||| FROM ALEXANDRA GAYEK |||
Most of the verbal public comments offered at the Feb. 23 County Council meeting in opposition to the current moratorium on vacation rental permit applications perfectly illustrated the primary reason I wrote and spoke in favor of extending the moratorium. The following is more extensive than the letter I submitted to Council 2/23/21, but excludes some specific suggestions.
Just as those who recognize the extent of damage to our planet that has already occurred due to past and current human practices and the resulting climate disruption recognize the urgent need to help people transition out of jobs and lifestyles dependent on the destructive and unsustainable fossil fuel industry, what I’m seeing is that we equally urgently need to help islanders transition out of jobs and lifestyles dependent on unsustainable growing tourism and new development.
There is no question that the current growth trajectory of the county is not sustainable. We are currently in an an even more extreme period of explosive growth.
From an environmental perspective, the human population has far exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the islands. Already, we human islanders depend heavily on mainland resources—food, power, fuel, medicine, medical services, financial services, construction materials, clothing, ferries, garbage disposal, most things we buy at island stores and other businesses, everything we individually order online or travel to the mainland to buy.
Even if we did without everything but food and water, our human population here would not be locally sustainable. We couldn’t grow or harvest enough locally to feed all the human residents without destroying all that is left of the natural ecosystems that support life.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about the problem of jobs and affordable housing in the county. What occurs to me is that no matter what measure of “carrying capacity” we use–fresh water, food and energy production, amount of land, desirability of the level of development density vs. open space, traffic, crowding, parking spaces; housing, access by ferry, capacity of wastewater management and stormwater management, environmental destruction, tolerance of property owners for higher taxes…there is a basic problem being created by the use of all our limited resources by the steady increase in the population percentage of retirees, part-time residents, people working from home for off-island employers or in their own online businesses, and visitors/tourists, none of whom are available to do the paid, year-round, jobs that support a cohesive island community. I’ll call these people “unemployable” for simplicity.
Every time there is an available year-round, part or full time job–say a teacher at the school, a banker, someone to work in county government, health care, the library, OPALCO, or many other jobs, there is a decreasing pool of available qualified applicants in the county. So, someone from outside the county is hired. That person, and the family they bring, can’t find affordable housing, because all the land and county resources that might otherwise be available to build affordable housing or convert current housing stock into affordable housing are being used by the unemployable people living and moving here. The high cost of living makes it difficult or impossible for island employers to stay in business while paying employable people enough to live here, and. Market forces caused by scarcity of properties to buy and rent increases the housing price on both rentals and sales. The more “unemployable” people there are here, the worse this dynamic gets.
The vacation rental industry contributes to this problem, particularly when mainlanders, part time island residents, or islanders with multiple vacation rental properties effectively take our limited island resources for their own profit. At the same time, many of the “unemployable” people who move here first came to the islands as vacation renters themselves. Thus having even more vacation rentals increases the percentage of “unemployable” people moving here.
Then there’s the relationship between the island economy and the type of jobs people have here. According to a San Juan County Cost of Community Services study done in 2004, residential development (including vacation rental properties,) and all its associated jobs, actually costs the county 32% more than it creates in revenue. This translates into increasingly higher property taxes for all of us, creating decreasing county money available for all the services and protections that keep our
community as is described in our citizens-created Vision Statement.
So, not only do we worsen the affordable housing problem, we worsen the county economy—which then creates even more pressure to succumb to living with more construction and tourism, because those are the prominent sources of county revenue and jobs. And so the negative economic cycle continues to worsen, and the wealth gap grows.
Then there are all the costs to the common public good, not to mention direct loss of non-human life, that are not included in most financial analyses. Except perhaps for those thriving from tourism and development-related jobs, most of us aren’t living here to get rich. We didn’t move here, and aren’t held here because of the high-paying jobs available here. Many left secure jobs with benefits, or took pay cuts to be here. We’re willing to put up with job instability, having to work multiple jobs, sacrificing convenience and efficiency, because we want to know and trust our neighbors, have a voice in our small government, see the stars at night, sunrises and sunsets framed by trees and water instead of skyscrapers. We want control over our privacy and quiet, space to grow food, places to walk in nature, and a chance to have our contributions matter.
The more growth and development we have, the more we lose all these things we value. Unless we institute real limits to the influx of “unemployable” people to the county, and assist those whose jobs depend on growing this unsustainable population in transitioning to jobs that instead contribute to regenerating and sustaining our beautiful and necessary natural ecosystems, our cohesive human community, and our rural way of life, we will even more quickly wind up with islands that are uninhabitable by any but wealthy humans. Many current islanders will be pushed out, unable to afford to live here. Businesses will have to rely on off-island workers, unless they are profitable enough to build “company towns” to house their workers. Remaining wild areas will be even more overcrowded and damaged by humans and their technological inventions. More trees will be cut down to make space for more houses, septic systems, and lawns. Remaining forests, already unable to self-regenerate due to overpopulation of deer resulting from removal of natural predators intolerable to human neighbors, and stressed by climate change, will die. Marine life will be even more destroyed than it already is.
Clearly, we must shift more of the existing housing and developable properties from expensive “unemployable” to affordable “employable” residents. We must incentivize preservation and protection of wild ecosytems on private and public property. We must shift to a stable economy that doesn’t depend on environmental or community destruction.
Limiting vacation rental permits is a relatively simple intervention that can have a substantial impact on a huge problem with countless tentacles. A six month moratorium is inadequate to allow the County Council to arrive at the best way to create appropriate limits to vacation rental permits, in the complex context of all the associated issues. It should be extended for at least another six months to allow for creative solutions that address the entire context of growth, including economic transition for those dependent on this currently unsustainable industry.
It is the County Council’s mandate to be guided by the collective Vision Statement₂ for the common good, rather than by the loudest voices or financial interests of those whose individual benefits come at the expense of the common good.
Alexandra, your view is interesting and not unique. But to exercise your brain, why not think about what are opposing arguments? Your “unemployables” (rhymes with deplorables?) pay full taxes without using most of the services. The part timers aren’t enrolling kids in school nor are the retirees, and schools are a big part of a county budget. Crime is low, in part because of the demographic on the island (again, people in their 20-40’s are more likely to be committing criminal acts than children or older people.) And the retiree population tends to be quieter as well, shows respect (generally), etc. It’s easy to see the “other” as the enemy. I invite you to see what good these people may provide and perhaps there may be a reason to include them in creating a more diverse community.
Well said, thank you.
Letting corporate mentality control the direction in which we’re going without fully understanding all of the associated long-term, negative impacts of tourism without limits is a never-ending, self-serving, negative feedback loop that hosts no relation to the common good. “When it’s gone, it’s gone forever”. Past regulations relative to local vacation rentals, though a good start, simply do not go far enough in protecting our communities from over-tourism. SJC’s administrative response to the hospitality industry to date has made our county government enablers and over-promoters of that which they should be protecting us from.
It’s time that we recognize the downsides to over-tourism, and stop issuing half-hearted, unenforceable regulations with no limits, and the over-promotion of one-sided policies by multiple “can’t do” administration’s of the past. It’s time we study the effects that vacation rentals have had on both the real-estate, and the local housing industry past & future, and study it in terms of how it’s relative to over-tourism.
I hope, Mr. Stephens, while uttering statements like, “Well, my constituents are telling me…” that you will remember that I voted for you, and many of the 3,000 people who signed the vacation rental moratorium petition also voted for you. Are you (still) not listening?
Alexandra,
Thank you sharing for your thoughtful perspective on the vacation rental debate. I whole-heartedly agree.
I would like to suggest a parallel discussion to take place.. who benefits from these extra lodging taxes created by the transient rental permits required for legitimate short term rentals.
Who benefits by year round rentals, as structured… it takes a unique property owner to hold fast to the notion of long term good tenants.
I am 100 percent for full time rental access. I would love to see new inspiration that’s meaningful on helping our County Stewards grow with long term wisdom.
Our Community is Strong, Vibrant and Very Intelligent. We just need to honestly CREATE affordable long term housing. To simply WANT it is not going to manifest it.
Let’s step up with solutions, not by trying to maniacal byproducts of default growth but rather raise our collective inspiration to achieve an expected outcome.
Can you change maniacal to manacle please
Feelings are strong. Facts are few. The current pause to let facts catch up with feelings is well-timed, if not late.
Let’s all get our heads together to create soft and green service/product industry in the islands to export as a full employment project for residents.
Good grief. “How disconnected from reality can we get? Will we ever have an economics, data-based discussion? What’s the solution? Boot out everyone who’s not available for full-time work? To whom do island resources “belong”?
“There is a basic problem being created by the use of all OUR limited resources by the steady increase in the population percentage of retirees, part-time residents, people working from home for off-island employers or in their own online businesses, and visitors/tourists, none of whom are available to do the paid, year-round, jobs that support a cohesive island community. I’ll call these people “unemployable” for simplicity.” How about calling them citizens and taxpayers? Or islanders? Who have just as much a right to be here as you do.
As for getting heads together to create a soft and green service industry, this may come as a shock, but the notion has been discussed for decades and NOTHING proposed has panned out. The softest industry in one you impugn: working from home in the various jobs available due to technology.
I agree with Bill–The moratorium is in place for six months, I believe. Now five months left. Not nearly as bad as the multi-year guesthouse moratorium disaster. But an opportunity to actual define the issues and gather objective data, something which is sorely missing now.
As for the 3000 signatories to the petition, please review and report back how many of those folks are actually islanders.
And, sorry for the multiple posts, but “None of whom are available to do the paid, year-round, jobs that support a cohesive island community” utterly ignores the fact that THAT work is construction and services for retirees and those employed from home and tourists. If you got rid of them, there would be few jobs to do.
And again, who gets to pull up the drawbridge? How long has the author lived on the island? Where’s the line going to be drawn? Who decides?
Peg, I appreciate your weird candor. Weird in the sense that you call it and defend it as you see it. It’s always interesting to see the same mouse trap reissued with a different rollout.
Commerce is, or is not.. revenue is, or is not..
to Stammy productivity or block progress is not good Governance. Good management is good Governance.
Looking forward to a New Deal, where there is clear support and direction, a balanced community is one that thrives, one that’s not Soo fragile and fearful that it can’t grow with Grace. Onward.
Thanks to Neil, Shawn, Michael, Leslie, Clyde, Bill, Brad, Peg for commenting, and to all others who read and considered my letter.
It seems there are several competing goals at play in the vacation rental moratorium discussion. These in turn reflect different beliefs and assumptions about who has what “rights” to what, and who is responsible for sacrificing what in order for other “rights” to be fulfilled.
Do individual rights prevail over rights of the public?
Does every person who dreams of living in the county have a right to live here?
Does every person who values peace and quiet and privacy have a right to have it—in a neighborhood, in the state park, on the water, in the air?
Does what a person desires constitute a right to have it?
Does any wild, undomesticated, non-human living being have a right to life, to its natural food, clean water, clean air, space, privacy, quiet, natural cycles of light and dark?
Does a person with more financial resources have a right to control public policy?
Does every person who needs housing affordable with the income that can be earned on an island have a right to such housing on that same island?
Does every person who needs income have a right to create it with county resources? (By resources, I mean everything that is limited, such that if one party uses it, less is available for others.)
Do humans have a right (beyond what our form of government has determined, and our culture rests on) to “own” land or water?
Does the earth itself, or the land or water on it, have any a right to exist in its natural form, to own itself?
I’m not posing these questions as a matter of debate as to what law, religion, schools of philosophy have said, but only to invite us all to think about our own goals and values from a variety of perspectives.
In my initial letter, I was expressing the following perspectives:
1. There is a limited amount of land and fresh water on the islands.
2. Humans are inextricably dependent on natural ecosystems, and thus should live within their carrying capacity.
3. Humans have already far exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the islands, which means that we are degrading the natural ecosystem. As our population continues to increase, the rate of degradation, as well as the amount, increases, with the end point of unlimited increase being total destruction of the natural ecosystem.
4. Because we have exceeded the carrying capacity, we need more and more money to be able to live here, and that demand for money is creating more and more destruction of that carrying capacity because more and more islanders are dependent on the very activities that are most destructive, and therefore, we need to reverse that dependence.
To respond to individual comments, Neil, I disagree with you that the demographic group I termed “unemployables” are in any way “deplorable.” That group—or any other group–is also in no way “other” or enemy, and I’m sorry you saw what I wrote through that lens. What I wrote has nothing to do with assigning any group the label of “good people” as compared with any other group, nor of devaluing or comparing the value of any of our friends, neighbors, or fellow county citizens.
We are collectively responsible for getting ourselves to the place we’re now in, and now we’re all contributing to the future we’re going to have.
Neil and Peg, the point of the study I cited was that the residential taxpayers in the county do NOT “pay full taxes,” if the definition of paying full taxes is that this demographic pays as much to the county in taxes as it, as a demographic, receives in services. It’s not about whether or not individual residents send their kids to school or cause crime or use senior services or mental health services or oil spill cleanup services or EMS or the police or vacation rentals or anything else provided at the county level. It’s about the whole community.
Peg, in answer to your question, this is my 13th year working and living full time on Orcas. I am rapidly becoming one of the “unemployables” I was talking about, and was one in the past. What I meant when I was talking about “jobs that support a cohesive island community” was jobs that do not rely on population growth or more development, while filling needs other than income. As you point out, they certainly don’t all need to be full time or even year-round, or even paid jobs. Just jobs so that we don’t keep having to hire people or bring more tourists from outside the county to cover the needs of islanders.
I’ve had multiple ways of patching together an income since I moved here. In retrospect, I can see the difference between those ways that contribute to the lives of islanders other than myself, those that only allowed me to live here, and even those that took more than they gave. For example, when I had an online business, kept to myself so I wasn’t volunteering anywhere, had guests from off island who didn’t even shop on the island, bought almost all my food and everything else I used on the mainland or online, didn’t even see local medical providers, but still drove on the roads, hiked in the forests, lived in a house, even though I paid my property taxes and voted, I now understand that my life then was a net cost to my fellow county residents. And I wasn’t contributing to a cohesive community. Ouch.
I know the community doesn’t feel very cohesive when people are struggling financially, and everyone feels better when we all have a way to make a living. What I wrote about in my letter was that in order to keep the feel that is described in the Vision Statement, those ways of making a living need to be sustainable and contributing to islanders beyond one’s own family. Seems to me we’ll always need almost every kind of job that islanders now have, just in different proportions and doing different kinds of projects. More work retrofitting, repairing, making things last longer, work better, less new stuff. More work regenerating and protecting ecosystems, less taking and burning and clear-cutting. More trades, less cash. More work keeping one another happy and healthy.
I’ve thought for many months about the drawbridge question. What I’m thinking now is that when we assume that the islands should be a resource for humans, most of whom behave more like an invasive than a native species (I’m thinking of how we define plant and animal species according to their impact on the natural ecosystem,) there’s really no limit other than what we vote for. As long as we can figure out how to get enough water, access by ferries/planes/boats, food, jobs, money, housing, medical and other services, and people are willing to put up with higher taxes, more crowding, more pollution, less nature, privacy, quiet, and space, then it’s just people duking it out among themselves to have their own preferred way of life.
But when we instead assume that the islands should be the natural home to countless native species, and we are willing to behave like a native species, then the limit is defined by the natural carrying capacity, and the drawbridge is controlled by human stewards of this natural home.
I am well aware that it’s individually painful, to say the least, to face barriers to doing or having what any of us have or are doing now, have always dreamed of having or doing. I know it’s really hard to accept that the American way of life that seems so normal and good turns out to be so destructive as to be threatening the very planet we depend on. I know it’s human nature to think we are somehow each the exception.
Had people heeded the environmental alarms that were sounded back in the 1970’s, or the growth alarms islanders were sounding back in the 90’s, the decisions we now face wouldn’t be so overwhelming. And if we kick the can even further down the road, the situation young people alive today, and those not yet born, will face will be even more challenging, while fewer and fewer of our fellow non-human earthlings survive or have a chance to be born at all.
This is not intended to be a big guilt-and-shame trip. It’s intended to be an invitation to all of us to stand up tall and be better than the best versions of ourselves, allow ourselves to really see the inconvenient and uncomfortable truth of the consequences of a growth-and-profit, “progress”-and-competition-and- individualistic-centered way of life, and really come up with how all of us earthlings in the county can thrive together.