||| FROM MICHAEL JOHNSON |||
To: Mandi
My name is Michael Johnson. I live on Orcas Island. I find myself at this time wanting to reach out to you in response to your 6/29 editorial titled “Vacation rentals alone aren’t causing the affordable housing crisis.”
I’m assuming that perhaps you, or one of your associates might read the Orcasonian. If so, I’m also hoping that you might respond to this. But, in case you don’t read the Orcasonian I’ll forward a copy of this with the associated link to both the Fri. Har. Journal’s office, as well as to the Islands’ Sounder’s office so as to give you a heads up. Please don’t take this as an attack on you personally… for it is not.
Sound Publishing, Inc.’s role in promoting the vacation rental and tourism industry in SJC is well known. From the editor of the Islands’ Sounder being closely tied to the vacation rental industry herself while at the same time serving as the Pres. of the board of the Orcas Chamber of Commerce, to our local paper’s participation in working with SJC via the Chamber of Commerce and the SJC Visitor’s Bureau to produce and distribute the annual tourist guide, “The Book of the San Juan Islands– Information & Relocation Guide,” to each of our local newspaper’s annual, “It’s time to be nice to the tourists” editorial, (talk about a sign of over-tourism), we have observed our local paper’s adherence to the status quo.
In your editorial you give the opinion of the paper as your signature in regards to the ongoing debate surrounding the cause and effect of the current lack of affordable housing in SJC. You do so when stating–
- “Six months ago when the vacation rental permit moratorium began– We wrote an editorial explaining our stance on the issue.”
- “We’d like to reiterate our feelings….”
- “Based on our observations, we aren’t convinced….”
- “We urge the council to look at other, critical factors.”
- “We implore the council to find solutions for the root cause of the housing crisis….”
In light of these statements I wanted to ask the following question for clarity– Who is the “we” that you are referring to in your editorial? Whose opinion is it exactly that you’re referring to? Is this your opinion alone, or, is this the opinion of the editors of both the Journal, and/or perhaps also the Sounder? Or, is this the position of our local newspaper’s staff members? If so, how many staff members does this position statement represent? Does it represent the opinion of the entire staff?
Or, is this perhaps an opinion that was handed down from headquarters– from the Sound Publishing, Inc. office in Bellevue, or, from the Black Press, LTD headquarters in Victoria? I mean, somebody, somewhere in your chain of command has to approve of the content of the newspaper, right? So, I ask again, whose opinion is it that is reflected in the 6/30 editorial when you infer that this is the position statement of the paper?
Also, in your editorial you stated the following, “Based on our observations, we aren’t convinced that vacation rentals are causing our affordable housing crisis… we urge the council to look at other, critical factors.”
And also, “There are many reasons for the lack of affordable housing throughout the San Juans today.”
In relation to these statements I couldn’t help but notice that throughout your editorial you only list “low wages,” and “high rents” as being the factors responsible for causing SJC’s affordable housing crisis. Can you do now what your editorial fails to do, and list some of the “many reasons” that you allude to that you feel are responsible for the lack of affordable housing throughout the San Juans today? Know that I too, am a believer that we should be looking at “root causes” when attempting to tackle tourism and growth issues, and my guess is that your list is probably one that many of us can agree with.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
What an obnoxious letter. Whatever happened to respecting the rights of other people to hold opinions which differ from one’s own, and to engage in a respectful dialogue with them? The righteousness of believing one’s own opinions are unassailably correct is as prevalent on both sides of the aisle nowadays, and our public discourse is cheapened as a result.
The Orcasonian’s publishing this attack on the other County newspapers really smacks of questionable ethics from the Orcasonian editorial staff.
Michael, you post repeatedly in different ways about your dismay over the housing, vacation rental, and tourism issues. Your preemptive “apology” to the newspaper staff is noted, but really it’s a weak shield for what are little more than ad hominum attacks. Your opinion is clear to all who read and follow the discussion. The newspaper is an island business and promotes business in part (I suspect) because advertising dollars help to keep it in business. You may delight in attacking the messenger, but the newspaper reports and doesn’t make the decisions you dislike. Further, newspapers mostly report on news and have limited opinion/editorial space and I believe that is what both the Orcasonian and the Sounder actually do.
Your question about affordable housing is probably addressed in the simplest manner by a quick refresher in microeconomics, specifically the law of supply and demand, as often attributed to Mr. Arthur Marshall. Orcas has a growing demand to live in what is arguably the Garden of Eden or Paradise, while not enough housing supply. Thus, prices rise. Theory holds that to lower prices you either increase supply (build more, to which there is clear resistance and the cost of construction on an island pretty much drives higher price homes as well, so new construction isn’t likely to be inexpensive) or make it less desirable a destination (as I have suggested in my prior postings.) I’m no economist, but if others out there know of a different economic model please share.
If you want to live where there are fewer people and businesses and less growth/change there are plenty of options-start with Waldron in your own backyard. But, growth, and a lack of “affordable” housing is a reality in most of our country and in the SJI’s. A community can try to manage it through laws, regulations, taxes, fees, etc., but also there is a potential repercussion to any action taken. I’d humbly suggest that turning back the hands of time to the Orcas of the 1950’s is neither possible nor really desirable.
can you please state your sources for your claim that the editor of the Sounder has ties to the vacation rental industry? Making wild claims like that can be akin to libel when written in the tone that you allude….
Here is a link to the editorial in the Journal that Mike Johnson is castigating: https://www.sanjuanjournal.com/opinion/vacation-rentals-alone-arent-causing-the-affordable-housing-crisis-editorial/
Hi Michael. My name is Linda Bannerman and I, too, live on Orcas Island. I also own a vacation rental . I’m writing today to respond specifically to the claim that vacation rentals drain the inventory of affordable housing in San Juan County, and elsewhere for that matter. I’ll ignore the suggestion that Mandy or The Sounder might have an underlying motive for their editorial position that vacation rentals are not the only problem and will, instead, focus on the accuracy of their observation.
There is very little impact that vacation rentals have on the affordable housing inventory. An “affordable dwelling” and a vacation rental are almost always different products. This is borne out by various empirical studies. While anecdotal experiences can be useful for triggering deeper examination, empirical studies are essential when one wishes to proceed with policy and must not substitute for empirical data. The LA Study, The San Francisco Study and studies done by Nantuckett are prime examples of empirical studies that dispel the myth that vacation rentals deplete availability of affordable dwellings.
Affordable housing is increasingly in short supply in lots of places, no doubt, notably even in places where there are few or no vacation rentals. But as The Sounder editorial points out, the reasons are numerous. On Orcas (and other tourist destinations, especially island ones like Nantucket), housing prices are high, period. We live in a beautiful place. People with money build expensive homes here and buy here and this raises the relative value of homes. Because we are on an island, we can’t rely on a freeway for our workers to commute here from less expensive areas so the demand for affordable housing in our concentrated area is higher. Wages for workers here might be equal to or higher than off-island communities, but when pitted against higher home values and higher cost of goods, wages are not high enough to buy or rent homes. It is also imperative to have an accurate definition of “affordable.” If one has a family of four, needs four or five bedrooms, insists on keeping their three dogs and a cat and are looking for something under $1,000, the problem is not a lack of an affordable dwelling but rather an unrealistic understanding of what might be possible. Landlord-Tenant laws have become more and more tenant friendly so those who might invest in an LTR are turning away from this venture because providing an LTR can cost a landlord a great deal of money with just one bad experience. It is much more difficult for a home owner to manage LTR behavior than it is to manage the behavior of a vacation renter. Homes owned by off island folks are often rented seasonally so that the homeowner can come to visit or can offer the home to friends and family. They choose to pay the mortgage by renting seasonally but would never choose to rent year-round. Others have invested in their home here while living off island and rent it to afford to move into it one day when they retire. These homes would not be part of the affordable housing inventory either. So, you see, it would be futile to attempt to solve the affordable housing problem, assuming there really is one, by putting CAPS on vacation rentals. In fact, doing so would contribute to lessening affordable housing for middle-income families who can only afford to live in this expensive community by making a modest income from their vacation rental.
But here’s the rub. Should we proceed with implementing CAPs, failing to address the affordable housing issue is not the only fall-out. We might, unwittingly, bring about serious negative consequences. The first has already happened and is on-going in communities like Conway and Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Nantucket; South Lake Tahoe; and Hayward, WI. That fall-out is expensive court battles over property rights, draining county coffers. This is because if you adopt CAPs, you have to figure out how to disperse the allowed remaining permits. And every which way one turns to do this results in someone being left out. Discriminate allowing of how people use their property to secure some income is unconstitutional. Doug Whittiker, an expert hired to study these issues here in San Juan County, warned of this in the recent panel discussions. Another negative fall-out might be the economic cost to businesses on our islands, and these businesses supply jobs for our workers. If we have CAPs or a moratorium, one thing that could happen is a slow erosion of the number of VRs we currently have. The fewer VRs, the fewer need for housecleaners, gardeners, construction workers. . . unexpected economic erosion in reverse. Ironic, isn’t it? In an attempt to provide affordable housing for our workers, we would be doing so by taking away their jobs. Another negative fall-out is that we would be attempting to replace highly regulated housing with far less regulated housing. VRs are required to inspect septic systems annually, hold renters to trespassing rules, hold renters to quiet hours, maintain occupancy limits , provide neighbors with a 24/7 contact if there is a problem, and much more. They are incentivized to keep landscapes charming and houses in good repair. No other housing is so regulated. And we here on the islands are already in the midst of a disappointing negative consequence: a divided community becoming even more so.
I urge our community to speak to the council on July 12 at the public hearing regarding extension of the moratorium and CAPS. Please ask the council to:
1. Reject CAPs in order to avoid expensive litigation and a divided community.
2. Reject an extension of the moratorium because one moratorium after another is just a ban. If the county does extend the moratorium, then do so only under the following conditions, which should be done in either case, extension or not: Make a firm commitment to empirically study each issue raised by those opposing vacation rentals. Task our hard working commissions, committees, and working groups to STUDY the problems, not to argue about whether or not the binary strategy of allowing or disallowing vacation rentals is a good idea. Change the focus. Do not even mention the words vacation or short term rentals in the names of these studies as that is a solution approach rather than a problem approach. In this way, find the broad causes for the problems, based upon empirical data so that our solutions actually have a shot at improving our community. Nantucket did that. Here is a link to their work on solving the affordable housing problem. It’s worth a good read. And you know what? Vacation rentals are not even mentioned because Nantucket figured it out. . . . vacation rentals are not the problem. https://www.housingnantucket.org/workforce-housing-pdf/ And this specifically goes into detail about their ambitious and effective endeavors: https://www.housingnantucket.org/about/
Linda, I thank you and commend you for adding so much to the discussion. You obviously have thought about this quite a bit and I applaud your courage in publishing.
Linda, your comments, research and suggestions are so well stated. I too, have a Vacation Rental on Orcas. I need that income to support myself. We also have a business that relies on local as well as the tourist dollars. After a difficult year in 2020, we are now just getting back on our feet.
There are some who continually want to place blame on VR’s for a multitude of “problems”. But as we continue to see, those people do not seem to have their hands on any data backing their claims. No data, no problem? How is the council supposed to make decisions without data?
However, there is data that exists from 2018 when Council adopted new regulations for Vacation Rentals. We are just now seeing results from that. Non permitted rentals were fined and the county continues to clean up listings. VR owners are required to file a compliance report each year whether active or inactive to maintain their permit.
Cindy Wolf’s push in the last council meeting for a cap vote was alarming, while the other Council members sought more time to review facts, data and have a public hearing. It was also alarming that she wanted to include Rosario Highlands right then…wonder why? I believe there are more than 110 lots in the Highlands but only 9 active vacation rentals. That’s a huge problem? Or maybe she has friends there she is trying to “protect”.
I applaud the Sounder for publishing their editorial and providing our community with a balance of opinion. Thank you Mandi.
I urge others to reach out on the Council call on Monday, and ask them to reject Caps AND reject a further moratorium.
Simple questions that deserve an answer… still waiting.
No response? This doesn’t surprise me. Using your corporate signature while pushing the Big Lie as a means of trying to influence the public on issues of local political significance is a matter that I take seriously. Perhaps it would have been closer to reality for the author to have used the word “me” instead of the word “we” in her article. As is, it seems obvious that the opinions of the “Journal of the San Juans” isn’t worth much.
Thank you Linda for shifting the conversation to a bigger picture approach with the VR issue and wading out of the knee-jerk emotional arguments being made.
INMHO Vacation Rentals are not the cause for the lack of affordable housing so let’s look at the numbers, or aka “facts” into the costs of building on Orcas. To name a few:
1. The cost of land to build a house – $150,000-$300,000 per lot.
2. The cost for water delivered to the house – $20,000 per dwelling.
3. The cost of Sewer/Septic for each dwelling unit including apartments/studios – $20,000-$30,000 Unit.
4. The cost of permitting a house, address, water right, & a right-of-way ($2,500-$7,500).
5. The cost of building on the Orcas island vs. the same place in Anacortes is 27%-29% more expensive…. we are on an island surrounded by water delivered by ferry!
6. The cost of hauling building materials to the “Dump” at $0.20 pound! You can buy finished products, lumber & building materials, and even some food for less than it costs to dump it here – plan on $4,000-$6,000 per house.
7. The cost of lumber is up 4-fold.
8. The cost of concrete is double what it is in most cities.
9. The cost of gas is more here.
10. The hassle and time to wait for permits in San Juan County costs money- time is money.
11. The requirement by SJC for owners to pay for and build curbs, gutter, & sidewalks (SJCC 16.55.130) can be $40,000-$75,000 per lot – which pushes building away from town where the services are and sprawling into the surrounding areas.
12. SJC Excise taxes & SJC Affordable housing tax (approx. $15,000 for a $500,000 house) charged per house so add this into the line item cost.
13. The overzealous Orcas crowd that wants to prevent all building other than the house they have or “Not-in-My-Backyard-Crowd” is alive and growing here in the islands. Who wants the hassle of building an affordable house for someone under the scrutiny of the righteous, loud, minority that have nothing better to do then scrutinize your every move and look for a loophole to shut down a project. Factor in $5,000 in potential legal fees to deal with this crowd – let alone the psychic cost of dealing with the hostility from your neighbors.
14. The self-imposed righteousness of dealing with the Eastsound Planning Review Committee reviewing all building applications and teasing them apart for minor inconsistencies rather than the general intent – the hot air crowd is exhausting but the County cow tows to them. No money cost here, but a psychic one, that makes building all the more unpleasant, and it makes people like me not want to build affordable housing on the islands.
This just names a few of the other ingredients, or actual “costs” that are factored into the lack of affordable housing on the islands. It’s pretty hard to buy a piece of land, build a 1,000 sq. ft. permitted house with utilities for less than $500,000. That amortizes to a $2,245 monthly payment at 3.5% interest for 30-years. Add on $4,500 in property taxes ($375/mo.) and $75/mo. for insurance and your realistic monthly payment is $2,695/mo. for that house. Is $2,695 affordable for residents here because that’s what it costs to build and have a small house here?
IMHO – vacation rentals have nothing to do with affordable housing. Living on an island surrounded by 4 big cities (Seattle, Vancouver, Victoria, Bellingham) in a beautiful area that is dependent on expensive ferry service, has few high paying jobs generated on the island, has much more to do with the lack of affordable housing then vacation rentals do. Housing supply is limited, demand pressure is high, building permitting costs are high, land costs are high, permitting land divisions is high, so prices will naturally climb for housing. At least VR’s allow existing homeowners the ability and flexibility to deal with their changing economic conditions and to adapt to these changes in economically viable ways.
Putting a moratorium on VR’s is like putting a condom on your thumb and mitigates nothing. Maybe it’s time for people to get off the emotional bandwagon of “No more vacation rentals” and start looking at all the other ingredients that are baked into the lack of affordable housing – removing vacation rentals will not remove these actual costs that go into building a small house but will limit the flexibility of unexpected life changes that befalls home owners that need to make ongoing monthly payments for expensive housing.
Vicki Leimback, I feel compelled to respond to your comments. I am a resident of Rosario Highlands, in the upper portion of Discovery Way. According to one of our homeowners’ association board members, you are correct in stating that there are 110 houses in the Highlands. In my portion of the Highlands, there are 40 houses. I am aware of four of these that have received vacation rental permits within the past five years. Two more are currently pending. Four of these six houses are within 300 feet of my home; I know that for a fact because Permit Resources has sent me notices as per San Juan County code. You may be correct that there are nine active permits in the entire Highlands. But I am highly doubtful that there are only five among the remaining 70 homes in the Highlands. Though the renters around my home have generally been well behaved, there is little question that they change the character of the neighborhood. For instance, you won’t find the renters volunteering to pull noxious weeds in the common areas as a group of us owners did today. Finally, I find your assertion that Cindy Wolf has “friends (in the Highlands) she is trying to protect” specious and snarky. I’ve never met her. But I would applaud any politician for attempting to protect her constituents. Thank you, Cindy. And if I ever do come to know you, Cindy, I’d be happy to be your friend.
Kudos to Mandi Johnson, for doing her job; unfortunately, there are people and politicians – even here, in our small county, that are still willing to spread misinformation to suit their agendas; facts be damned. We must insist that our government legislate based on data rooted in facts; otherwise, I fear, we’ll never solve this problem, as the collaboration and resources necessary to actually address the affordable housing issue will be depleted and nothing accomplished.
Paula– Really? And I’ve had so many people complement me on this article. I’ve studied the issues, and have engaged with various county members many times over the years both in regards to our differences in opinion, and how we view the facts relative to vacation rentals, growth, and tourism related issues. All land use issues are public, they are often contentious, with some, like vacation rentals, deserving more scrutiny than others. Holding our elected leaders, and our appointed officials feet to the fire is the only way to motivate government into action… any government. Though I may take it a bit personally that there’s a concerted effort by special interest groups to promote policies that will lead to overtourism (a death knell to everything I love about the San Juans), there is no “righteousness” in my line of thinking. This being a common refrain ( a hit below the belt) from those who have no counter argument, being similar to those who might call someone a socialist in an effort to undermine their arguments.
Leucothea– In answer to your question, “can you please state your sources for your claim that the editor of the Sounder has ties to the vacation rental industry”
Yes, from the Sounder. Colleen’s husband recently applied for a vacation rental permit.
You said, “Making wild claims like that can be akin to libel when written in the tone that you allude….”
I say– I’ve made no wild claims. And, make no mistake, I’m not alluding to anything… I’m stating it straight out. If you don’t like my tone… sue me. I’d love to take this issue into the public venue on your dime.
Comments are closed. Apologies, Mandi.