||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||
As reported last week, the county Planning Commission (PC) has unanimously agreed to recommend that the County Council enact a moratorium on new vacation rental permits starting next year. The proposal (not yet formalized) addresses several issues:
- Establish a moratorium on new VR permits.
- Limit the number to existing permits at date of adoption.
- Any cap and new regulations should not impact current permit holders.
- Establish a cap by island and by smaller geographic areas (e.g., neighborhood).
- Look at options that prevent VR permits to “run with the land.”
- Establish new codes to make enforcement easier.
The commission’s decision followed a preliminary discussion at their September 2020 meeting that was prompted by an August Planning Department memo. (See also the Eastsound Planning Review Committee’s (EPRC) response to that memo.) Knowing of the Planning Department’s intention to add new policy guidelines for managing VRs to the Comprehensive Plan, the decision by the commission to endorse a moratorium was further driven by three concerns:
A tangle of issues. As summarized by new commission member Sheila Gaquin from Orcas, “Much is still unclear: an acceptable number of overnight guests, limiting corporate ownership, transferring permits . . . we need a moratorium so we can straighten all this out and give the department time to catch up on enforcement.”
A sense of urgency. Planner Adam Zack explained that, “Implementation of new policies and code changes would have to wait until final CP adoption . . . maybe by the end of next year (ish).” He added, “We can [enact a moratorium] faster than adopting a code change or approving the Comp Plan.”
Enforcement challenges. As previously reported, there is no easy or quick way for the county to take legal actions against non-compliant VR owners – essentially penalizing those in compliance. (Out of 963 “active” permits, 360 are currently non-compliant.) There are also constraints on available budgeting and staffing.
Other issues were raised, including whether to replace the current permitting process with a business licensing approach and clarifying the regulatory differences between vacation rentals and bed & breakfasts – both of which could be addressed during a moratorium.
A Not-so-Brief History
This issue of a moratorium while working on strategies to better manage short-term vacation rentals has been front-and-center throughout 2020 and since a group of more than 200 Orcas Islanders met in July 2019 to begin identifying the impacts of vacation rentals on housing, rural character, the economy, infrastructure, and services (and indicated overwhelming support for a moratorium).
The County Council has had little interest in pursuing a moratorium despite consistent pressure from the public as well as statements of support submitted by the EPRC and Deer Harbor Planning and Review Committee. At a meeting on November 8, 2019, Council members explained their resistance:
Rick Hughes: “I appreciate those who don’t agree with a moratorium, who have questioned a process that has given less space to those in opposition. But until we can find new and more ways to bring more revenue to our community, we’ll keep doing code enforcement and let the new 2019 VR ordinance (No. 02-2018) play out. The 60+ permits we issue next year will likely be offset by the same number of out-of-compliance units getting their permits revoked.”
Jamie Stephens: “We spent 18 months trying to tweak the current regulations and it’s generating a lot of fines. There are also ways to deal with bad neighbors, though property tax statements make it hard to identify off- and on-island owners.”
Bill Watson: “I’ve heard a lot of urgency, but you’re about a year late. We’ve been proactive. We looked at every issue for 18 months, had public hearings (with little public input), and came up with a fair and balanced group of new regulations . . . We serve at your discretion, but regarding this issue, we are ahead of the ball.”
The Vacation Rental Working Group Steering Committee (that organized the public meetings on Orcas and later on the other islands) responded the next month by submitting to the Council a four-page memo outlining a number of specific recommendations and options. At the monthly Council meeting on Orcas in February of 2020, Charles Toxey, representing the EPRC, stated that “The county’s compliance efforts are a good first step, but they still fall short, such as controlling the total number of VRs.” He then explained that the EPRC proposes two tiers of VR ownership (along with a number of regulatory goals such as density limits, permit wait times, and permit expiration upon sale of property):
- Home stay/share (The property owner lives on site.)
- Off-site ownership (The owner doesn’t live on site.)
The vast majority of the 100 people who attended and spoke at the meeting favored a moratorium.
The Housing Element of the Comp Plan was subsequently expanded to include issues pertinent to the impacts of VRs. For example, it identified the rise in the proportion of VRs relative to all new dwelling units and predicted 1,500 – 2,000 permitted vacation rentals in the county by 2036. It also noted that “the median assessed value for properties with vacation rental permits is $483,905, which is approximately $200k higher than the maximum affordable home price for a household of four,” concluding that, “vacation rentals are not necessarily depleting the stock of housing affordable for San Juan County residents.” [While also assuming that such housing can only be bought, not rented.]
New Council, New Decision?
Given this history and the Planning Commission’s recommendation, how will the new Council respond? It will be one of the first big decisions of their time working together, and it’s hard to know what to expect. Stephens has said little on the topic in the previous months. Incoming council member Cindy Wolf responded to The Orcasonian’s District 2 candidate question regarding “tourism’s mixed blessing” by stating that
“The problem, as I see it, are vacation rental owners who view the islands as an investment opportunity rather than as a year-round community. The proliferation of vacation rentals shrinks year-round rental stocks, drives up real estate prices, and prices the middle class out of our market. Permits should be issued to the owner, not the property, and expire when a house changes hands.”
She later responded to a campaign question about tourism’s impacts from an association of groups composed of Community Rights San Juan Islands, Friends of the San Juans, and the Madrona Institute by saying
“We have the ability, through smart planning decisions about lodging and transportation, to manage visitor numbers and significantly reduce the environmental impact of tourism on the islands, while still allowing guests to enjoy time here.”
To that same question, Christine Minney replied
“I recognize the sense of urgency that many residents have to stem the tide of tourism or at the very least make it a more reasonable element in its burden on residents lives as well as its environmental impacts. To say that we have the ability to limit tourism seems fallible, but our ability to find ways that make tourism work better for the greater good is reasonable and certainly possible.”
The final shape of the proposed moratorium – along with next steps for getting to that point – is still to be determined. Its length, specific deliverables, the nature of the decision-making process, and potential impacts on other planning projects are all on the table.
Thanks, Matthew, for this summary. I would like to look at the ordinance No. 02-2018. Can you tell me how to find it, please?
I’d like to know what is asked of VRs to be in compliance with permits.
Here’s the link, Janice: https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/14790/Ordinance-02-2018-Vacation-Rental-Ordinance?bidId=
Thanks, Matthew. Janice
” “vacation rentals are not necessarily depleting the stock of housing affordable for San Juan County residents.”
Vacation rentals are a driver of, and affect every aspect of the housing market. Short term vacation rentals have been depleting the long-term rental market for over 30 years.
It is simple minded to blame vacation rentals for the problem of affordable housing. There are MANY compounding issues around affordability: interest rates are at historic lows (less than 3% for qualified buyers), a demographic surge of retiring baby boomers and Covid-19 telecommuters, building codes that make construction unnecessarily expensive, zoning that makes most of the island unsuitable for affordable homes, taxation and fees at every level of purchasing and owning a home (land bank tax, affordable housing tax, excise tax, property tax, sales tax, income tax) and last but not least, there are simply more people than there used to be. The planet’s population has DOUBLED in my lifetime and not surprisingly, the amount of land has stayed exactly the same. Compared to those larger issues, local vacation rentals are a very small factor in the availability of affordable housing.
Michael: You cannot keep saying “Vacation rentals are a driver of, and affect every aspect of the housing market. Short term vacation rentals have been depleting the long-term rental market for over 30 years.” without evidence. Sure, lots of people say it, but it’s accurate, if at all, only at the very lower end of VR properties. When the artificial “maximum affordable home price for a household of four” is set at $240,000, even for an island like ours, and it’s impossible to buy land and build a dwelling for less than $300,000, no one is going to have affordable housing. Most of the VR properties are well above the $500,000 mark.
Ken is right: the question is complex, and we never seem to sit down and focus on all the elements to reach a solution. (One particular factor often overlooked is the exploding population of the country.). Here’s one thought: now that major environmental groups are clamoring for ADUs on every lot to increase the inventory of housing, we should eliminate the ADU Limits established here by a political backroom deal over the overwhelming objection of islanders who wanted to retain the long island tradition of guesthouses. And not preferentially in the UGA, but everywhere, especially the large lots outside the village that allow for ADUs to be screened from both the road and the main residence. Plus some focused new regs allowing tiny homes and other novel configurations on land. We still have lots of undeveloped land on Orcas (undeveloped but developable, as contrasted with our large inventory of protected government, Land Bank, and Conservation lands).
I agree with all of Peg Manning’s points. The notion that vacation rentals alone, and the tourists implicated by association, account for our island shortages of affordable housing is laughable.
I also agree with Peg Manning. This problem will have to be solved using a computer with more than one key. VRs are a very small part of the problem but the people and resulting behaviors they bring can be an irritant and widen the perception of blame into non-causative areas … like housing which is a far larger problem than VRs could materially affect..
As to the larger problems we face, responses (not solutions) will becoming down the pike. There will be no “solutions” because all responses lead to new and unanticipated problems. In a world in flux (the world population has tripled since I was born), there is no “there” there.
Yes Peg, I agree with you…do away with the whole ADU concept…guest houses can be farther away than 100 ft from the main home.Why can’t we allow multi housing on ten or fifteen acre land parcels ?If the subdivision regulations were brought up to date,smaller parcels might be available for folk to build their own homes with out the high cost of large land parcels…If more middle income folk were able to build their own homes our housing shortage would be minimized.
Peg, Ken, Paula, Bill… I disagree with you, the author disagrees with you, the Planning Commission disagrees with you, the Deer Harbor Planning & Review Committee disagrees with you, and thousands of people living in the San Juans disagree with you. Though a moratorium on vacation rentals, limits, and new restrictions are on the plate, I’m saddened that these changes will be made by the current council instead of the incoming council.
The fact that a vacation rental permit runs with the land is clearly driving up the cost of homes in these islands. If not, why do sellers so often mention that their properties carry a VR permit? Because they want to get more money! And they do. One 1500 sq ft house on Geer Lane recently sold for an amazing $600,000 because it had a VR permit.
That’s one reason the Council members need to take a hard look at the question of whether these permits should continue to run with the land. And when Cindy Wolf steps up, she will.
Matthew Gilbert, I am so capital-T thankful for your reporting.
Michael–I know for a fact that one member of the Planning Commission does not disagree with me, as we discuss these issues almost daily. And you provide no evidence to support your claim about VRs having a strong connection to the affordable housing shortage, especially when “affordable” means less than $250,000 to buy. I’m not sure why the Council makeup is important, because it’s virtually impossible that anything can happen before the new members are sworn in: not enough meetings, not enough detail regarding the moratorium. You may be unaware that the existing council spent a year hearing public comment and developing vacation rental rules. The effect of that process is still just playing out. Among other effects is that ⅓ of existing VR permit holders are out of compliance with the new rules and subject to revocation. COVID has intervened, but that rule was certainly helpful.
Matthew–Based on what I’ve heard, there is no definitive proposal going before Council for action, not even one with details for a moratorium. The Planning Commission identified the issue as one requiring policy discussion and development, and suggested a moratorium to allow the Commission to address the issue. I am hopeful that the Commission will be able to pull together all the threads necessary for an informed decision about the way forward.
Just a little factoid to throw into the mix: One year ago I went to the trouble and expense ($1000 permit fee) of getting my place permitted as a vacation rental, in case the time came I needed to rent occasionally to keep my house. I have NOT rented my house at all as a vacation rental in the year since and I don’t expect to. AirBNB and its CEO have revealed themselves more fully to me as an organization I want nothing to do with. But back to the County — I was sold the idea at the time that this permit WOULD run with the property I had to sell. So, another item to look at when wrestling with all the parts of this issue — people do go to a lot of trouble to get a permit and pay for it, so if the rules change I would expect the fees to decrease (yep, I’m dreaming) or to get some sort of refund on the value of my permit (yep, I’m really fantasizing now!).
Peg Manning: “You cannot keep saying “Vacation rentals are a driver of, and affect every aspect of the housing market. Short term vacation rentals have been depleting the long-term rental market for over 30 years.” without evidence. ”
From this week’s Sounder– An interview with Vacation Rental Work Group Vice-Chair Lisa Byers
Toby Cooper: Today you have carved out the time to play an effective role in helping to lead the Vacation Rental Work Group, which has become a leading community force. How have you achieved that balance?
Lisa Byers: “People still come into the OPAL office desperately seeking housing, not because the owner of their rental has chosen to sell the property, but because they have simply decided to convert to VR. I saw it as a pattern and a threat to the quality of life. So I joined, knowing full well it would be a journey. I knew from the start that we were in mile-one of a marathon.”
I consistently see anti-tourism and anti-short-term-renter comments rely on anecdotes as evidence. I guess that’s good enough to reinforce your POVs but it does little to bring others along. Show the data to prove your point. (And yes, VRWG has 1 link to an HBR study, but using Boston as a fair comparison to SJC is a far reach)
McMansions: Sunset Beach lies between Seal Beach and Huntington Beach California. Originally it was comprised of summer cottages, a couple of diners, bars and a gas station. As the area became trendy the little affordable postage stamp lots were bought up, cottages were demolished (tear downs) and three story monstrosities (supersize that?) constructed driving the market values well beyond “affordable”.
What is the carrying capacity of the county? How many wells, how any septic systems, how much trash can be sustained? Those are limiting factors impacting affordability. This year realization by the well to do that they can live and work from anywhere is already driving market values up here and foreshadows a real dilemma, we will all see our properties and net worth grow in value, but so will the attendant taxes – will any of us be able to continue living here?
How convenient… it’s so easy to say that what’s happening in other places isn’t happening here simply because San Juan County has neglected to do a comprehensive study correlating the trends associated with the rise in VRs, and the decline of year-round rentals. Or, one that shows the long-term correlation between increases in tourism and loss of community, and increased environmental degradation. I mean, wouldn’t that be the day… when San Juan County actually paid attention to such studies as the Aspen Report, or the Friends Cost of Housing Study, or the recent past Visitors Survey, or information provided by the VR work group, or even the upcoming Planning Commission’s report on short-term vacation rentals and their impacts, and take responsible action. One could only hope.
It’s always dumbfounded me to hear people say over time that my watching my friends being booted out of their long-term rentals because it’s been converted to a VR is merely anecdotal evidence while they are, at the same time, claiming there isn’t a problem simply because the county has failed to do the math. People that are giving anecdotal evidence are speaking from their observations… not from a monied agenda. They have nothing to gain by speaking out.
Along with almost 3,000 other people who signed the VR Work Groups petition I support an immediate moratorium on new VR permits until the subject has been thoroughly studied, and limits put in place.
Petition San Juan County to Impose a Moratorium on New Vacation Rental Permits
2,935 have signed.
http://chng.it/zw9Nn5mDMq
Michael–Anecdotal is anecdotal. Data are data. I have heard lots of stories from landlords who will no longer their homes because of serious damage done by renters. That doesn’t apply across the board, but it is another reason why a barebone basic VR might not become long-term rental housing if it loses its permit. Again, the bulk of the properties involved in VR permits now in compliance are higher-end properties that would rent for far in excess of what is considered affordable.
Tracy–I wasn’t sure if it was clear but your permit will run with the land, as will all before new rules are in effect.
Phil–One problem in any carrying capacity analysis is that the State assumes that we will accept a proportional share of the State’s overall increase in population.
Joe Symons has capacity studies. Joe, your site?
Matthew, As Peg says, there is no definitive proposal going before Council for action, not even one with details for a moratorium. How can you say, “New County Council will start 2021 by voting on a Vacation Rental Permit moratorium”?
Michael Johson, Ken and Peg are right and you are wrong. Vacation rentals do very little to diminish the availability of affordable housing. A $400,000 residence would have to rent for $4,000/month to even be able to pay for the mortgage payments. But we’ve had this discussion many times before, ad nauseam!
It’s true that there is nothing to vote on — yet. I am still waiting to hear from the Planning Department on what those next steps would look like. Still, by not taking some kind of action (even to ignore it) on a unanimously approved recommendation from the Planning Commission, whose job is to help shape planning agendas for the county, would effectively be a vote, one way or the other. It should also be re-stated that housing is not the only issue driving interest in a moratorium.
Peg–
You said, “Data are data”.
Not exactly, it’s more complicated than that. In SJC, like politics in many places, the data provided has been proven to be only that which the county wishes for people to see, with the end result being data that supports eventual (over)growth, and (over)tourism. You call it “data,” I call it “an agenda”. The Vacation Rental Working Group, as well as private citizens have been working on getting the County to correct it’s numbers, as well as the analysis used for producing them… for years. Finally, we see that the citizens voices are paying off, and although the county council continues to not lead, but be led kicking and screaming all the way– new regulations (including limits) will soon be imposed.
You said, “I have heard lots of stories from landlords who will no longer their homes because of serious damage done by renters.”
I’m sorry Peg… I’m afraid that’s anecdotal evidence (not worthy of paying attention to). On the opposite side of the coin, however, my having been a member of the Vacation Rental Work Group has allowed me to see the letters written by the “many” short-term vacation rental owners who’s short-term party renters trashed their scene. Not being able to get rid of bad renters is a policy failure in itself… and a system that allows one policy failure to dictate another is irresponsible government.
You said, “Again, the bulk of the properties involved in VR permits now in compliance are higher-end properties that would rent for far in excess of what is considered affordable.”
Yes, and there have been many of us (non-experts BTW), screaming for years that this is happening, and where it would lead us if the county didn’t change direction… and they didn’t. Voila! No surprises here. So here we are. For those who rejoice in the fact that most vacation rentals “ARE NOW” unaffordable as rentals this works well into your agenda. But, in relation to this– if short-term vacation rentals are, and have been a driver of real-estate prices, (which they have proven to be), and they have been a stressor of both the affordable housing, and the year-round rental markets (as they have), why then do you continue to promote that which has led us into this mess? Trying to solve the root of these problems by either ignoring them, or by continuing to apply the same logic that created them in the first place is a long-term policy failure. Where we’re at today didn’t have to happen… in view of all the effort, the evidence, the warnings from the citizenry over the years that this was the direction that we were headed– it seems now that this policy has not only been intentional, and one supporting the trends leading to where we are at today, (and where we are headed)… it is one that reeks of agenda.
Many within the electorate on Orcas Island is more informed now. Continuing to support that which we know will have long-term negative ramifications for our communities is no longer acceptable to the citizens… the Vacation Rental Work Group’s moratorium petition on new vacation rentals, and the results of our recent election is proof of that.
Hello Michael. You do project a lot–agendas, “celebrating,” etc. It makes it difficult to have a rational conversation. I am curious to know what my agenda is. You seem to know and to have strong opinions about it, whatever it is.
You also ignore the recently enacted VR regulations. I’m still wondering where everyone was during that long rulemaking and hearing process, especially those like you who claim to have been concerned about the issue for years
Data remains data. If the County hasn’t got the data we need, we need to press for it. (The Planning Commission has been trying to obtain relevant data for some time.)
My interest is in thinking through the legal and practical complications of new approaches that would allow people to build homes more economically. One part of this is teasing out the affordable housing issue from the VR issue; no matter what you believe, they are not identical and raise different legal issues. Many people, including the Planning Commission, have sought official legal guidance from the County about the range of possible actions available in the future. For some reason, it has not been forthcoming. One thorny issue is definitions. Who is an islander? Can we distinguish between “islanders,” whatever that means, and people or entities with no island connection in allowing sales and VR permits? Should affordable housing be made available for anyone who wishes to move here, or should it be tied to employment or length of residence? How would we determine “neighborhoods” for purposes of applying a limit on VRs in any particular neighborhood? Can islander ownership of VRs be limited to one on the same parcel as a residence?
When and if the County approves a moratorium, perhaps we can proceed with an organized approach to these questions.
Who has conducted a capacity study? I have yet to see one. Please advise.
Peter
Fisher did a build-out analysis some years back. I have it in “Dropbox” form, but don’t knw how to forward it. I’ll ask him for a different format to share it in.
Dean Dougherty and Joe Symons did one more recently–
“Dean Dougherty, San Juan Preservation Trust (SJPT) GIS guru, has at my request reviewed all rural lands parcels in SJC. He has adjusted their development potential to exclude all conservation easements (Land Bank and SJPT) and any Exempt parcels such as parks, roads, public lands, etc. He has created maps to show the extent of development potential.”
Joe Symons
https://doebay.net/…/emailtoSJCagenciesrepopulationgrow…
Peg, yes, “over(tourism), and (over)growth follow closely alongside the words “agendas”. Do I use the word “entertainment” a lot? I don’t think I’ve ever used it as a descriptive point in any of my previous conversations regarding politics… but you do that a lot, (you add to, and subtract from the conversation to make it suit your framing). It’s not that difficult to understand. Anyone that argues in favor of lesser restrictions, no limits, and thinks more housing is the solution to the current housing crisis) is, , in the long run, only adding to the problem. The bottom line is that growth without limits is irresponsible government. I keep repeating this to you, and you keep asking me what the problem is, I keep repeating this, and you keep asking me what the problem is, I keep repeating this, and you keep….
You said, “You also ignore the recently enacted VR regulations.”
You keep stuttering this over and over and over as if we’re unaware new rules were put in force several years ago. I’ve never ignored the fact that there are existing rules… I disagree with their efficacy, the ability to enforce them, and… they have absolutely no limits.
You said, “I’m still wondering where everyone was during that long rulemaking and hearing process, especially those like you who claim to have been concerned about the issue for years.”
Disingenuous is the word that comes to mind when I, once again, hear this from your, (you’re stuttering again). You keep pondering where myself, and several thousand other angry citizens (who are involved now), were at during this time period, (as if this is some kind of pivital point now).. We’re here now… get used to it. Does that bother you… an informed electorate getting onboard? Perhaps a better question would be one asking what was the motivation of those who were involved in the process at that time that led to restrictions ensuring that things would get worse… not better? Incompetency? Malfeasance? Agenda? Stupidity?
The county continues to take the stance that as long as the new construction market is up… increased VRs are not a problem. This is how it’s framed in the HNA, and this is how I’ve heard our elected officials respond to the moment. To further that line of thinking, now that new home construction, and home sales are going through the roof “there’s no problem”, right? Wrong. Though comparing the numbers of new VRs being permitted to the numbers of new homes being constructed is indeed a growth-related number that’s worth noting, but, this is not, in the opinion of many, the criteria from which to measure the health of our housing market.
You said, “Data remains data. If the County hasn’t got the data we need, we need to press for it.”
Peg, some of us have been pressing the county for this for years… where have you been? It appears to me that if there’s a study that’s needed, and it’s going to disagree with the agenda (overtourism, overgrowth), then SJC will simply not perform the study, (no study, no data). It’s the same everywhere… that’s the way government works. Why have all the information we need in which to make intelligent decisions regarding the health of our communities… when we’ve got an agenda to pursue? Ah, but I’m stuttering now.
You said, “One part of this is teasing out the affordable housing issue from the VR issue; no matter what you believe, they are not identical and raise different legal issues.”
They may hold different legal issues… but they are inextricably intertwined, and one has, over time, drastically affected the supply of the other, (no matter what you believe).
Peg, you keep saying that vacation rentals do not affect the long-term rental market.
Do you somehow think that the county would still be suffering the same “year-round rental crisis” that we find ourselves in now… if Airbnb and the likes had never come on the scene, (in other words, “if there wern’t any short-term vacation rentals here”)?
Sorry, Michael, I must have COVID-dislocation overload, but I’m getting tired of the ad wominem nonsense.
I don’t recall ever arguing “in favor of lesser restrictions,” and I have never argued in favor of “no limits.” I have no agenda of overtourism or overdevelopment. I don’t own rental property nor do I have any other financial or philosophical connection to tourism or development. You continue to project your assumptions rather than addressing the issues.
I DO think more housing is the solution to the current housing crisis. It’s obvious. Unless you want people who live here and need affordable housing should commute from the mainland or simply leave. Changing the VR rules to impose a cap will not produce a flood of affordable housing when the former VR owners decide to rent out their $500,000 house @ $1000 a month.
And sorry, but the County, the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and numerous citizens worked for a long time on improving the VR rules. I think it’s a valid question to ask why these issues weren’t brought up then. I do think that it made sense to phase in as the County did, with the first goal of getting a handle on how many active permits there were, and implementing the new requirements and collecting fees for permits. Enforcement is the next step. It looks as though 300 permits will be subject to revocation. Those rules did nothing to worsen the situation, as you claim. They were a solid first step. I haven’t seen Council state that so long as we’re building and selling homes, there is no problem.
And I’ve been asking for data for a long time. I was really glad that Rick Hughes collated a lot of the existing permit data himself. Demand for land here has driven real estate prices up. There’s a lot of demand that’s not related to VR.
Have a great day!
—
As for VRs causing the housing shortage, I suggest that you go back 15 years and read the local papers. The lack of affordable housing and the “Nantuckitization” of the island have consistently been topics of discussion for decades, well before the organized VR industry. Part of it is just general population growth. The problem is that we live in a wonderful place and lots of people want to live here. Not everyone can afford to live here. Some people arrive without resources or a plan. Other people arrive with resources and a plan, but suddenly want to pull up the moat bridge. And we have a lot of islanders who have VR property as a way to pay their mortgage or provide their retirement. We have businesses that need labor but pay the minimum wage, which is not adjusted geographically. It’s complicated, and the moving pieces are controlled by a wide variety of laws.
Peg–
“Sorry, Michael, I must have COVID-dislocation overload, but I’m getting tired of the ad wominem nonsense.”
Good.
Michael,
Whether you agree with Peg or not, your rudeness is unacceptable in this community forum.