||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||
On June 9, the San Juan Islands Community Network (SJICN) hosted a Zoom panel on the subject of vacation rentals, the first in a three-part series focusing on Discovery, Common Ground, and Collaborative Action. Panel members included County Commissioner Jamie Stephens; Hosting on the Rock representative Jan Scilipoti; Vacation Rental Working Group (VRWG) member Toby Cooper; and Doug Whitaker of Confluence Research and Consulting, which recently carried out an extensive study of tourism in the county. More than 80 people were in attendance.
As someone who has written extensively on this topic, I heard few breakthrough moments as most of these issues have been thoroughly debated. The primary purpose of the meeting was to “identify areas of common ground through conversation,” and in that spirit, there was much agreement on what those issues are. Perhaps more importantly, there was also a growing recognition that the issue of VR regulation might be a distraction from a larger set of issues having to do with island capacity and quality of life.
A Wary Council Participates
At their weekly Tuesday meeting, County Commissioner Jamie Stephens took great pains to explain his thinking in agreeing to participate in a forum that took commissioners by surprise. “I wanted to make sure there is a county voice. . . as we have seen in the past, some of this information gets conflated and not corroborated. The press release is much different – much more expansive – than what I thought the focus would be.”
“I, too, was surprised,” said Christine Minney. “My feelings echo Jamie’s. I see the importance of having a county voice there.”
“I was originally concerned by the scope (as per the press release),” added Wolf. “The program is presenting itself as a deliberative, problem-solving process. I don’t want it to be perceived that the county is obligated to any kind of conclusions drawn by this panel. I’m glad that Councilman Stephens will be there. I just want to be sure he’s representing our views and not his.
“This feels like it has been set up as a community negotiation,” she continued. “Other than Mr. Whitaker, who I do not know, we’ve already heard from these folks. I don’t want to step outside our process, but I do think it’s good for citizens to be talking about this issue.”
Stephens assured the council that he would only be representing the county’s current position. “We aren’t there to negotiate or make promises. I will tell them what we are planning to do . . . which is working on caps through the moratorium and addressing issues of density and saturation in the Comp Plan.”
Impact Management
The make-up of the panel ensured that the many sides of regulating VRs would be heard, albeit to the extent that four people are able to represent an entire county. Cooper opened with an emphasis on three issues: proliferation, on-site behavior, and resource use. Scilipoti wanted to make sure that VR owners (of which she is one) “have a voice in what’s happening in the county,” adding “I agree with Toby! We’re all aware of these problems. There are still a lot of noncompliant VRs, and there isn’t enough enforcement.” As for Cooper’s third point, “We need good statistics here.”
Whitaker, whose company specializes in “visitor impact management” and capacity issues, wasn’t convinced that targeting VRs was the right approach. “Tourism is an endless issue in protected areas,” he said. Speaking to the research he did in the county, “there was a lot of agreement among visitors re: what they want and also between visitors and locals, including businesses” – more so than his firm has seen in other studies. [see “SJC Tourism Study finally released: Big challenges – tough choices.”] The biggest issue, he said, was the total number of all accommodations, both rental and resident. “It’s the ultimate controlling factor” regarding impacts.
“Regardless of the total number of VRs,” said Stephens, “density is the issue. . . . And we need to agree on what we know. Passion has no place when it comes to making regulations.” Referring to his own dig into the numbers, he said that nearly all VRs on Orcas are locally owned. “And since the moratorium, only five new VRs have been permitted on San Juan and two on Orcas. Each year, new and abandoned permits tend toward ‘net zero.’”
The Bigger Picture
It was no surprise that panelists agreed that there needs to be stronger enforcement, a sweep of non-permitted (“black market”) rentals, and more education about what is already in place as far as what it takes to get a permit and what can be done about bad players. There also needs to be “finer distinctions” between the various owner groups (local, off-island, owner-occupied) to inform more appropriate solutions. The extent to which the county is motivated and/or resourced to carry out these actions isn’t yet clear.
Whitaker again emphasized the need to “be wary of generalizing. Not all impacts are connected to VRs. It’s about all the people who come to the islands, not just the ones who use VRs. What constitutes too many people or too many cars? A moratorium only gets you part of the way there.”
**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.**
This was an excellent summary. Thanks.
The presentation was an interesting discussion, and this is a very informative article Mathew… I thank all involved.
Even so, I somewhat disagree with the following sentence, “Perhaps more importantly, there was also a growing recognition that the issue of VR regulation might be a distraction from a larger set of issues having to do with island capacity and quality of life,” and replace it with the following– “Perhaps more importantly, there was also a growing recognition that there is a correlation between the issue of VR regulation and a larger set of issues having to do with island capacity and quality of life.”
“Create the infrastructure and the people will come.” One would think that knowing how many tourists, (and how many visitors) come to the islands annually, and knowing what the symptoms are that are relative to over-tourism… should be basic 101 baseline points from which to start this analysis from.
A fair observation, MJ. There are a lot of variables in that equation . . .
Good reporting, as always, Matthew; but what’s the news here? These issues have been discussed and debated for the past three years and more. (And who’s behind these forums and why?) . The ball is now in the court of the County Commission (and public hearings) to actually DO something with these issues. Will they?
True enough, Brian, as I noted in my opening remarks. I did think Whitaker’s comments were germane to the “larger conversation,” and establishing some common ground among those on multiple sides of the issue might help push some of the solutions forward beyond the limited scope of the moratorium.
Mr. Stevens suggested that [paraphrasing] “… that nearly all VRs on Orcas are locally owned.” I’m not sure if that squares with the County’s own data (from the Open Data website). Of the 996 VRs listed in the “Vacation_Rental_Permits.csv” file 458 are on Orcas. From the addresses provided in the “Parcels_and_Condominiums.csv” file, of the 458 VRs on Orcas, 210 or just short of half, are associated with out of county addresses (129 within Washington state and 81 out of state. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t locally owned, but it doesn’t seem likely that “nearly all” are owned by locals (as in local part or full time residents).
(These number are approximate only as there are duplicate records in the files and the parcel id numbers used in merging the data exist in one file but not in the other. In fact, of the 996 VRs in the VR permits file, more than 480 are on Orcas.)
Michael, I agree with you that if the infrastructure is there, more people will come. The beauty of Orcas is that the critical infrastructure, the aorta of the island, is the ferry. If you want fewer people either reduce the number of boats landing daily or increase the fee for the trip. Either can easily be used to reduce the population of vacationers and even full time residents depending on how it’s structured. Imagine if you charged like Disney-say 109/person and then perhaps 250/car each trip as a landing fee? A lot of people would elect to go elsewhere…
Tourism and visitor management in the San Juan Islands
Prepared by Doug Whittaker, Dan Shelby, and Bo Shelby
Confluence Research and Consulting January 2020
Part IV: Conclusions and recommendations
4. Are the San Juan Islands approaching visitor capacity?
Very few residents think the islands “can handle more tourists” (6%), and 94% report the islands are at
capacity (52%) or over capacity (42%) during the peak summer months. Similarly, few businesses (20%)
say the islands can handle more tourists, and 79% report the islands are at (54%) or over (25%)
capacity. Majorities of both groups chose the “at capacity” response (defined in the question as “a good
balance between the number of tourists and the ability to handle them”), so most people probably
would not advocate for a reduction in tourism. But most would not advocate for an increase either.
Tourism and visitor management in the San Juan Islands
Prepared by Doug Whittaker, Dan Shelby, and Bo Shelby
Confluence Research and Consulting
January 2020
Part IV: Conclusions and recommendations
4. Are the San Juan Islands approaching visitor capacity? Very few residents think the islands “can handle more tourists” (6%), and 94% report the islands are at capacity (52%) or over capacity (42%) during the peak summer months. Similarly, few businesses (20%) say the islands can handle more tourists, and 79% report the islands are at (54%) or over (25%) capacity. Majorities of both groups chose the “at capacity” response (defined in the question as “a good balance between the number of tourists and the ability to handle them”), so most people probably would not advocate for a reduction in tourism. But most would not advocate for an increase either.
Neil, in doing what you’re suggesting will have damaging impacts on the people who live here especially those with limited financial means or those who must go off island on a regular basis.