||| FROM NIK SCHULZ |||
Dear County Council and San Juan County Community,
I’m writing in support of the Vacation Rental Permit moratorium.
I see harm by unfettered vacation rental permit issuance in these ways:
When a two-bedroom house can be rented for $2,000/month to long-term tenants or $4,500 to $7,500/month ($150–$250/night) to short-term vacationers, an incredible economic incentive to build vacation rentals over long-term housing is created. To enable this in a place where housing availability is so critically low that some businesses cannot run, or must curtail their operations due to lack of accommodation for their staff is, in my view, harmful to this community. (At the time of this writing there are no listings for rental housing available on Orcas on Craigslist, save for a spot to park an RV for $900/mo. Searching Airbnb for a vacation rental on Orcas brings up 300+ listings.)
When the average vacation rental property uses 45% more water on an annual basis, and 89% more water in July and August, than the average Orcas home, this, in my view, harms the community. (https://www.
When the economic incentive to feed an ever-increasing supply of short-term vacation rentals reduces the housing stock to such a degree that most people who want to buy a house to live in, participate, and contribute to our community are not able, this in my view, harms our community.
I urge you to uphold the Vacation Rental Moratorium in service of seeking a balanced, long-term solution to the vacation rental issue.
**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.**
Another out of the box idea: take the funds from the land bank sales and use this to buy vacation rentals (or the permits.) This would get your fewer tourists (primary goal for sure.) By not buying up more and more land, the supply of available land increases and that in turn should drive down the cost of buying. That helps all of the people who can’t afford it now! The land bank purchases take a scarce resource and make it even more scarce, thus driving up prices through the law of supply and demand. You could also then rent/sell the VR’s to people in need of affordable housing. Economics 101…
The above article sums up the problem;
There is no housing for the average worker here anymore.
The County has also made it more difficult to have simple housing like yurts or RV’s.
I have had people in the real estate business tell me that before they can get a listing on their website, a property is bought by an off-island investor for vacation rental use.
We, as long-term residents with businesses here also, are the backbone of the economy of the islands.
Not short-term rental visitors.
Who is going to clean your gutters?
Mow your lawn?
Clean up storm debris?
Serve your food?
Sell you groceries?
Never mind, you have your sights set on a short-term rental.
Nik, you have put your finger on one of the often-overlooked facets of the VR business Some VR customers might pack that two bedroom home with 3 per bedroom and 2 on living room couches. It’s technically not allowed but enforcement is practically nonexistent. That brings the per-person short term rent down close to $30 per person per night at the high end of your price range.
The traditional inns can neither allow that packing nor can they compete as a result. With better VR enforcement and accountability, a more even competitive landscape would result.
Toby, I hadn’t actually gotten as far in my thinking as to how a VR can be packed so as to make hotels uncompetitive. That would certainly be one explanation for the increased water use in vacation rentals.
John, interesting anecdote from the realtors.
That you all for adding your thoughts and experiences.
* Thank you all…
John, your comment fascinates me. Can someone point me to the economic study that breaks out what tourism contributes, what second home owners contribute, and what full time residents contribute by categories? That would be very helpful to an informed discussion. If indeed John is correct and that FT residents are all that is needed to sustain the island economy, then banning tourism and making it even more clear that tourists are unwelcome would be the easy answer! But, if tourism ends up supporting a lot of jobs and businesses, and/or second home owners tax dollars help fund schools, library, and other government functions, than perhaps being accepting of these “others” is worth considering. Maybe wealthy retirees is all Orcas needs? Can anyone please provide real economic data? This would be a great Investigative Reporter piece for the Orcasian!
Neil–good luck finding real data. We’re operating on surmise and legend. The notion that the Land Bank could buy VRs and then sell them to residents would work, if at all, only with respect to the cheapest VRs. The newer VRs are mostly high-end properties, usually ones to which the owners repair for summer and holidays and to which they plan to retire. There are real numbers about this obtained by the Hosts group by cross-referencing VR permits with their appraised value. Even with respect to the Land Bank idea, who decides which VRs to buy and who gets to purchase them? And are they purchased at regular prices? The Land Bank cannot subsidize housing.
It’s a very complicated problem and someone needs to break it out into a series of questions that need to be answered separately. Instead we have folks conflating and complaining but never getting anywhere.
Neil Kaye–your “Economics 101” suggestion that the Land Bank could buy up Vacation Rental properties is simplistic and a diversion from the real subject. The Land Bank has a clear legislative mandate: “To preserve in perpetuity areas in the county that have environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic or low-intensity recreational value and to protect existing and future sources of potable water.” The Land Bank cannot buy housing, except incidental to those purposes. The Land Bank currently owns about 4,,800 acres out of a total of 111,360 acres of land in San Juan County, or about 4.3%. (and still less public land than any other county in the state). Furthermore, most of that land is zoned rural, rural farm forest, etc., i.e. 10-20 acre zoning, so it’s not taking up land suitable for much housing, except for the privileged few. Also, let’s not forget that, since the 2019 voter approval, 1/2 % of the real estate excise now goes toward affordable housing. And, finally, it is, in large part the quality of our preserved natural environment that draws us to live here and sustains our tourist economy. Please stop diverting attention from the real issues of housing availability, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Land Bank.