— from Steve Henigson —
Jean and I went to our bank, today, to do some everyday banking business. The lines were long, and moving slowly, and even the Bank Manager was doing the work of a teller. So we asked why.
“Can’t get employees!” she said. “Why? Because they can’t find housing?” “Bingo!” she replied.
Well, that certainly brought the issue home.
Jean and I were at the recent “conversation” about the vacation-rental problem. Our Councilman, Rick Hughes, was there too. Other people who were also at the meeting now report that Rick seems unavailable, and isn’t answering e-mails on the subject. That seems to tell us a great deal about whether our Council will ever do anything useful about the problem.
But don’t despair.
There is an easy solution to the problem: Throw out the entire County Council, and elect other representatives in their stead
Jean wanted to know how we were to find the “right” replacement Councilmembers, who will actually listen to us, and will do something useful to solve the vacation-rental problem. I told her that it really isn’t necessary to find the “right” people. It really doesn’t matter whom we elect. The necessary instructive message to the new Councilmembers will have been delivered by the wholesale ouster of the old ones: “Do the people’s bidding, or we’ll throw you out, too.”
So there’s your quick and (pretty) easy solution to the housing problem that we face. Now, all we have to do is implement it. Talk to your neighbors, and convert them to the revolutionary thinking that I’ve just proposed. Then act on it.
Throw the bums out. As soon as possible.
**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.**
I wish Rick Hughes would listen better. Every time I have brought up my concerns about vacation rentals impacting available housing for full time Orcas residents, he says there is not a problem.
I believe there’s a conflict of interest seeing as Rick is an owner of a permitted vacation rental on Orcas.
Steve Henigson proposes “a quick and (pretty) easy solution to the housing problem that we face” — namely, “throw out the entire County Council, and elect other representatives in their stead.” Unfortunately, I don’t see a solution there, but merely a hope that a new Council will come up with one. The issue is more complex than that. We, as a community, need to devise a plan to regulate vacation rentals, present it to the Council, and get them to approve it. If they fail to address the issue adequately, that is the time to call for their ouster. Jean is right — it is ludicrous to think that “it really doesn’t matter whom we elect.” Furthermore, citizen action has succeeded in the past in getting the Council to do the right thing by changing their minds and adopting needed legislation.
This is an issue where the Council will be loath to take the lead. That will have to come from a peoples’ initiative, with some teeth in it. Like the loss of a reelection campaign if they don’t get in line with the popular will.
Housing is a serious and broadly complex problem that will not be solved by political violence, however cathartic that may be. Such an act only kicks the can down the road and disrupts a council that is doing many things right. The simple assumption that by eliminating vacation rentals the problem will be solved is alluringly attractive but deals with only a small part of the housing problem at best. Further, no one should assume that all those willing to rent during summer periods would, if prohibited from entering into short term occupancy agreements, be willing to enter into long term leases with our much needed labor force.
If the County Council really doesn’t have a plan to deal with this situation … do you? Rather than attack “the system,” constructive citizens might consider gathering talented, concerned and open-minded people to draft and propose an initiative to the people that responds to the complexity of the problem.
1. Just curious–what does the bank pay its employees? Minimum wage?
2. The “bums” in question considered vacation rentals more than a year ago, holding hearings and issuing new regulations requiring annual certification and permitting, hefty penalties for unpermitted VRs, hiring a full-time enforcement officer, and establishing new standards for qualifying for permits. I wonder where everyone was during this process? And why no one on the panel addressed it?
3. One person at the recent “community discussion” asked why the County didn’t regulate vacation rentals. No one corrected her. No reason to let facts get in the way.
4. Rick Hughes was at the meeting, but as I understand it was not permitted to discuss either the current data and regulatory scheme or the legal limitations on what Council can do with respect to property use.
But do continue ranting.
One question asked by many of the participants was what evidence there was to support the notion that vacation rentals deprive long-term renters of possible homes. The connection between the supply of “affordable” housing for long-term rental and vacation rentals is a narrow one–most VRs are far too expensive to rent as affordable long-term rentals.
As for conflicts of interest, one of the speakers at the discussion who bemoaned VRs owns at least one or two VRs.
Marc Cohen, I agree with most of your points. However, the Council, with plenty of opportunity for local input, already “devised a plan to regulate VR’s”..
It’s on the books..
“Regulating” is not “restricting.” Perhaps “restrictions” is more the word of the day?
Or “limits.” Someone corrected me and said they intended to say “limits.” Like everything there is two sides to the VR issue, and there are many who feel there should be limits to how many.
Everything should have limits– Never say never people.
From the NYTs 7/26/19–
And now for the Back Story on …
A treasury of special places
Migratory bird sanctuaries in China. A radio astronomy observatory in northwest England. Burial mounds in Japan. Eight Frank Lloyd Wright constructions.
These are just a handful of the 29 additions Unesco made this week to its World Heritage List of sites that have cultural, natural, scientific, historical or other significance. (The criteria for selection are broad.)
The list began in 1978 with 12 sites, including the Galápagos Islands and Yellowstone National Park. It now has 1,121.
Inclusion can spur preservation and protection. But it can also stimulate tourism, and some sites have struggled to manage an increase in visitors.
Venice and its lagoon received the designation in the 1980s, enhancing their already extraordinary appeal. It’s now one of the most heavily toured cities in the world, with tens of millions of visitors annually, overwhelming a population of just 50,000.
In fact, this year, Unesco almost added Venice to another list: endangered World Heritage sites.
Perhaps, if you keep bashing tourists they will decide not to come to Orcas any more? Or, as I have said many times, increase ferry cost to 100/person each way and 250/car. That will reduce visitors immediately and that would address the problem that Orcas Issues raise every few months. Also, reducing ferry trips to 2 boats/day would also be very effective and also closing the airport, another problem area on the island.
Just put a lid on it & accept the responsibility of managing the growth of vacation rentals, establish some metrics for sustainable growth or however it’s determined, but do not let this runaway train continue unchecked! Regulating & getting county fees is all well & good, but establishing a good balance/limit for # of vacation rentals is what we’re talking about.
Neil– This is only one of the many shallow, misleading, and false dichotomies still being promoted by the status quo that we are supposed to continue swallowing. “We have to have tourism?” Nobody is saying “stop all tourism.” It’s time to change the channel. We could stop promoting all tourism today and it wouldn’t put a dent in it. When thinking of vacation rentals without limits one can’t help but be reminded of the old saying, “Create the infrastructure and the people will come.” With no limits as to how many VRs will be allowed, and with over 500 already on Orcas, (and that number escalating), the sky is the limit is not an answer. The time has come for a moratorium.
I love the “empty trophy homes don’t use services” so no big deal. The barefoot bandit took advantage of that and it cost us taxpayers dearly for the sheriff and feds to investigate. It costs for patrols of empty homes.
It is no comfort in learning this morning that we are not alone in such a predicament. I came across this story this morning: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/they-killed-our-city-locals-feel-helpless-as-vacation-rentals-overrun-sedona-arizona/ar-AAEWSal
As an economic analyst, I would beg your indulgence for disagreeing with this iniative. Several complex issues are being conflated by these discussions, which has scapegoated vacation rental owners for what is at least partially out of their control.
First, tourist/rural economies are generally economically disadvantaged, either due to inaccessibility or other factors, which prevent a robust economic infrastructure from developing which would create higher-paying jobs. Many rural economies compete for tourist dollars as a substitute. The prevalence of low-paying jobs is a fallout of these development economics. Targeting vacation rentals does not solve these fundamental economic challenges. Second, the challenge of managing growth in an environmentally sustainable fashion is a separate issue, and needs to analyzed and solved on its own, rather than singling out vacation permit holders, many of whose houses will never be in the rental pool. My personal neighborhood experience of vacation permit holders is that many retain use of their homes as a primary residence, and hold the permits as an option. Finally, where is the data to support many of the opinions being bandied about as fact? Where is the data proving the causal link between vacation rentals and unaffordable housing? Salomon Brothers conducted a robust econometric analysis of real estate returns over two decades a while back, and concluded that the primary determinant of rising real estate prices was regional/local economic growth, which explains its boom and bust character, and its lack of affordability at the end of economic expansions.
I’d like to see all this energy directed at the growth management challenges facing San Juan County, rather than getting sidetracked by what could turn into a lengthy battle with property owners. I also think the ad hominen comments directed at our council are inappropriate in this public forum.
I find it ironic that at least a couple of the people who are either involved in spearheading this action committee or commenting on its imperative nature have profited from their own vacation rentals in the past, which makes it seem like an issue which disadvantages future homeowners versus those who arrived in the past, and to me smacks of hypocrisy.
As speaker of the house of reps, Nancy Pelosi told a inquisitive student at a forum, “Were Capitalists, and that’s just the way it is.”
Or, as Sinclair Lewis put it in “Main Street,” It is difficult to make a man understand something that his salary requires he not understand.”
“Solomon Brothers? We don’t need no stinii8n Solomon Brothers.
About the article to which our Editor (Lin) has linked us, and also about the conversation we’re having here:
Jean and I believe that the VR problem that we face, both here on Orcas and in other places like Sedona, is neither a problem of law nor of economics.
Instead, it really is a moral issue.
Laws can be made to prevent or control the VR problem, but unless people voluntarily obey these laws, the problem will remain.
In Sedona, for example, at least one developer is trampling on a neighborhood’s CC&R agreement. It will take a lawsuit to resolve the issue, but bringing such a civil lawsuit is extremely, and perhaps prohibitively, expensive. Thus, the economics of the situation are on the developer’s side.
Nevertheless, it is still worth the effort to promote regulations and laws which seek to control the problem. The fact that there are difficulties involved does not negate our efforts. Every step presents the possibility of changing hearts and minds.
And that’s where the media comes into the picture. Broad publication of the agonizing displacements faced by the families most affected by the VR problem will hit people in their hearts, and thereby may change minds.
I don’t know if Palm Springs, CA is still following all of these edicts, but I found this approach to their problem interesting. Especially the restriction of how many rentals a year could take place per unit, and the definition of a vacation rental as an “ancillary and secondary use of a residential property”. https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showdocument?id=53179
Michael, I never said eliminate all tourism. I simply pointed out that Orcas can easily use financial incentives or disincentives to control the number of tourists/day. That’s different from “promoting” tourism. If Orcas charged a landing fee for every person coming onto the island that would reduce tourism and outsiders coming. The fee could change based on season, day of the week, etc. Selling car passes for all cars coming off the ferry would also be a useful tool and could encourage people to carpool or use public transportation that could be developed and be ecologically kinder. These ideas are well within Council’s control to do and would be revenue generators. Those funds could be used to subsidize housing if that what Orcasians desire. Similarly, there are other island that actually cap the number of people allowed on the island per day and Orcas could set such a limit as well.
Paula, great post. Thanks for getting us all to think!
It is worth noting that at this point in time there is no “full-time enforcement officer” dealing with VRs, rather that individual has been re-tasked for some sort of inspection role. See:
https://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=e258945d-8d59-4e43-9f76-bb93c27a9d69&prefilter=30,5840
at 2:43:44. I am also a bit disappointed by the attitude (by the chair?) and his flippant comment “one table … pledging revolution …”. Perhaps if the County took the issue as seriously as many of the County’s citizens do then no “revolution” would be necessary.
Furthermore, the excuse (offered later in the discussion) that perhaps the County does not communicate well vis-a-vis what they do (or do not do) re VRs is not the central issue. The issue is whether the Council and the Planning Department are ready and willing to address the issues which have been put before them: that is the (mostly) negative impact which VRs are having on our neighborhoods and the environment we have chosen (at considerable expense, both monetary and otherwise) to live in.
Peg Manning, Bill Appel and Paula Treneer wisely ask us to look at the actual facts of rental issues. Many of the comments I’ve read and heard do not seem based on the percentage of VRs which actually be used as modest priced long term rentals.
1. What percentage of VRs have not been or will not be on the market as long term rentals?
2. Of those which might be considered for long term rental, what would be the expected rental fee? Is it low enough to house local residents who work at service jobs during the high season (and what happens when the jobs are cut during off-season?)
3. What percent of current licensed VRs are full-time residences of owners? Are these a problem?
There are other issues to be defined, some related to VRs but many others must be considered separately. Let’s be clear about the facts of the problem we are trying to solve.
Kenneth Gibbs–I think you may have misunderstood the “one table . . . .pledging revolution” comment reported in the Planning Commission’s recent meeting. That was a direct quote from a table leader in the meeting, pretty clearly intended to inform the Commission members who did not attend the Orcas meeting of the feelings expressed by some Orcas islanders. In addition, the Enforcement Officer you refer to is, I believe, not the same as the employee charged with VR rules enforcement. It appears that the occupant of the longstanding position of Code Enforcement Officer is being asked to perform some inspections–not the person assigned to VR.
As for County communication failure, I don’t understand how anyone attuned to goings-on in the County missed the entire vacation rental rules hearings and enactment.
Peg Manning … in the indicated portion of the video Ms Shook(sp?) is specifically focusing on VRs when she states that “my code enforcement person” is off doing something else part of the time. Maybe it is some other code enforcement person she is referring to, but if so that would be completely out of context.
The County did indeed undertake quite a bit of “consultation” concerning the updated VR regs. But to the best of my knowledge no where did they consider cumulative impacts to the environment or to our neighborhoods. As for the regs themselves, they are pretty weak tea and they certainly do not address the misgivings many in the County hold concerning VRs. The County can hold all the outreach events, hearings, surveys, etc. it wants but if it then basically “bins” the result and does pretty much as it planned to do anyway, then that is hardly representative government.
Steve:
I have been out of town on vacation over the last two weeks with limited access to county email. To anyone who has emailed me, I will be working on returning all email that I may have missed while gone. I’d like to speak to anyone who has questions or suggestions. My email is rickh@sanjuanco.com and my cell is 360-472-0253. I’m willing to look at additional changes to San Juan County short term rental policy.
Again, to those who had questions, please accept my apologies for the delayed response.
Rick Hughes