SLT VHR initiative moves forward with more study
By Susan Wood
South Shore resident Jerry Goodman couldn’t have said it better when it comes to opening up or closing the door to vacation home rentals. It feels “like Groundhog Day” in respect to a November ballot initiative that could change the face of the lake’s only incorporated city.
No other issue can bring a massive reiteration of everything discussed and everything analyzed for years like this one. This time, a petition with a sufficient number of signatures for an all-out ban on VHRs in residential zones was received into record by the city. More than 1,100 signatures were needed to meet the 10 percent requirement of registered voters. The VHR opponents led by Ken Weitzman, Dan Brown and Peggy Bourland raked in 1,636 for what promises to be a blockbuster general election slated for Nov. 6.
So when the South Lake Tahoe City Council chose to issue another study to gauge the economic impact of the practice at its June 19 meeting, the issue prompted another round of opinions. The certification and request for a report due by July 17 was passed on a 3-0 vote. Councilman Tom Davis abstained, and Councilman Jason Collin missed another meeting.
The issue is so full of acrimony; some speakers didn’t wait for the agenda item to arrive. Instead, they expressed their opinions over public commentary and during a discussion about the establishment of VHR fines. The latter has come under fire as South Lake Tahoe’s $1,000 parking fine made national headlines.
Property manager Josh Priou called the level of fine “insane,” inferring the amount of negative national publicity could certainly dwarf any gain by assessing these fines.
“People don’t want to walk around on eggshells while on vacation,” Priou said.
The fines ranging from $50 to $1,000 depending on the violation passed, but will return without the “and/or” language on five line items.
Tuesday’s meeting with dual agenda items on vacation home rentals brought out mostly stakeholders ranging from VHR workers at property management firms to homeowners renting rooms.
Airbnb host Debbie Norton was in tears as she pleaded with the council to find a way to maintain her source of income and reason for hope amid being disabled.
“Please do not ban VHRs,” she said.
Other meetings over the last few years have been dominated by residents’ complaints over disruptions by rowdy, inconsiderate tourists.
It’s no wonder elected bodies like this one are having to deal with the dilemma of making tax dollars in the millions from people renting their homes while trying to keep the peace. It’s a delicate balance at best.
When all is said and done, VHRs’ existence will be headed to the ballot box, as Councilman Austin Sass reminded the citizenry.
“We understand your passion,” Sass told the speakers “imploring” the panel to can the ban. He urged them to vote.
“It’s going to the ballot,” he said.
In other business, the council:
· Chose to meet with El Dorado County to discuss a 51.7 percent increase in fees reapportioned to the city in order to sustain ancillary services relative to animal control.
· Considered a policy to rename city streets, prompted by a request by South Tahoe Refuse General Manager Jeff Tillman to labeling a roadway after South Shore philanthropist Lisa Maloff.
The VHR issue became inflamed to the point of having 2 measures on the ballot because the City did not respond to problems of noise, parking, garbage and neighborhood disruption in a timely manner! The City did not want to spend the time or money to address an issue so important to it’s constituency (living in a peaceful neighborhood environment), because it was more interested in getting the TOT revenue. Now that TOT revenue is jeopardized, the City finally hired additional enforcement personnel to cite and fine the visitors who do not behave — something the City should have done LONG AGO! Their constituency sent the message to the City Council that is available to us all: VOTE your message at the polls – both for issues and representatives. The City Council “listening skills” and “response times” change dramatically when the issue goes to the voters at the polls.
Revenue is an important component to governance; however, it should not be the leading criteria when the citizens are screaming for peace & quiet in their neighborhoods. City Council missed the boat – missed the opportunity to address residential concerns and “manage” the issues effectively and with enforcement. Well, the boat has left the dock! Hope this is a lesson learned that, when your constituency brings issues that adversely affect their neighborhood, to your attention – you address these concerns with creative solutions instead of just placating City and/or staff status quo.
We all have to laugh at the comment of not wanting to walk on egg shells during their vacation. How about walking on eggs shells when returning home on a Friday night to learn who has moved in across from you for the next three days or more? How about wondering if your kid is playing in the street with unsavory people from who knows where visiting? How about wondering this same thing every holiday, long weekend or other random period of time? How about being tasked with tracking and reporting rule violations for a business you have no part in?
Had we wanted to live next to a motels, we would have purchased a home near one.
Vote strongly for the Tahoe Neighborhood Group Initiative! We are not the first community to face this issue and won’t be the first to limit VHRs to where they are zoned to operate. Other Communities have done the same thing and continue to draw tourists. We can do the same.