||| FROM JAN SCILIPOTI |||
I am a 20-year Lopez resident and represent a vacation rental owner’s group called Hosting on the Rock. The conversation about Vacation Rentals (VRs) in the San Juan Islands seems to distill down to three main topics: housing, neighborhood concerns, and environmental impact. Each topic is multi-faceted and complex.
I’d like to begin with Housing. First, it’s important to make a distinction between home-ownership, ‘affordable housing’ and year-round rental housing.
“Affordable Housing” is offered by non-profit organizations that use subsidies to provide housing to people within a specified income bracket. On Lopez this refers to the Lopez Community Land Trust (LCLT), which provides housing with a limited equity home ownership model to qualified residents.
The second type is what I call “workforce housing.” This would be for people with jobs on the islands who are looking for year-round or seasonal rental housing. The 2019 median household income was around $63,600. Using 30% of that income for housing equates to approximately $1,600 per month that a resident could use for housing.
In my opinion, LCLT is doing a great job at providing affordable housing for residents to own on Lopez. It seems that what Lopez really needs now is rental housing affordable to working residents. Since this is the type of housing that some say Vacation Rentals are affecting, let’s start here.
I have heard it said that if permits are limited in number with Caps, the VR owners will turn their homes into year-round rentals instead. Under the current situation, I don’t think VR owners will turn their houses into year-round rentals. Here is why:
- Owners of second homes want to use them on weekends and during the summer. If owners rent their houses out year-round, they can’t use their homes themselves. Renting them as VRs allows owners to use their homes throughout the year. The importance of this in our island vacation destination cannot be overstated.
- Homes are so expensive here that owners can’t cover expenses with rents of $1,600 or less.
In 2019, the median SJC home was valued around $489,000. This means the mortgage, property taxes and insurance will be approximately $2,000 (depending on the individual circumstance). Property Management, repairs, and capital expenditures are additional costs.
Will the homeowner cover the difference between the ownership costs and the rental income in order to provide year-round housing? I say no, the majority of them won’t. If owners don’t need the money from the rental to cover the costs, they will just leave the house empty until they want to use it, and not bother renting it at all.
This opinion is borne out by a 2015 Housing Study which showed that of SJC’s housing stock, 7% are VRs, 16% are year-round rentals, 36% are vacant, and 41% are owner-occupied. 36% equates to a lot of vacant houses! These owners do not want to rent their homes, and financially don’t need to do so.
A side-note: if SJC limits permits too strictly, one effect will be that people (like me, for instance) who really do need the income from VRs to keep their property will have to sell them. This will negatively affect the working people that need the most help on the islands. I can’t overstate how critical this is: we should support people who still need income, instead of supporting people who don’t need rental income to keep their homes.
You may not like the fact that VRs provide income, but they do, for both the owners and for many businesses, from restaurants to carpenters. We live in a vacation destination, and tourism supports many of us and allows us to live here.
This prompts the question, why are homes so expensive here? As usual, the answer is complex.
-
- The islands are beautiful. We are within driving distance of several urban areas that have experienced tremendous population growth in recent years. As such, the islands are and always have been a popular vacation destination.
- People want to live in the cities while they are still earning income and then retire here. They have good paying jobs and are able to afford second homes.
- People from other places (like California) sold their homes for even more money than our homes cost and moved up here to retire.
- We are in the longest bull run in the stock market in history, and real estate costs always follow the market. Housing costs in our entire region are incredibly high.
- We have a lot of land in preservation, which is excellent, but which also means that housing can’t be built there, therefore increasing the cost of the limited housing that is available.
- All over the country, inventories of houses for sale are 10% of what they should be. This lack of inventory has driven up costs. Vacation destinations like ours have been particularly affected.
- Finally, the pandemic meant that people did not want to live in cities. We have had a HUGE influx of people who want to move here, and this has driven up home prices significantly since 2020.
Do VRs increase the cost of housing? It’s possible, for two reasons. First, VR owners keep up the appearance and maintenance of their properties. This translates into higher selling prices (and also, more revenue for SJC). Second, VR permits currently ‘run with the land’, meaning a new owner can continue to use the existing permit. For anyone needing income from a VR, this makes the property more desirable. Are VRs the sole reason for high housing costs? Absolutely not.
- Long term rentals cause more trouble for owners than VRs. Why do I say this? Because every local property manager I have spoken with agrees. They deal with both kinds of rentals, year after year. While neither type is perfect, the problems caused by some long-term renters are more costly and occur more frequently than problems caused by VR guests.
Where is the data to support all this? The Moratorium was put in place in February so that no new VR permits could be initiated in certain areas while the situation is being studied. In the five months since the Moratorium began public comments have been collected, but studies have not even been initiated, let alone completed. I’d like to propose the kind of Work Plan that could get to the root of the housing issue:
Proposed Work Plan regarding VRs and Housing
Identify the Problem:
-
- The San Juan Islands lack sufficient rental housing that is affordable to working residents.
Study the Situation:
-
- How much year-round housing is needed? At what monthly rent?
- How much seasonal housing is needed? At what monthly rent?
- What size homes are needed?
- Must they accommodate pets? How many?
- Of the current ‘vacant’ homes being used as second homes, how many have been used as year-round rentals in the past? How many were rented to locals only during the winter season, and is that still occurring?
- Of the current VRs, how many have been used as year-round rentals in the past? How many were rented to locals only during the winter season, and is that still occurring?
- Given concerns about environmental impact, does SJC want to court unlimited numbers of workers by providing sufficient housing for them? Should SJC be limiting tourism overall?
- Currently, are new homes being built specifically as VRs? How many, and on which islands?
- Currently, are new homes being built specifically as year-round rentals? How many, and on which islands? What is the projected monthly rent?
- We have a Housing Study from 2015 that provided the breakdown of VRs, rentals, vacant homes and owner-occupied housing. How has COVID changed those numbers? What is the current breakdown?
- What other areas in the U.S. have already tried solutions that SJC might emulate?
Develop innovative solutions:
-
- How can homeowners be persuaded to turn their properties into rentals? Could subsidies be an option? Could SJC provide education about screening tenants, WA landlord/tenant laws and management of year-round rentals?
- Should there be a luxury tax on homes above a certain value, that is then used to subsidize rentals?
- Can existing housing stock provide the necessary housing, or is new construction needed?
- Do the existing building regulations allow for the required housing? What about guest houses and ADU’s, are long term rentals allowed in these housing types, both for existing and new construction?
- Should SJC partner with local contractors to produce a build-to-rent model?
- Can SJC partner with business owners to provide housing for seasonal workers?
- How will SJC educate the new year-round or seasonal tenants about neighborhood concerns and environmental impact on the islands?
Conclusion
In my opinion, VRs are not the cause or the solution to our lack of workforce housing. We need to find creative ways to incentivize homeowners (both of VRs and particularly of the 36% ‘vacant’ homes) to provide more year-round rental housing, or build housing to suit these needs.
Surveys for VR owners
In an effort to compile the viewpoints of VR owners, Hosting on the Rock is starting a survey series. Each brief survey will focus on a particular aspect of the VR discussion.
If you are a VR owner in the islands, please take part in our surveys, starting with the housing-related survey currently underway. Go to HostingontheRock.com and subscribe for moratorium updates and to receive the links for the surveys. Email us at hostingontherock@gmail.com
Well stated. The opportunity here for our Council is to step up, rather than out.. by that it’s been suggested, do your homework.. it’s not a time for platitudes or pushing the problem down the road. Get focused, commit to some bench marks, then resolve that’s tangible will happen.
All will be better served, and you will feel like a problem solver. Thanks for all you are doing, it’s appreciated!!
Jan – thank you for some much needed ‘good thinking’. If only our elected policy makers will take the time to learn from your insights and suggestions – before acting because of a political agenda with pre disposition.
Members of the planning commission are looking at VR (and housing) issues currently and Steve Smith as an Orcas member of that commission has compiled data that supports (in part) much of what you have reported.
Good work !
Jan- you said, “A side-note: if SJC limits permits too strictly, one effect will be that people (like me, for instance) who really do need the income from VRs to keep their property will have to sell them. ”
But, in your 3/10/21 article in the local papers “Stop vilifying vacation rentals”, you stated, “Since 2013 my partner and I have stayed in short term rentals (through Airbnb and VRBO) all around the world.”
Which is it? Livelyhood, or lifestyle? Of course (for you), it’s all about the money… we all get that. For those of us who choose not to endeavor in such a rapacious enterprise as vacation rentals it’s about far more than that.
Jan- you said, “A side-note: if SJC limits permits too strictly, one effect will be that people (like me, for instance) who really do need the income from VRs to keep their property will have to sell them. ”
I can hardly believe that you’re inferring that future caps and limits on VRs will somehow affect already existing VR permits… and cause people to have to sell and move??? Stop your misleading fear-mongering. There’s not an iota of truth in that statement… and you know that. Future caps and limits will not affect any already legally operating vacation rental.
Jan has some very well thought out opinions and conclusions but has skipped over the fact that Corporations and big business are buying up housing all over the country and turning them in to vacation rentals. We have seen that in the San Juan Islands.. If we allow off Island corporations to buy up and control our housing available for short or long term rentals then that money goes off Island and we lose control of our housing and neighborhoods. We should treat corporation owned housing as a business and regulate accordingly. I have seen what absentee owned properties do to the neighborhood with excessive traffic and noise. Every week is a party at some places. This destroys the neighborhood feeling. The Council should regulate business owned properties as a business and allow vacation rentals on owner occupied properties as provided in the Code for a Home Occupation business. This might prohibit some folks from owning or using their property in the Islands but they can rent their property out as a long term rental until they are able to move here permanently. It will protect the established neighborhoods and keep more tourist dollars for residents.
Jan- you said, “I have heard it said that if permits are limited in number with Caps, the VR owners will turn their homes into year-round rentals instead. Under the current situation, I don’t think VR owners will turn their houses into year-round rentals. ”
Really? You’re the only person I’ve ever heard say that. Making it up as you go are we? Short term vacation rentals have been chewing up the rental market for over 20 years… to the point that there’s hardly any left. Limiting vacation rental permits is intended to stave off the investor class who is hugely responsible for the increases in our housing market.
You failed to mention this in your list of the reasons of why homes are so expensive in the San Juans… didn’t you? Sometimes what isn’t said is just as relevant as what is said.
Jan Scilipoti – Thank you for a well thought out article. You bring up many good points, but I would like to add one more: TAX REVENUE. Vacation rentals pay 10% of our gross income in taxes. We also pay SJC property taxes, as do all those “vacant” homes, unlike all the land in preservation and at a MUCH higher rate than subsidized ‘affordable housing’. For example, the property tax on our 2 bedroom rental house is $2105 in 2021 and we pay roughly $4000/yr in transient rental tax, whereas a typical 2 bedroom OPAL home, such as Mike Johnson’s, pays $367 in property taxes. So that VR house contributes 16 times the tax revenue of the OPAL house. County revenue has to come from somewhere if we want roads, parks, police, courts, etc. Sales taxes and property taxes are where the county’s income is generated. And that vacation rental is where MY income is generated. That income allows me to live on Orcas Island and to contribute my share to the state and county’s revenue. I have lived and worked on Orcas Island for over 30 years and if I couldn’t rent that house as a vacation rental, I would have to sell it. Does anyone seriously think that a purchaser of that home would rent it out for $1600/mth?
I do think that finding a way to balance the number of visitors to the islands with the ecological and cultural health of the communities is essential, but singling out VR hosts as scapegoats for all the challenges of island life is not helpful. Limiting the number of visitors is a complicated problem and frankly, it is the excessive number of cars and incompetent bicyclists that I find frustrating, rather than the actual number of people visiting. I am okay with limiting the number of new VR permits per year as long as the number of hotels, motels and bed & breakfasts are similarly limited.
Jan—So thoughtful and well stated. I agree, we have heard a lot of commentary, but no studies have been done to really define issues or come up with anything other than a moratorium or caps. Which, in my opinion, solves nothing. What you have outlined for a work plan is excellent! I am truly hopeful that the Planning Commission and Council will take a good look at your proposals.
Ken, you said,”I have lived and worked on Orcas Island for over 30 years and if I couldn’t rent that house as a vacation rental, I would have to sell it.”
What you mean is that if you couldn’t rent out the multiple homes you own you’d have to move your investment elsewhere. You have more than your share, and it’s helping to put a hurt on our community.
You said, “Does anyone seriously think that a purchaser of that home would rent it out for $1600/mth?”
Yes, I know half-a-dozen people that are paying $1,2300-$1,600 per month in rent. I know others who rent for less (one in a basement of one of my neighbors, another in a converted attic, several in people’s bedrooms. This is not uncommon.
Jan, you said, “Do VRs increase the cost of housing? It’s possible….”
I have two (retired) realtor friends… one owns a VR, the other one doesn’t. I’ve asked them this same question. One says, “Duh!” The other one says, “Anything that makes tens of thousands of dollars in profit within a year will raise the value of a home at the time of sell.”
When I ask them if VRs are a selling point that they pushed as a realtor… one said, “Duh!” The other one said “Yes”.
VRs have been affecting the housing market since day one… there’s no way that they couldn’t. Keep repeating “mabey” to yourself over & over, and “maybe” even you will eventually believe it. Meanwhile… it’s time you quit insulting us with this lie.
Ken, you said, “…singling out VR hosts as scapegoats for all the challenges of island life is not helpful.”
and also,
“I am okay with limiting the number of new VR permits per year as long as the number of hotels, motels and bed & breakfasts are similarly limited.”
Your analogy of people “singling out VR hosts as scapegoats for all the challenges of island life is not helpful”… is not helpful. We can’t have a meaningful debate until you acknowledge that the concerns people have regarding the over-proliferation of vacation rentals, and regarding over-tourism are serious issues, (serious enough to bring us to this moment). But, you already knew that… you’re just trying to side-track the issue. Focus… if you’re able.
I too, feel that “all” tourist accommodations should be regulated… but the last time I looked we didn’t have too many hotels, BnBs, or resorts… we have too many vacation rentals. Vacation rentals are the logical place to start.
Michael Durland, I believe this is one of the myths that locals love to pass around: that corporations and big business are buying up houses in SJC and turning them into VRs. I agree that this is happening on the mainland, but I have only seen it in markets where it makes sense financially. In markets as highly priced as ours, I have not seen it and personally don’t think it will happen.
Do you actually know of any on the islands? How many? If you (or anyone) has any real data on this, please post it. If you are just repeating anecdotal hearsay, please stop feeding that particular rumor.
Family Trusts and LLCs do not count. Generally they are folks who intend to retire here, and are just protecting their assets.
It’s so helpful to have factual information. It allows the discussion to unfold in a civilized manner… rather then chatter or isms pent up with animosity.
Lynn – I have had more than enough of Mike Johnson’s ad hominem attacks. When I post a comment, the website says it’s being “moderated”. So I can only presume that The Orcasonian is approving personal attacks. I genuinely appreciate the local news that you are presenting, but if you want a vibrant community of commentators rather than just a few old cranks with nothing better to do, you need to keep people civil and comments constructive.
Jan- The Wendermere group on Orcas does… for one. But, it doesn’t matter whose investing in them… when there’s too many.
LLCs do count when they’re buying houses and turning them into VRs. The fact that they don’t live here, but plan on retiring here in the future does not make up for the fact that there’s too many… they should move somewhere else.
I’m surprised current vacation rental owners do not want to limit the number of vacation rentals available in the islands. Current compliant operators are grandfathered in, and have nothing to lose. A realtor friend told me many potential buyers coming to her this year are only interested in properties they can turn into vacation rentals. Saturation will serve no one. Current vacation rental owners may find themselves having to compete for customers just like the owners of our local hotels and inns–offering two nights for the price of one, or Groupon deals in the peak of the season.
Jan, When the house next to me was for sale, an investment group from California made an offer to buy it, contingent on being able to purchase 4 other homes on Orcas to use as vacation rentals. Apparently it wasn’t worth having fewer than 5 vacation rentals due to the costs of management and maintenance. Though my neighbor (the seller) was disappointed when the deal fell through, I was hugely relieved. I don’t know if absentee investment groups have purchased multiple homes in the islands for vacation rentals, but it seems within the realm of possibilities. We do know 54% of vacation rentals are owned by people/entities who do not live in San Juan County.
.
Great points, Sheila Gaquin (and I hear you are a lucky rower too!).
A vintage home just sold here in Doe Bay to a couple from Yakima. They are in the fruit business and “cannot come here in the summer” during the fruit season. The place has become a constantly-turning-over-rental managed by a local firm with ties to a large real estate company. I don’t think new owners ever intended anything different, than buying this house and renting it as often as possible. Every single rental party brings a different set of issues to the neighbors. I won’t get into that now. It’s too upsetting.
Jan– you said, (in relation to corporate VR ownership in the San Juans), “…I have not seen it and personally don’t think it will happen.”
I find no assurances in your beliefs that what is happening everywhere will never happen here. “It will never happen here,” is the worst possible baseline from which our county leaders could operate from when considering the implementation of safeguards. The gist behind the current movement to restrict certain types of VRs, (as well as the sheer numbers of them) is one meant to ensure that it WILL NOT happen… and not realize in 10 years time that it did, and there being nothing to do about it. “Once it’s gone it’s gone forever.”
If you don’t think this is going to happen you shouldn’t have any problems with new restrictions ensuring that it won’t.
Hi Sheila,
That is the first actual example I have heard about an investment group trying to buy multiple properties on the islands. It sounds as if it did not work for the very reason that makes me think this will not become a frequent occurrence: our high-priced homes and limited inventory will make it almost impossible to pull off. However, there are examples where jurisdictions have taken steps to prevent this from happening. It would be good to present the idea to our County Council. If you would be willing to ask your neighbor or the realtor involved to email me at hostingontherock@gmail.com, I would like to talk with them about what happened.
In regards to the your comment that 54% of the VRs are owned by people/entities who do not live in SJC: I don’t agree with you. And I also think that we need to acknowledge that many (upwards of 36%) of our homes are owned by people who plan to retire here. They already visit on a regular basis, and have meaningful ties to the islands. They are in an in-between category, neither full-time residents or ‘mainland corporations’ , and should not be treated as “Others” .
Finally – sorry to keep picking at you, but incorrect statements drive me nuts – many of the VR owners in Hosting on the Rock actually DO support caps. We just think the caps should be reasonable. We wonder why the number of construction projects and the number of other tourists (such as friends/family, hotel guests, and campers) that visit are not being capped, if over-tourism is the problem. We also think that caps must be supported by effective enforcement and also a functional way to count and distribute available permits.
Let’s move on from talking about how VRs are “bad” or “good” and start developing actual solutions. Please see the last section of my looong post above that outlines some potential ideas!
Michael Johnson–I am sorry that you are so bitter and feel so deprived that you have abandoned all sense of community and civility and have rendered rational discussion in these pages almost impossible. We all get a bit heated occasionally but most try to focus on issues, not personalities and how much everyone else in the island seems to have and enjoy, in your opinion. You do not respond to anything substantive that Jan has said but rant about her using Air BnB years ago, and don’t address Ken’s points but instead accuse him of –GASP–owning property. None of that helps.
Sheila–Would you let us know the source for this claim: “We do know 54% of vacation rentals are owned by people/entities who do not live in San Juan County.” Tracy–Please report these occurrences to the County! The only way to get rid of these negligent owners’ permits is by compiling violation data.
I don’t believe anybody is making any ad hominem attacks here. But the number and passion of comments here and elsewhere demonstrates the importance of this issue to Islanders on both sides of the issue.
But to return to Jan Scilipoti’s original argument: no, vacation rentals are not, alone, responsible for the housing (read “homeless”) crisis we are experiencing here (and nationwide)–probably our biggest and most shameful issue. But in a tourist-dependent destination county like San Juan, VRs are certainly a contributing factor. Jan is right that we need to focus on all the factors affecting the lack of “affordable market rate” housing, but we don’t need to let the need for research and facts distract us from the vacation rental issue. There is plenty of documented research on VRs available, locally and nationwide, from DCD, from the Vacation Rental Group, and for anybody who cares enough to search the internet. Just look, for example at the local need expressed in the “Orcas Housing and Space Rentals” group on Facebook. The Planning Commission and Council are responding to popular expression of need to address the VR issue Now. So, yes, let’s deal with the housing issue, but let’s not be distracted or skip over the part of it which is completing an equitable policy to regulate vacation rentals. Let the Planning Commission and Council know what you think: vrcomments@sanjuanco.com.
These days it seems facts are in the eye of the beholder. By Jan Scilipoti’s analysis, there are no out of county investors in vacation rentals in SJC because “family trusts and LLCs don’t count” and generally these owners will become future residents. This is not a fact. We are all operating in a dearth of information, but many of us know what we experience – that our roads and ferries are more congested, our beaches and trails more crowded, our grocery stores more depleted, all throughout the year now. Most of us want action on factual information to preserve the beauty and livability of the place we call home. That won’t happen by calling our suppositions facts and others’ “anecdotal hearsay.”
It also appears ad hominem is in the eye of the beholder; it’s apparently fine to inject the amount Michael Johnson pays in property tax or to call him ‘bitter’ and ‘deprived,’ yet he is the one being accused of an ad hominem attack. In what I’ve read, he has introduced quotes from arguments and comments previously published to show inconsistencies. I’m challenged to find an instance in which he has conveyed the information or sentiments you reference. Clearly there is a lot of passion on both sides; we would do well to remember that we are all part of the same community.
My mom is in assisted living in Burlington. She and my dad built a house in West Sound in 1987 and lived there until my dad passed soon after his 92nd birthday in October of 2019. After my dad’s passing, mom tried living in the house alone but she was fearful at night. I should not have left her alone. I called and visited every day and would help her with daily chores as I live nearby. Friends and neighbors would visit as well. Two days before my dad’s memorial, mom fell and broke her hip. I found her on the floor bleeding and crying for help. She can’t live by herself but wants to come home. I’ve tried to make that happen but the cost of full-time caregiving is exorbitant (around $20,000/month). The next best thing is to bring her home periodically, which I’ve done a few times.
As her representative, I applied for a vacation rental permit in 2020 in order to help pay for her caregiving expenses, though we haven’t activated the permit. We leave the house furnished so that she might be able to come home at some point and for friends and relatives to visit. Many people have contacted me about renting the house long-term. I would love to do that, but doing so would preclude mom, friends, and family from staying in the house as well as the higher income that mom may need to pay for her caregiving. I don’t know if we will ever activate the vacation rental permit, but it is important to my mom’s care that we have the ability to do so should the need arise.
This is a very personal account of why we have a vacation rental permit. I hesitated posting this for that very reason, and I appreciate your sensitivity to that. I decided to post it because I thought the public should be aware that there are multiple reasons for having a vacation rental permit.
It really doesn’t matter so much who they are, or where they live. I don’t mind people buying properties and moving here… this point is aside from the crux of the issue. What I do mind is the number of homes that continue to be converted into short-term vacation rentals. Aside from all the other problems that can be attributed to vacation rentals (some mitigable, and some not), a poorly managed and unenforceable short-term vacation rental industry with an unrestrained number of short-term vacation rentals represents, at this time, the tipping point of over-tourism. You cannot mitigate the negative affects of overtourism, and we’re already at saturation. Once it’s gone it’s gone forever folks… we’re better than that.
Please write the county council now and express your concerns– vrcomments@sanjuanco.com
Jan–thank you for your hard work and clear thinking. If the Council proceeds without decent data, any rule can and likely will be challenged in court.
Yes, there can be no doubt that the threat of legal action is the overarching strategy currently being used by members of the Lopez-based Hosts on the Rock, and other opponents of short-term vacation rental caps and restrictions, done so in an effort to “leverage” the San Juan County Council from doing their jobs.
Imagine having enough money so that every-time the county was considering legislation that you disliked… you could simply threaten them with a lawsuit in order to sway their votes. This does not represent “clear-thinking”. It’s operating out of desperation on the premise of “using any means to an end,” and is called “political blackmail”.
Perhaps the public should reciprocate by threatening a class-action law-suit against the county council if they don’t implement meaningful caps and restrictions on the vacation rental industry on the basis that their decisions are based upon short-term thinking that will lead us to over-tourism.
Short-Termism
Overview
Short-termism refers to an excessive focus on short-term results at the expense of long-term interests. Short-term performance pressures on investors can result in an excessive focus on their parts on quarterly earnings, with less attention paid to strategy, fundamentals and long-term value creation. Corporations too often respond to these pressures by reducing their expenditures on research and development and/or foregoing investment opportunities with positive long-term potential. These decisions can weigh against companies’ development of sustainable products or investment in measures that deliver operational efficiencies, develop their human capital, or effectively manage the social and environmental risks to their business.
Ken Wood makes a valid point when illuminating the disparity between the loss of tax revenue created by tax-subsidized housing in comparison to that of vacation rentals. There is a cause and effect with short-term vacation rentals being threat-multipliers on several levels. They’ve been driving real-estate prices up, and chewing away at long-term housing for years, this leading us to a dependency on tax-subsidized housing for low to middle income families.
We learned much from the 2002 American Farmland Trust / Friends of the San Juans Cost of Community Services Survey which concluded, “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.”
I like the way Cindy Wolf put it, (clear thinker that she is), when she said, “The problem, as I see it, are vacation rental owners who view the islands as an investment opportunity rather than as a year-round community. The proliferation of vacation rentals shrinks year-round rental stock, drives up real estate prices, and prices the middle class out of our housing market.”