for the low-bank waterfront, 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 3 car garage model for under 500,000?