— from Brad Brown —
Last night I was at a meeting where I got the sinking, scary feeling that by the decisions being made by the people there I could lose my home.
The meeting was advertised as toward “Vacation Rental Control.”
My wife and I run a business renting out a cottage in our yard. We have a business license, we have the appropriate permits from the county, we are in compliance with all regulations and we pay local, state and federal taxes on our business.
The people at the meeting were deciding whether to take that business away – to shut it down.
Because of that business my wife and I, retired teachers, married only four years ago, are able to pay our mortgage and live on Orcas.
It was not bad enough that the leaders of that group meeting of nearly 200 people asked for a vote on how to limit or end our business, the arguments they made to the group – which could not be questioned or responded to during the plenary session.
During this first part of the meeting, one presenter after another described the characterized looming tragic impacts of current county monitor and control measures on the San Juans, especially Orcas.
Some of the information was speculative, such as the extension of a line representing short-term rental permits in the county from year-to-year: When the presenter extended the growth line through trend it gave one outcome, but when she freehand drew a tangent curve the line dramatically flew upwards.
Some of the information was misleading: When a representative of a water district presented research data he had compiled on short-term, vacation rentals, and in his official capacity he said that these rentals were responsible for a “45% increase” in water usage. Never mind that he was unable to find data on all or even half of the rentals for the research. He scared those gathered with short-term rental induced water shortage worries even though the 15 rentals examined could not be considered representative of the total of all rentals. Additionally, there was not separate metering of owners vs renters in the total and the total was possibly a combination of those two – obviously an increase but not an increase from owner but with owner.
Most importantly, he did not mentioned that according to the water district’s last annual report, water usage for the district has been steadily decreasing, down 11% in 2018 alone.
Some information was subjective: Though island residents want to maintain the beauty and neighborliness of our environment, visitors here are rude and that short-term rentals are despoiling our nest. Subjective opinion which was allowed as the group’s voice.
The meeting broke into small groups. Our table had four families, each of whom ran rentals. That meant that we did not hear from those who oppose rentals. Conversely, some tables must have not had rentors. We will never know because at this meeting and at a prior one, there was no attempt to identify rentors and those who were not. When asked, organizers do not know, either.
Those convening these meetings believe that the county’s new thorough and comprehensive short-term rental guidelines of last year do not far enough. This, without allowing time for the full implementation and enforcement of those regulations. And because they were not happy with what was made law, they formed a “work group” to gather momentum to oppose these new ordinances. Never mind that the new head of this county effort was just hired this last month and that the process is just beginning.
The group gathered was asked to cleave to “not me but us,” when asked to vote for a solution that would represent the group and therefore (mistakenly) by extension, represent the community. Yet the predetermined choices offered by the group were punitive and proscriptive – limiting, constraining or outright banning short-term rentals. There were not rental-friendly options to vote on.
Which comes back around to me and my wife.
We rent our little cottage as a business. We follow the rules. We are able to make our mortgage because of this. We are good stewards of the land, good neighbors, active contributors to our community, serious Mom and Pop business people.
We both got scared that this group, with its predetermined outcomes and flawed process, will be seen as credible representatives of the community in toto.
There are many voices on many issues in our islands … just take Vacation Rental Work Group as one, non-representative, goal-oriented voice.
Not mine.
I fully support the right of residents of Orcas to choose to rent short-term either part of their home or a cottage on the same property.
My take on the meeting:
-This was a very one-sided presentation! At least at the last meeting, one of the four speakers was a vacation rental host.
-A $400,000 home is an affordable rental?? Maybe if you have a $90,000 annual income!
-If the tourists were in hotels and bed and breakfasts, instead of in vacation rentals, wouldn’t they use just as much water?
The letter above complains about alleged incorrect information. Unfortunately, the suggestions that your specific permit or other permit vested operators will lose their permits or their business is entirely erroneous and seems more like fear-mongering than anything else. Persons, such as yourself, are likely “vested” with their rights as of the time of application. No one – SJC, VR pro/con groups are suggesting vested operators will be shut down, lose their license etc. so this must be coming entirely from your unfounded and legally incorrect fears. I don’t mind your having an opinion. I do mind “alternative” fact tactics as a way of scaring persons into incorrect conclusions.
I wonder how many of the folks own property, or worked for years to save money to buy property. This is America and we still have property rights.
I agree that the overwhelming majority at the meeting were folks concerned about the effect of vacation rentals on our island.
However, it was made very clear — several times — that neither the organizers nor the speakers were opposed to existing vacation rentals owned by island residents who needed the income to live on our beautiful island.
The good news is that Brad Brown can relax. No one at the meeting was attacking his property rights, or his family’s way of living on Orcas.
The two primary concerns about vacation rentals— as the voting revealed — were
1) out of county investors buying one or more homes to turn them into vacation rentals; and,
2) not to rush ahead with any goal until there is more, accurate information, and more input from others who live on the island who weren’t at the meeting.
I appreciate your concerns, Brad. The folks at the table I was sitting with made a clear distinction between Owner Occupied and not. When owners live on the property they are renting, they are impacted equally to their neighbors. The issue is more about how many is too many and the impacts on the community when housing becomes a commercial enterprise.
Dan, you said, “A $400,000 home is an affordable rental?? Maybe if you have a $90,000 annual income!”
“In the proforma above for this type of home, it is more favorable to rent under a long-term rental situation. Again, as I mentioned, there is no way for me to analysis the comparison in generalities. You need to process a comparison spread sheet based on the home you own or the home you intend to purchase based on the actual income and expense.”
https://sanjuanislander.com/opinion/columnists/29650/considering-buying-an-investment-property-vacation-rental-versus-long-term-rental
Dan, you said, “If the tourists were in hotels and bed and breakfasts, instead of in vacation rentals, wouldn’t they use just as much water?”
Hmmmm, if they were somewhere else maybe.
Let’s see, > vacation rentals = > tourists = > water usage…
I must be missing something here.
Michael, tourists = > accommodations = > water usage. Tourism is driven by Orcas’s beauty, proximity to large populations, and travel articles.
I am not sure what meeting Mr. Brown attended? Surely not the one I was at. First off, a significant majority of the attendees favored owner-occupied VRs over those by absentee owners. This is precisely the scenario under which he (and his wife) operate their VR. Second, no one associated with this group has suggested eliminating existing VRs. Lastly, the “tangent” curve was a fit to the data provided by the County using a widely used polynomial fitting package (python’s numpy polyfit function). It was neither tangent nor hand-drawn.
I believe you Dan… tourism IS
driven.
It’s unclear by the letter above where on the island this couple lives, but if it’s in the UGA, then the fault is with the County for continuing to permit vacation rentals in a UGA MANDATED to house over 50% of population, when there are no places to live in the UGA for the very people it was mandated to house. These are the issues that need to be addressed, along with VRBOs – and we need to hold the county’s feet to the fire on them.
I didn’t attend either meeting. I think most of us understand that the issue of vacation rentals is many-layered and complex, and won’t have a one-size-fits-all approach. what we ARE against is profiteers and speculative land buyers ruining this place.
I agree with one thing in this letter; it is important to have a MIX of people at each table. that is how we educate each other and come up with solutions that are fair and balanced.
Your concerns mirror mine. (I own no rental property, for the record, but share your concerns about the one-sided, skewed and unintelligible “data” presented and in what was clearly a pre-determined outcome). I did not attend the second session, because it was clearly premised on how to limit vacation rentals rather than addressing a whole series of questions that need to be answered before any action is taken. Those questions were listed in the summary of the first meeting, so far as I can tell from an attendee’s report and the distributed materials, most were all but ignored in the second presentation.
The basic question is, “What is the problem with vacation rentals?” The principal response I have heard relates to bad behavior by the renters, something that the new rules passed by the County address: call the contact person or the Sheriff, depending on the gravity of the problem, and make sure a report is sent to the permitting office so that the permit can be denied renewal.
Of course, we hear that vacation rentals take away affordable housing and use up our resources, but there’s little to demonstrate that, and little differentiation between VRs that are part of a home, separate from a home but on the same lot, etc., and owned by a full-time local vs. owned by a part-time local vs. owned by an entity that exists outside the County.
And then there are those who just dislike tourists. Yet the tourism industry is, for better or worse, the backbone of our economy. Which businesses should shut down and which employees should move elsewhere?
When we were first considering moving here, almost 20 years ago, we spent several years renting an assortment of vacation rentals. With very few exceptions, none of those homes would ever be an “affordable” rental.” (Merri Simonson’s analysis of the benefits of long-term rental vs. vacation rental for owners, the link for which was provided by the group, uses a home worth $800,000!)
When we rented, we spent most of our time and had most of our meals outside the rental. How we could possibly use more water than a local owner or renter family is beyond me. Nor can I see how visitors renting a VR would impose a greater burden than a full-time family on our other infrastructure.
The County conducted a long rulemaking process less than two years ago, and the new rules have been in effect for less than a year, more or less. Why did no one bring these issues up then? The County also considered the EPRC’s request for a blanket moratorium and, I think, rightfully rejected it. Certainly until the VR re-permitting process shakes out and we have real numbers to deal with (the 1000+ permit number tossed about today includes every permit ever issued, and each of those must now be renewed under the new rules), and until we have some experience with enforcement of the new rules.
Perhaps someone could focus on the legislature changing the prevailing view that vacation rentals by owners are not “commercial” activity. This would assist the numerous HOAs with bylaws whose clear intent has been thwarted because they prohibit “commercial” activity.
Perhaps the self-designated workgroup can formulate a few propositions to place on the ballot so that we can learn what all the citizens of the island think should happen.
Perhaps we could gather some real data about vacation rentals? Given the number of folks who rely on vacation rentals to pay their mortgages or to transition to their retirement homes, or to employ them, the subject deserves serious attention.
Here’s a question that someone here may know the answer to: May the County limit a certain use of residential property to island-resident owners under Washington law?
David–just one of the many questions this raises in my mind is who determines when an Orcas resident “needs” the supplementary income from a vacation rental? And how many vacation rentals are owned by corporations from off-island? (Keeping in mind that many folks hold their land in entities such as trusts or corporations for inheritance reasons.)
Another question, for Janet based on her comment, is who is a “resident” of Orcas island? A family that has long owned a summer home here but technically lives in Seattle? A couple who live elsewhere but have property here to whcih they plan to retire? I know I think like a lawyer, and I apologize in advance, but these are examples of the kinds of detailed questions that need to be answered. I’d really like to see the monthly meetings devoted to addressing one at a time. The first one being the extent to which VRs are taking affordable rental homes off the market and how we could determine that other than by anecdotal evidence. Because if they are not materially affecting the supply of affordable housing, we have to focus on solutions for the lack of reasonable rentals here. And if we decide to limit tourism somehow (I understand the impulse but question how that could happen), how many residents now employed in businesses serving tourists will be leaving the island?
Michael MJ–that’s the link I was looking for. Merri Ann uses a home valued at $850,000 in her analysis.
Ideas from other islands: 1) raise ferry prices to limit people coming: 100.00/person one way and 250.00/car one way is very effective; 2) make all “residents” prove it by checking in and out on a board every time they leave the island. This allows the government to know exactly how many and exactly who is on the island at any time. It increases safety and if a person is on the island less than 51% of the days they can be deemed a non-resident; 3) rather than looking for affordable housing (that just encourages people to come,) tax sales and purchases of housing an additional 25% with proceeds to go to buying back more land/houses and this will reduce the population. As population goes down so will businesses and the attraction for most tourists; 4) end all high school classes and ship them to the mainland. This will also reduce the attraction of Orcas and get people to move off or not move on and saves a lot of money as school is expensive to operate; 5) get rid of the public support for medical clinics so that older/frail/sicker people leave in the name of living nearer to medical care; 6) eliminate Internet services so people can’t work remotely very easily; 7) there are lots more
There are different islands around the world that have used some or all of these techniques to reverse growth and end congestion. If Orcas wants to get serious about self-depopulation and allowing the island to return to its original pristine, human growth free nature, it can be done.
I am NOT advocating these approaches, at least not until I get to live there, after which I suspect I won’t want anyone else to be able to join the party!
I find myself amazed that I’m in agreement with Peg, but I completely agree with her observation that “…the one-sided, skewed and unintelligible ‘data’ [was] presented…in what was clearly a pre-determined outcome…”
I strongly dislike being told what to think and what I am supposed to agree with. But that was the tenor of the most recent Vacation Rental “conversation.”
It was decidedly no conversation. The time limit for actual verbal conversation, which was permitted only among people sitting around at the same table, was a mere 15 minutes out of a two-hour meeting.
Then we were presented with outcomes from which to choose, every one of which had been pre-selected for us by the people who were running the meeting.
No participant had any hope of adding input. Well, folks, this is not “participation” as I know the term.
I refuse to “participate” any longer in this farce. Our inputs are not wanted, so I will take mine elsewhere.
I own a short term rental, many have referred to to pro forma found on the San Juan islander i was surprised and concerned about the absence of depreciation.
Especially that not otherwise remedied by regular and routine maintenance and cleaning. The key factor for us in choosing to short term rent. If I place a realistic expended value on such things as the finishes of a home. As a builder we have built and finished hundreds of homes over many years. The costs are high and the expectations of functional life which have also gone down over recent decades. These key costs place a high demand on regular and routine maintenance, long term renting does not lend itself to this proper tending. The lifespan is hugely reduced when things go uncared for, and this is the greatest cost associated with the difference between the short term rental and the long term rental. A long term rental should be finished using finishes of lesser cost and simpler function. Speaking of appliances floor coverings mechanical systems windows and door constructions, landscaping design and maintenance concerns etc etc etc otherwise these costs as depreciable assets represent easily a total loss in investment over a very short period.