Following the overturning of Measure T, the City of South Lake Tahoe finds itself with many difficult decisions to make regarding vacation home rentals (VHRs) in its residential neighborhoods. We know these are difficult decisions because it was the concerns about VHRs that led to Measure T in the first place. I’m not here to relitigate Measure T, but to open up some discussions about where we are.

Right now, we have a City Council that appears to agree that allowing some amount of VHRs in residential neighborhoods with effective enforcement is the best course of action. Now that the conversation appears to have moved on from prohibiting VHRs, there are many options that the City Council is considering to do their best to ensure that the community is happy with the way that VHRs are integrated into their neighborhoods.

There are two options the City Council is considering that I would like to highlight here.

The first option is to place a two-year moratorium on the issuance of VHR permits to any property that has just been sold. In other words, if a property is purchased today, the owner will have to wait two years before they can apply for a VHR permit. The idea behind this proposal is that it will discourage property purchases from simply being about making institutional investors, such as Blackstone, a return on their investment.

Anyone who is invested in South Lake Tahoe for the long haul won’t have any issue following this waiting period, while investors only worried about short-term returns on investment will likely look elsewhere. This proposal would likely have a relatively small impact, but it would provide a reasonable safeguard against a very real concern that many have, while also communicating that our homes are for the benefit of our community first and foremost.

The second option is much more contentious, and that is whether or not the city wants to have some sort of buffer between VHRs so that no single neighborhood becomes overwhelmed with VHRs. It is my understanding that the issue of being surrounded by VHRs was a significant factor that led to Measure T. On the surface, I would think this is an easy decision and that creating a buffer would be a worthwhile compromise, but I think I understand some of City Council’s reservations regarding a buffer.

The issue is that if the city establishes a buffer right now, then some number of the roughly 700 current homeowners who previously held VHR permits when Measure T went into effect will be unable to obtain a VHR permit solely because they are too close to another VHR. I suspect that some on City Council are concerned about finalizing any rules that would prohibit a homeowner who was previously a VHR permit holder in good standing from being able to qualify for a new permit.

On the other hand, if the city doesn’t establish a buffer, then it can seem like the city is placing the needs of VHR owners above the needs of local residents who have to live with VHRs in their neighborhood and who have valid concerns about the quality of their neighborhood if VHRs are able to cluster around them.

That’s the nature of why compromise is necessary here. Simply put, there are conflicting interests in how VHRs will operate. I think of the VHR issue as having three types of impacted groups. The first is those seeking VHR permits. This group is likely the most concerned by limitations and costs associated with complying with VHR ordinances. The second group is made up of resident homeowners who will be living with the VHRs in their neighborhood. This group is likely the most concerned with effective enforcement. The third group is made up of resident renters. This is the group that stands to be the most negatively impacted by VHR permits being issued as some number of them will be evicted to allow the homeowner to convert their long-term rental into a VHR.

Regardless of which group you fit into, anyone looking for housing will have to deal with a more expensive housing market simply because there will be increased demand to use our limited homes as VHRs to generate income, and a decreased supply of housing available for full-time residents.

My message to all of the groups is the same: Now is the best time to make your voice heard. No VHR permits have been issued yet and no VHR ordinance amendments have been finalized. There will never be an easier time to make changes. City Council is listening, it’s half of their job after all, but they won’t hear you if you don’t speak up.

Your next public opportunity to make your voice heard will be on Tuesday, May 6th at the City Council meeting.

I want to finish by making a specific appeal to those seeking VHR permits: Please be patient. City Council is trying to balance many conflicting interests and is trying to do it right this time. I understand the frustration that many previous VHR permit holders must’ve felt since 2018 as their ability to use their homes as VHRs was prohibited, but please keep in mind that the reason they were prohibited was because the city was carrying out the will of the voters. City Council is trying to do right by you. Please remember that VHR permits aren’t anyone’s right, no permit in good standing is guaranteed to be renewed, and we all benefit from the city crafting and enforcing an effective VHR ordinance. I can’t imagine that anyone seeking a VHR permit would be happy if prohibiting VHRs in residential neighborhoods was reconsidered.

So, let’s work together now to ensure that a VHR compromise is found.

Dan May

South Lake Tahoe