Opinion: When is a VHR not a VHR?

One would think it would be easy to answer this question. However, recently I found that a structure recently completed and to be advertise for rental was approved as a VHR even before its construction which allows 30 occupants, parking for 23 cars and has 13 bedrooms. This property is in a residentially zoned neighborhood outside the "casino core" area.

It is no wonder that residents are becoming more concerned about VHRs. It seems more and more that VHR stands for Vacation Hotel Rental versus Vacation Home Rental.

Added to this concern is finding out that it may take up to 90 days for a complaint to be formally recorded against any VHR. Further, while it is true that complaints supposedly lead to fines against owners and occupants of VHRs, it is unclear as to the success the city has in the collection of these fines.

Given these points, it should be understandable to objectively minder people as to why the residents and voters of South Lake Tahoe wanted to enact Measure T to safeguard their residential neighborhoods.

Now, it has been reported that the city and those for and against Measure T are in discussions to try to comet up with a compromise. However, if any compromise still allows buildings such Mega-VHRs or address the other concerns, I'm not sure it will be successful

My suggested answer to the question posed in the title is: If the building being considered is operated or will be operated as a business versus a residential home and is in a residential neighborhood, it is not a VHR but a commercial enterprise. Common sense says that a 13-bedroom building allowing 30 occupants and parking for 23 cars is such a business enterprise and should be treated as such.

- Bob Lewin, Resident of South Lake Tahoe