||| FROM LINDA BANNERMAN |||
It is time for the members of our community to demand that the planning commission and county council reject any ordinance implementing caps. Such an ordinance, especially when made in the absence of evidence, would be a failure on the part of the commissioners and the council in their responsibility to make policy legal and fair to all members of the community. The ordinance would trample on the rights of property owners. Based upon “federal constitutional grounds,” the Texas Supreme Court reminds us that, “The ability to lease property is a fundamental privilege of property ownership. The ownership of land, . . carries with it the right to . . lease it to others, and therefore derive profit.” Taking any action that limits that right should never be done lightly, but to do so without evidence of harm would be egregious.
Much misinformation has been offered us around the issues of affordable housing, neighborhood disruptions, widespread community support of caps, degradation of the environment, rising real estate prices and so on. But the community, commissioners and council have, in fact, been provided empirical evidence proving the claims of those urging caps are largely unfounded.
Let’s examine them one by one:
The evidence taken from our own community proves that capping vacation rentals would have little impact on the inventory of affordable housing in San Juan County. (See the survey of owners who report they would not flip for a variety of reasons. They also report few are affordable anyway.) Further evidence reveals there are affordable units available for renters with a clean rental history right now. (See Orcas Island Housing and Space Rentals and other such agencies.) The evidence also proves that agencies here have matched ample number of renters with units easily over the past year. It would seem the claim of a shortage of long term rentals in San Juan County has been exaggerated. Seasonal housing for workers is another issue and we would be served well by putting our heads together to find effective solutions, but it would never be solved by limiting vacation rentals, as common sense will tell you.
Those complaining of noise and nuisance in neighborhoods have offered the same few examples over and over as though this is a frequent occurrence when data shows it is not. Further, they have openly admitted they are unwilling to use the remedies already in place for their
complaints. (See sheriff reports and vacation rental owners 24/7 report numbers.) The courts remind us that curtailing rights of property owners to rent their property to control such complaints when less restrictive means exists is not warranted. (See Sumner County Chancery Court on July 30, 2021.)
Evidence shows that the members of the Vacation Rental Work Group have misrepresented to us the number of local people supporting caps by thousands in their use of a change.org “petition,” an online survey measuring the worldwide popularity of an idea and not a local nor legal petition at all. But during the public comment periods to council, equal numbers of callers opposed caps as supported them and equal numbers of signatures on letters opposing caps have been submitted. We cannot assume the voices of one group of people speaking out over and over are representative of the majority in our community.
Evidence in study after study shows that rising real estate prices are a nationwide phenomenon, unrelated to vacation rentals. A simple google search using the search term “rising real estate prices” will offer analyses about why but not one will point the finger at vacation rentals. The claim that the rise of one causes the rise of the other is a classic case of correlation, not causation.
Those advocating caps have claimed vacation rentals use more water. Once again, the facts prove otherwise. When on September 22, the EWUA Board released a statement that former General Manager Paul Kamin’s presentation regarding water use of vacation rentals given at a Vacation Rental Workgroup meeting was skewed and unauthorized, those opposed to VRs scrambled to remake the data fit their claim. But the facts stand. When I and several others at that meeting approached the organizers and asked to speak about that and other inaccuracies right then and there, we were flatly denied the right to speak. Those opposed do not want you to hear truth. The EWUA analysis shows “There is no evidence that vacation rentals are using water in excess or inappropriately,” said Tenar Hall, Board member and mathematician. “We have gone through the data extensively and have found no evidence that vacation rentals are having any
adverse effects on our water system.” Finally, we have a public statement of fact.
The commissioners, the council, and the members of our community have been seriously misled. It is time to pay attention to the data. I urge council: do not make policy that would hamper the rights of diligent, law abiding property owners their constitutionally protected right to use their property to make a modest income. The calls for caps are based on the emotional and uninformed claims of some and not on evidence.
Caps are simply not warranted by the facts.
You lost me when you quoted the Texas Supreme Court. Please open your vacation rental there. Our community, especially mine in Rosario has had our fill. Good luck.
Linda, You are mixing a lot of apples to oranges comparisons. For example, a cap on the number of short-term vacation rentals per island is not the same as a ban on short-term vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods.
While the Eastsound water usage numbers would benefit from more data collection (a greater N as it is known in data analysis), I find the analysis by Michael Riordan, who is a scientist, to be more logical than the recent pronouncements by Tenar Hall. For example, compare the same months water usage instead of comparing different intervals.
The argument that short-term vacation rentals allow some second home buyers to pay for their mortgage is true and was cited as a positive quality of short-term vacation rentals by the spokesperson for Hosting on the Rock. But why is promoting second home buying a good thing? Community leaders in Aspen, Colorado realized that second home ownership was driving housing unaffordability for working residents when the percentage of second homes was only 23.5% in 1990. Colorado as a whole had 4.3% second homes in 1990. “Second homes are sucking the worker rooms out of the system.” See page 119 Living and Working in Paradise -Why Housing is too Expensive and What to Do About It by William S. Hettinger. We are around 50% second homes in San Juan County. Another argument made by the spokesperson for Hosting on the Rock is that a vacation rental cap will hurt current holders of compliant short-term vacation rental permits. This is exactly opposite from the basic relationship between supply and demand and price. There seems to be a lot of fuzzy thinking going on among the people promoting unrestrained short-term vacation rentals.
Today I checked with Paul Kamin, and he stands by his analysis. And I’m far more inclined to believe him than somebody I’d never heard of until recently. Credibility is built on years of diligent service, not being a “mathematician.” If anything, the current EWUA puts an exclamation point on Paul’s 2019 analysis. Transient rentals effectively DOUBLE water usage in the dry months of July and August.
Janet, 1. You’re using the same argument that Joe Symon (a vacation rental owner) uses: “If there is a cap, then we vacation rental owners can make a lot more money!” Well, some of VR hosts believe in fairness more than greed.
2. Nobody is promoting unrestrained vacation rentals. In fact, most VR hosts strive to follow the new restraints that the Council put into law in 2018.Those new regulations are working and will continue to, especially if the County follows through with enforcing them.
Michael, saying that “transient rentals effectively DOUBLE water usage in the dry months of July and August” is ridiculous. BTW, not an ad hominem attack; I greatly respect your environmental work, being an environmentalist myself for five decades.
Truth is, until it’s not convenient..
Sorry, Dan but you’re wrong, yet again. Paul got an 89 percent increase for VRs in July and August, which is pretty close to DOUBLE. Using the current EWUA numbers for those months, which Tenar Hall provided in a link, the increase (over non-VRs) comes in at 100 to 110 percent, depending on how you do the averages. The average of those three numbers is 100 percent —or DOUBLE.
The numbers don’t lie. Only people do.
I don’t understand the logic of this opinion piece (and some supporting comments) at all. Just re: water:
The EWUA report found that a VR used 50% more water than a full-time residence Apr-Aug in a representative year, it doesn’t provide occupancy characteristics which were probably not 100% for the first half of that period, so 50% is probably too low. So VRs use more water than residents, likely twice as much. As every tourism water use study elsewhere has found as well.
The rest of the EWUA report is opinion from a here-and-now perspective with a political twist. But the concern is about water resource management for the future and how tourism as an economic activity figures into that.
EWUA insists that water is a renewable resource, others would argue that it is not because overpumping lowers groundwater levels, leading to water quality not fit for consumption and potentially lower lake water levels or only seasonal supply. As stated in the USGS hydrological study: “Groundwater recharge should not be equated with water availability”. Does EWUA understand that statement? I would like to know what the evidence is for “EWUA is not using more water than can be renewed through precipitation”. As far as I know, the only method we have is changing chloride levels over time, indicating that too much groundwater is being withdrawn (aside from documented increases in wells running dry temporarily or permanently). EWUA doesn’t document chloride levels for their wells in the water quality reports. As the USGS scientists state unequivocally: groundwater removal will lower ground water levels.
I really wish people would care more about their impact on the environment and start thinking about their responsibility to future generations. These irresponsible me-me-me-now attitudes are so tiring, unscientific, antiquated, and ethically objectionable.
Janet, first I thank you for the respectful tone of your response. We have spent a bit of time in the same circle of friends and I know we share many of the same values and concerns. That gives me great hope that we all can have a productive conversation and join our efforts to solve real problems. But trying to solve these real problems by limiting vacation rentals is contrary to the evidence and, sadly, won’t work. If I am understanding your first argument correctly, I agree that one should not mix those proverbial apples and oranges. I hope we apply the same standard when we quote studies about communities like San Francisco and Los Angeles or Aspen, Colorado.. Definitely apples and oranges! But more to your point, nowhere in my comments here does your distinction rise to relevance. A restriction on the federal constitutionally protected right to rent one’s property for profit is still a restriction whether it is an island by island cap or a ban in residential neighborhoods. Consider an individual who has purchased property here and plans one day to rent as a VR to leverage her ability to retire here. Or a woman who has just divorced and suddenly financially needs to rent out part of her property to adjust to her new financial situation. Or even a young person who can’t afford housing in this market and wishes to invite a roommate to share the cost. (I know that’s not a VR but it is a protected right to use one’s property for profit.) Many such examples exist. A cap would take away her option to use her property this way even though another owner, separated only by time, is allowed to. There are far less restrictive means to solve our problems and we must use those. As for the EWUA study, yes. The validity of a study is improved when N is larger and I vote for that! But the study that compares use over a longer period of time also improves validity. The very point owners are making, I think, is that VRs use less water than LTRs precisely, in part, because duration of habitation is less. However, that is not the only factor. Occupation is regulated in VRs by the 2018 regs while LTRs face no such regulation. As for the third argument about second home buyers, I would suggest that many mistakenly see “second home ownership,” as a privilege of the “wealthy,” and have a knee-jerk discriminatory response to such ownership. I, for example (anecdotal only, of course), rented my home in my previous location while I transitioned here to Orcas, It was the only way I could afford to do it. Janet, you may not know this about me, but I began as a homeless child at age 11, on the streets in Seattle, alone. I lived in the bottom of a parking garage in a hovel made from refrigerator and stove boxes I hauled away from the alley of a near-by store. I dug in dumpsters and scavenged leftover soup from the kind kitchen staff of the Blue Moon Tavern to feed myself. Property has been my step by step tool to reach my current middle class station. And I use this position every day to offer a hand to my loved garden help and my household assistants, paying them fair wages and more. Even the careers I have chosen were chosen to help others. I treasure what I have been able to accomplish. There are a vast array of reasons people have second homes and I default to my first argument that that is a constitutionally protected right anyway. Property as a means to leverage the pursuit of happiness was a founding principle of our country. Specifically, Aspen is apples and Orcas is oranges on this issue. Our local evidence shows that capping VRs will do little to increase affordable housing for our workers as the owners report they would simply leave their homes empty or sell to someone who can afford to do so. Capping might, ironically, exacerbate the very problem that concerns us both. It would likely increase the rich-poor gap here as the mom-and-pop variety of owner would be forced out. And even if you were to buy that Aspen and Orcas can be compared, the Aspen study shows only correlation, not causation, In your final argument, you make an assumption that owners worry the nature of the “hurt” would be their own profit. In fact, we are well aware that capping permits is likely to raise our property values and also allow us to charge more per night as supply is reduced and demand remains high. Shouldn’t we, then, be advocating for a cap? But we are not coming from a place of greed, another discriminatory assumption on the part of many making your argument. Rather, we want to be able to offer our homes to people who can afford to come here and we wish to protect the right of others in a middle income bracket to make their way here as well. We wish to protect our islands from a far more pronounced gap between the working class and the wealthy. Let’s put our heads together and find real solutions to housing for all of us. Let’s use the means that exist to solve nuisance problems in neighborhoods. Let’s encourage everyone here to use water wisely and to protect our resources. Let’s work together the way I know we can.
OK, who do you believe, our water company manager Dan Burke (who managed Rock Island for a few years prior) and the water Board of Directors – Steve Smith, Scott Lancaster, Joe Cohen, Clyde Duke, Jim Nelson, Patrick Shepler and Scott Perryman; or do you believe the ranting group of rabid anti-vacation-rental-people who misguided by their emotions into misleading our islanders with the straw man argument of water usage?
By the way, even if their assertions were half true, if vacation rentals were curtailed, visitors would stay in hotels, regular bed and breakfast establishments, resorts, inns, campgrounds, etc., and there would be just as much water usage for sheets and towels, showers, food services, watering lawns, etc.
OK, who do you believe, our water company manager Dan Burke (who managed Rock Island for a few years prior) and the water Board of Directors – Steve Smith, Scott Lancaster, Joe Cohen, Clyde Duke, Jim Nelson, Patrick Shepler and Scott Perryman; or do you believe the ranting group of rabid anti-vacation-rental-people who are misguided by their emotions into misleading our islanders with the straw man argument of water usage?
By the way, even if their assertions were half true, if vacation rentals were curtailed, visitors would stay in hotels, regular bed and breakfast establishments, resorts, inns, campgrounds, etc., and there would be just as much water usage for sheets and towels, showers, food services, watering lawns, etc.
Can anyone break it down to gallons used per day per person and show whether a full time resident uses less or more water/day than a tourist? I’m guessing hat full timers might wash a car, water a lawn, do more loads of laundry, fill a hot tub, etc. and it would be at least theoretically possible that full-time residents are using more water per person per day. It would be interesting to know.
There you go again, Dan, besmirching the reasonable motives of people who disagree with you as “the ranting group of rabid anti-vacation-rental people.” I continue to be surprised at the editor allows your libelous ad hominem attacks to appear. But at least you did not include me by name this time. Had you done so, you would have received a stern letter from my attorney.
Keep it up, Dan , and I’ll see you in court.
OK. Time out, kids.