This letter was sent to the City Council and is being reprinted here per the author’s request. Dear Madam Mayor Wallace and Honorable Council Members: In 2016–2017, the City took real steps to address VHR concerns through public workshops, studies, compromise, and dedicated enforcement. By 2018, data showed it was working and that the ordinance should now be reinstated in light of Measure T being struck down.

The “Yes on T” campaign ignored that progress, using fear-based rhetoric and false promises of cheaper rent to pass a flawed, unconstitutional measure with a razor-thin margin.

South Lake Tahoe is a tourism-driven destination with naturally transient neighborhoods. VHRs play an essential, irreplaceable role in our economy and small businesses. Please stop appeasing a vocal minority—reinstate the prior ordinance, enforce it effectively, and use data to guide decision-making.

Economic importance of VHRs

City of SLT Economic Impact of Travel Study from 2021 estimates:
● VHR guests account for 24% of all visitor spending in South Lake Tahoe in 2019,
generating $100 million in City spending annually. (2)
● Of that $100M, ~$63 Million annual City spending and ~$5M in City TOT/taxes
eliminated by T. (2)
● ~700 jobs directly tied to tourism were lost from Measure T, with countless other non-direct jobs and businesses harmed. (2)
● Visitors who stay in VHR’s spend more than any other visitor to Tahoe. (2)

Other research and data show:
● Since ~2020, 65+ local “storefront” businesses have closed, and the number of total businesses, including service companies, likely far exceeds this. It’s hard to think Measure T is not a contributing factor, given how much City spending T eliminated. (6)
● In Big Bear Lake, California, proposed vacation rental limits (reducing from ~2600 to 1500 permits) are projected to reduce annual visitor volume by 47% and cut direct visitor spending by $250 million, resulting in 2,100 fewer jobs and $12 million less in local annual tax revenues. (7)
● This analysis specifically states that demand for vacation rentals is “sufficiently different from hotel demand,” making it unlikely that visitors would simply switch to hotels, meaning many would go elsewhere. (7)
● Coachella Valley projected 122,000 fewer visitors and a $9.5M tax revenue loss annually in La Quinta alone. Across 10 cities with restrictions, $377 million in visitor spending would be lost within two years of implementing bans. (11)
● 163,929 jobs were supported by the VVHR sector in California —28,423 from
accommodations and 135,505 from guest spending in local businesses, which underlines how important VHR’s are to the local economy beyond the direct VHR industry. (4)

VHRs are not the widespread neighborhood problem some claim

If you live next to a constantly disruptive VHR, enforcement is not doing its job, and that is where the City’s focus should be: targeted enforcement against bad actors.
● No data found suggests anti-clustering efforts have any desirable outcome.
● In 2019, ~85% of VHRs never had a single complaint filed against them, and 95% never received a citation for an observed violation. (9)
● Only 17 homes (1.5% of the total VHRs) accounted for 36% of all complaints. (9)

VHRs and affordable housing

Affordable housing is a problem here and in many places, but substantial research, including by government agencies, disproves the claim VHRs are a significant factor.

● Rent is ~50%-75%+ more expensive than before Measure T.
● 1400 VHR permits is only ~10% of the City housing stock, of which many would never be available or affordable to local renters. (City of SLT Consensus)
● Banning VHRs has an insignificant impact on housing costs, as observed in many places, including NYC but does have a significant impact on the local economy. (10,3,)
● “In vacation markets, homes are less likely to be rented on a long-term basis. (3)
● “We have found that the rapid US house price and rent increases of the past few years have not been substantially driven by STRs. We estimate that the growth in STR density only contributed to 0.2 percentage points of the 4.3% increase in rents and 1.0 percentage points of the 14.9% increase in house prices over our study period. (3)
● “Adopting strict regulations on STRs is unlikely to solve the housing affordability crisis and will come at a high economic cost.”(3)

Conclusion and call to action

No amount of compromise will appease the anti-VHR minority, and attempts to do so will further harm our City, its businesses, and workers. Most resident concerns can and should be addressed through proper enforcement. The millions in annual revenue from VHRs can meaningfully support vital City services and programs, in addition to funding enforcement.. The path forward is clear: restore the proven 2017 ordinance and focus on effective implementation, compliance, and enforcement.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Caleb Fry, South Lake Tahoe

References and suggested studies
● (1) City of SLT Socioeconomic Impact Study 2017
● (2) City of SLT “The Economic Impact of Travel” by Dean Runyan Associates 2021
● (3) Oxford Affordable Housing Study 2019
● (4) Economic Impact of California Short Term Rentals 2022
● (5) State of the Industry: Short Term Rental Industry Report 2024
● (6) List of Closed Store Front Businesses in South Lake Tahoe
● (7) Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Proposed Vacation Rental Regulation Changes in the City of Big Bear Lake
● (8) Families find value, more space when traveling on Airbnb
(https://news.airbnb.com/families-find-value-more-space-when-traveling-on-airbnb/)
● (9) City of SLT 2019 and 2020 VHR Complaints Workbook
● (10) Harvard Business Review 2024 “What does Banning Short Term Rentals Really
Accomplish?
(https://hbr.org/2024/02/what-does-banning-short-term-rentals-really-accomplish?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
● (11) Economic Impact of Short-Term Vacation Rentals Coachella Valley 2022