— from Cathy Ferran —
Between my husband and I, we’ve raised four kids on this island over the last 37 years. We worked for years to build a guest cottage that we could then rent in order to supplement our income (for those of you who don’t know us, it isn’t all that much). We finally obtained a vacation rental permit at the end of last year, right after my husband retired.
I have more than a few years of work, yet. Now, for the last week I’ve been stewing over these new proposed regulations by the county for Vacation Rentals – requirements like annual life and safety inspections. Trust me, no one wants to spend their vacation in a fire trap – really, no one.
Why do I have to renew my permit every five years? When we purchased the permit, this was not the deal, folks. No take backs on a permit. Lotta lawyers are going to have opinions on that one. Anyway, like most SJC vacation rental owners, I’m having some issues with our county right now. Here are more questions:
- How does the county propose to enforce new regulations when it admittedly hasn’t enforced the ones we have?
- Are the county coffers so full that it can’t afford to collect the taxes due it – shouldn’t we be going after tax evaders as a matter of principle?
- Why is the county targeting vacation home rentals as the source of our affordable housing crisis when their own data graphs indicate otherwise?
Here is my understanding of the reasons for the lack of affordable housing in our county:
- Low wage jobs, except for the jobs generated by Vacation Rentals, such as the hourly rates for rental house cleaning.
- SJC regulations and restrictions precluding development of affordable housing, i.e. Guest housing, ADUs, and “Tiny House” communities.
- Lack of county support for tax revenue (such as exists for the Land Bank) allocated for the construction of affordable rental housing.
If these kinds of regulations and restrictions continue, the next thing you know, there will be a proposal to build a wall to keep out the tourists – the drivers of this economy (I digress).
Seriously though, I believe that we can all agree that we, as a whole island county- dependent on tourists (and coffee) must address the affordable housing crisis. I would prefer to see a more equitable approach to the problem, such as allocating revenue generated by the taxes we all pay in order to support the building of new affordable housing. The current proposed regulations will only serve to punish people that already play by all the rules – for now, let’s focus on the ones who don’t.
In the meantime, if my own grown children don’t start cleaning their respective spaces, I may be providing a small solution to the problem by renting out their rooms.
Here is a link to a very well thought out report on Affordable Housing on an island;like ours: dependent on tourism
https://www.nantucket-ma.gov/184/Affordable-Housing-Trust-Fund
Why on earth do people think our economy is dependent on tourism??? If that is what we want, it is surely what we will get and it will be a loss for ALL residents! Just let your fingers take a walk through your local yellow pages and you will see the many businesses that have very little or nothing to do with tourists. And yes, low wage jobs are a prime result of tourism…is that what we want? I surely hope for more for these Islands. Merry
I think that the EDC data show that tourism is the largest employer, after government. Ironically, construction used to be our leading industry–it has never recovered from the Great Recession.
I agree that low wages for service workers is a big part of the problem.
I also think that, based on the complaints filed with the County during the regulation review process, the County needs to focus on enforcement and data collection before launching into changes to the vacation rental regulations.
I’m not sure that raising service-worker wages would solve any housing problem, and I worry that forcing that solution on our businesses could cause more problems than it might solve.
OPAL seems to be headed in the right direction, since they are building more affordable-rent rental units. Low-cost rental units seem to me to be the better solution.
I suggest to you all a scheme which would be difficult to implement, but, if adopted, would be a great problem solver:
The county might require people who own vacation homes here, which houses regularly remain vacant for more than (say) four continuous months, to provide some small, separate dwelling unit on each property to house a year-’round caretaker family.
This would give our island housing for working families, would help prevent burglary and vandalism of unoccupied dwellings, and would provide land and building maintenance for the property owners.
What do you think of that idea?
Steve, a creative yet somewhat unrealistic solution. Second home owners have the right to sole use of their homes whether occupied or not in a free market economy. Plus, many second part-time residences inside the village core are on lots too small to construct a second DWU, such as the Alder Forest condominiums on Fishing Alley.
Other countries have implemented some tax policies to encourage the supply of rental accomodations. In Paris, residences held for investment purposes (such as in the portfolios of insurance companies) are subject to higher annual income taxes. Also, higher capital gains taxes are applied on sale to second homes by non-residents to discourage speculation. Toronto is presently implementing a 15% purchase tax for non-resident buyers. What about this type of disincentive for off-island landlords?
The County can’t tell homeowners to rent their homes or build second units on their property. In fact, the County decided to effectively preclude the building of ADUs on most lots in the County years ago.
My impression, after reading the comments filed with the DCD and watching the Planning Commission hearing, is that few people buy Orcas homes for investment purposes. Many, many people buy homes for their retirement, and rent the home as a vacation rental to help pay the mortgage and taxes until they move here permanently. (Such folks would not do long-term rentals, because they spend vacation and holiday time in their homes.) Another group of vacation rentals are people who live in the homes most of the year but move out and rent during the high season in order to afford living here the rest of the time.
Why does a small island in the pacific northwest need to be the solution for all social issues? Has it ever occurred to anyone that many people have saved up and moved to one of our isolated islands (some more than others) with relatively poorer infrastructure, roads, connectivity and less density precisely for those reasons. Some of us moved here and ssumed risks, given the isolation of the islands, to step out of the mainstream opting for slower moving waters, a slower pace, some peace, less background noise and, yes, a bit more tranquility. It exists here now. If you’re at that time in your life where making money is your goal, move to a densely populated urban center or sprawl where consumers are coming out your ears, let’s not turn these beautifully isolated little islands into that. There’s a reason a single family home requires a minimum of 5-acres in rurual residential areas on Orcas Island. That reason still exists. Orcas Island isn’t and never will be a job manufacturing center. Apart from well paid techies working remotely from an island paradise by choice (and who certainly aren’t in need of affordable housing), many jobs on these islands are in support of, directly or indirectly, those who have moved here and plunked down many hundreds of thousands of dollars precisely because the San Juan Islands isn’t a preferred venue for factories, franchise fast food businesses, K-Marts, Starbucks, Walmarts, Lowes, CVS pharmacies, to name but just a few of the ways to forever alter these islands, around every corner and pervading your life to no end. There’s a deliberate reason we want proprietors of our local businesses to be “local” themselves. It’s by design for a very articulted reason I find absent in these discussions. Some of us moved here precisely for what these islands lacked. Be careful what you wish for. Find the right balance but don’t destroy what makes the San Juan Islands beautiful and the destination for so many who want to escape the rat race on the mainland.
Sorry for the typos… typing on a small phome screen.
Correction: I believe I misstated our rural residential bldg requirement on Orcas Island: A single family home doesn’t require a minimum of five acres; rather, no more than one single family home may be built on less than 5 acres. Other land designations on Orcas Island require even less density than that, R-20, for example.
Very true Chris, and well said. As you stated, many come here to get away from it all. But intentionally or not, want to bring all they left behind with them to the islands.
I understand your point of view, Chris. Nevertheless, the current residents don’t “own” the right to design the future for new arrivals and future generation. You suggest people who have different agendas than yours can leave and pursue happiness elsewhere. I suggest that communities who engage in a respectful dialogue which attempts to accommodate disparate points of view are vibrant, living communities. I think this is one of the island’s great attributes. Let’s not let our personal agendas dictate other people’s pursuit of happiness; let’s have a discussion open to all.
Chris,
Unfortunately you love the island for what it is (or was) and not it’s potential as a product. It would seem this places you in the minority. It’s time to jump on the Orcas theme park bandwagon; make as much money off of “Orcas the lifestyle” before it’s played out, and then try and find a new, nice, quiet, remote place before it becomes a commodity…Nantucket here we come!
People have been warning that Orcas is becoming “another Nantucket” for 20 years. Hasn’t happened yet. Don’t know anyone who wants it to. Don’t see how it can, given our current rules and shared values.
Paula,
I agree that it certainly sounds all well and good to engage in respectful dialogue. I trust that’s what we’re doing. But beyond those words, what are we talking about specifically? Orcas Island is a small island. It’s not a location given naturally to job creation nor is it ever likely to be due to its isolation, limited size, limited budget and tax base, and its very limited infrastructure.
Overpopulation is not a democratic thing, it’s not a center-right thing; it’s a bad thing, to borrow from some simple language. I’m suggesting that not wanting a densely populated island with franchise businesses and the creation of a permanent underclass unable to sustain itself given the above natural limitations is not necessarily a bad thing.
Instead, seek policies for Orcas Island and the San Juan islands, generally, using a longer term and more thoughtful approach. For example, Orcas Island is a less than ideal place for solving many of our socio-economic challenges whereas the resources and tax base found in our larger urban population centers are clearly more capable in this regard. There, one more readily finds a job that pays and the city’s infrastructure can deal with waste disposal far more efficiency than can a small island.
However, Orcas Island contributes to society in other very important ways, despite its limited footprint. As taxpayers and residents we certainly have a voice as to where our funds should be directed and we have a vested interest in maintaining a good quality of life for the island’s residents as well as maintaining it as a wonderful place to raise children.
I’m relatively new to Orcas Island. I’ve already found ways to support our local schools, art programs (that some would say aren’t practical but I believe are essential for better humanizing ourselves), the library’s new beautiful expansion (on Orcas Island), and all things that help improve the island’s infrastructure. I admire the amazing job teachers do at our schools in not simply in teaching the three Rs but in expanding how children think and relate to the world, putting them in touch with sustainable farming and showing them first-hand how food gets from the farm to their dinner tables (sometimes even bypassing the grocery stores as in direct farming).
There is so much that Orcas Island is doing to improve humanity and society in its own small but impactful way, in setting so many examples from farming (including permafrost), meaningful and personalized education, and encouraging and practicing ecologically sound and sustainable living. We have such natural challenges dealing with waste and energy on Orcas Island; again, just one more reason not to establish policies that directly or indirectly increase the density and footprint on this small island. All of this thinking and more helps us define what we would like to believe is a type of “intelligent living.” Overpopulating the island, increasing its density, increasing the ambient background noise, increasing the spread of urban light (creeping light–it’s a growing problem throughout the country) due to urbanization such that you can’t even see the stars at night. These are not factors that define intelligent living. Do you realize how difficult it is to see the Milky Way anymore?
We are losing so much more than we realize. We should be supporting policies that lend themselves to qualitative improvements for human life. Overpopulation is the opposite of intelligent living. It takes us from a healthy sustainable society to one that is unsustainable, unhealthy, and detrimental to mental and physical health. Intelligent living doesn’t genuflect to the notion that “bigger is better,” or that “more is better.” It attempts to improve the “quality,” if not “quantity,” of human experience so the understanding and appreciation for life is deeper, richer and more meaningful.
This is an honest and open discussion that puts people and experience at least on par with our profit motives (and, yes, we all have motives to make a reasonable profit). Intelligent living seeks balance. Fortunately, a place like Orcas Island is too small to become everything to everyone. It would be a shame if it lost its “quality” due to policies focusing on short-term profit in lieu of a more deeply understood longer term vision. It’s important to see where policy takes us and ask ourselves: does this policy improve or degrade life? This is not about politics. It’s about mental and physical health, and sane living.
Thanks, Paula, for your comment and for allowing me a voice.
I think Rick Hughes had the right idea when he was running the first time: Allow a second guest house on properties of say, five acres or more. Let people to easily build tiny house rentals on their rural property.
I want to remind the community that the service class workers who spend their working lives here want to live an island lifestyle too. We don’t want to be crammed cheek by jowl into apartments or even into heavy developed land, “OPAL style” type housing. We want a slice of island life as well. There are enough of us workers still in the islands to have a large voice in this discussion. It is us, after all, who are having this housing problem.
We supply the services that make things run around here.
However we do it, I would like to see housing that is affordable AND beautiful. We need not scrunch all of the working class into Eastsound. We don’t want this. Everyone come here to live an “island” lifestyle.
Tiny house communities, out in the peaceful woods, are a great idea in my book. Let the county make it as easy and cheap as possible for these to be built and rented as long term rentals. Give tax incentives to people who rent long term in the form of waiving building fees, etc.
This community can only support so many jobs, it is true. But, we can take care of the workers who do live and work here. I think that is the goal of this discussion.
Domenic,
I like your thinking. Why? Because your words help define quality living. Affordable “and” beautiful…exactly! Why not! Nothing wrong with that. No one said big is the sole definition of beautiful. Sometimes big (as in McMansions) is quite the opposite in fact. Quality is where it’s at. Your vision improves all our lots without sacrificing quality. That’s intelligent living. This is not about elitism or “me vs them.” This is about intelligently promoting a better quality life for all. Bravo!
Chris
To understand what we are facing here – especially in Eastsound, which used to be a mixed residence and business town – this all started when ordinances were made to STOP the building of year-round guest cottages outside of town – thus thrusting the brunt of the load onto little Eastsound (one mile wide, at sea level, with salt water on both sides, at the bottom of two hills – a basin – a watershed.
What this did was to force the UGA – but what got built there – where we have our bars, our music halls, etc? Vacation rentals! No housing for year round renters. Now, OPAL is looking to clear the last forest we have on the outskirts of town to build more because there IS no cleared land left in downtown Eastsound. That’s how the Swale and our very important windbreak forests got, and keep getting, destroyed. But more important – the ordinance said that people who built guest houses had to rent them to “transient” populations – ie tourists and people only staying a short time. What is defined as “not transient or “long term” rentals? 31 days! This must be fixed. When you think that a vacation rental cottage rents for, say $200 a night (probably a lowball estimate), then people can afford to leave their guest houses empty for 10 months out of the year and our workers live in their cars, or the homeless live in the woods.
And then you have people (names not mentioned but someone actually SAID this to me – someone in a position of relative power!) “We need to cut down all these woods and flush out the homeless people.” (paraphrased). How heartless can we be? Surely, there are better solutions – and I hope the Eastsound Visioning groups are coming up with some of them. I see nothing wrong with charging more for water and sewer for people who don’t even live here milking the “cash cow” of “vacay” rentals and air B & B’s. These islands are so much more than a tourist destination and cash cow to be milked til they’re dry. For starters, let’s redefine “long term” rentals and allow them again!
Bravo, Domenic Verbano – beautifully and thoughtfully said – i second that. Some of my favorite places I ever lived were in tiny cottages OUTSIDE of Eastsound. I would love to be able to see the night sky again and know the peace of the forest – you know – the Northwest – as this is not Palm Springs. Yet.
Thank you also, Merry Bush, for your comment. I have wondered this same thing for the long years I’ve been here -especially since the real estate “boom” of 89, where we became a commodity, for sale to the highest bidder.
This is not to dismiss what Cathy Ferran wrote; there are families here, including theirs, who are working families – some of them long time families, whose only way to afford their mortgages is to rent their guest houses. But i would like to ask these families – why not rent to good year-round tenants with references? I know there are some bad renters, but most are good and do not want to trash their rental homes.
I’ve also noticed the trend of many absentee landlords who only want the money from their rentals, to expect their renters to pay upwards of $2000 for a house (houses that USED to belong to working families who were either pushed out by rising costs of living, or moved on when someone died) – these “absentee” landlords living in one or two or more OTHER places, also expect their renters to do free groundskeeping for their extensive gardens and grounds. This is a form of exploitation – as is “hiring an immigrant” and paying them horrible wages – a despicable practice. If we want to talk about fairness, then we need to treat all of our residents as valuable members of this community.
I like Paula Treneer’s idea of taxation for absentee people whose places here are 2nd, 3rd, or 4th homes – if they are making money off the tourist industry by doing vacation rentals or speculative land buying and selling – which was what was happening here from the late 1980s on – then they should pay more for water, septic, and taxes.
I think it’s time to realize the free market capitalism is a system that is parasitic system that is now out of hand, and it will destroy these islands if we let it keep going this way without some checks and balances. We cannot continue to grow like this – while what percentage of our homes and guest houses here sit empty most of the year? What percentage of our voters are basically non- residents? We must answer these questions and come up with equitable answers for all – but unlimited growth is not one of them. Selling “the dream” is a lie for most working people who will now never be able to afford “a piece of the pie.”
I hear you Sadie. I would just point out that what makes Orcas Island unique, apart from its natural bounty, is not accidental. It’s the result of very smart, insightful and reality-based thinking and vision. It’s not at all average or found in most of the country. From the quality of choices of all things edible at Roses Cafe, the amazing organic choices at the Co-op, the never disappointing books ready for purchase at Darvill’s, the amazing dinners at Doe Bay Cafe, the fresh halibut at Buck Bay, the permafrost experimental farming in Deer Harbor, the organic Salmon fisheries, the organic farming and the farm-to-table mindset.
All of this thinking and planning, and there’s so much more I’ve not mentioned, is the result of very intelligent human interaction within and with our community. None of the people who bring this level of quality to life on Orcas Island ever had guarantees of anything in life. They made life happen as they’ve envisioned it. They sculpted life out of raw clay and marble.
We are of this earth and have never had guarantees since walking upright, nor has any other life form or plant-life for that matter. Everything good, all quality you see around you on Orcas is the product of much toil, work and effort; and to achieve the actual level of quality seen on Orcas today, a great deal more of learned knowledge, intelligence, experience, vision and, yes, capital from capital markets. I prefer human capitalism (or humanist capitalism) but a system that rewards effort. It’s natural.
Combined, they make up the secret sauce that makes all of this possible. Balance, yes! Affordable and Beautiful, yes! Seeing the night sky, that’s what it’s all about! But we must all pull our weight and not pretend nature, of which we’re a part, guarantees anything.
I agree that we should not substitute our bounty for short-term greed.
I think Domenic’s ideal of available housing by erecting elegant tiny homes on 5+ acre lots and renting them out to the amazing support workforce who still are unable to buy but whose value to the island overall can’t be easily overstated is an excellent example of searching for a balance that doesn’t sacrifice quality and intelligent living. But, we can’t divorce our thoughts and ideas from human nature no more than we can guarantee success, or guarantee equality in effort or result.
I may not like the fact that I don’t have Michael Jordan’s reach because I’m all but 5-feet,9 inches tall; but, instead of being envious and wanting to force nature to lower itself to my level (like that’s possible), I look to my natural strengths and excel in what I do best. It worries me when we talk or hint of guaranteeing equality in results. We’re different by nature and by a myriad of factors impossible to describe fully here.
Just because a New York pigeon can’t soar like a bald eagle or a Condor in the Andes in South America, it’s not natural, right, or logical to clip the wings of the Eagle or Condor in order to make it fly no higher than the pigeon in order to mandate equality. That’s top down authoritarianism; it’s failed in the past and always will in the future for the simple reason that it conflicts with nature as manifested in reality. Difference exists in nature and no matter the human thought, it cannot change the reality on the ground. Balance yes, but always in the context of realism and in the context of our human nature. That’s how we succeed intelligently and find a balance that doesn’t destroy our quality of living by insisting on the lowest common denominator.
Reality can be your best friend if you work with it. Fight it, and disaster results and our community becomes one more eyesore of which there are plenty in the urban sprawls on the mainland. We’re better than that.