City Council members and community members: I watched the entire debate on April 22 regarding VHR permitting. What I found striking was the almost complete absence of any spirit of Measure T, the constitutional voter-approved initiative. I am pro-VHR, pro-business, but the foundation of Measure T was to limit VHRs in residential zones. The voters wanted their neighborhoods back. The voters became tired of being surrounded by multiple VHRs, thereby completely altering the quality of their living experience. Can there be no nod to Measure T in this debate, the voter’s will? Can we not build in provisions that address the city budget, business concerns, and the local neighborhoods and voters? Yes, there is a way.
1) An initial density buffer is absolutely essential. By its nature, a thoughtful buffer ensures that no one will ever be surrounded and overwhelmed by VHRs while simultaneously providing for a natural balance of the allowable number of permits. It is a beautiful thing. The County has done this, and some grandfathered pre-buffer homes are cycling through as they sell. If you must, as a compromise to previously existing VHR permit holders, grandfather them in even if they are in violation of the new buffer ordinance, but these would expire after sale, and all new permits must meet buffer requirements thereafter.
Scott and Cody are correct to take a stand on this (councilmembers Robbins and Bass). Can we not learn from past mistakes? This is not just an enforcement issue, as I heard over and over again, it is a cultural issue, a human issue, an issue of reasonable expectation for a residential living experience. It is a disservice to the citizens of our neighborhoods to ignore this; they voted for it, now you must, at the very least, not be tone-deaf on this topic. The voters wanted vacation rentals out of their neighborhoods. Now, your best governance is to unleash them again in potentially distorted densities? To the council members who do not believe in buffers, ask yourself: do you wish to be surrounded by VHRs at YOUR house? Even well-behaved rentals? It is a fundamental distortion of a residential experience. Do you not wish to have neighbors with lasting relationships, with one or two VHRs mixed in, perhaps next door, but then down the street, or over there, spaced apart to maintain critical residential qualities? Enforcement does nothing for these issues, and our citizens deserve better. This is a no-brainer, and will be a major and grave error if not implemented. My instinct is that if no buffer is provided, city residents will once again find it necessary to take action on their own, it is that important.
2) Tourist Core, Commercial and Town Center zoning should be emphasized and encouraged for VHR use. Once again, a nod to Measure T. The voters indicated they wanted VHRs to be in these areas. It is good for business, it is good for transport, it is good for walkability, it is good for housing, and it is good for neighborhoods. This zoning should be the golden areas for this type of use with proper incentives and no density restrictions. Create an environment where people can be housed, money can be made, and businesses can flourish.
As I said, I hold a pro-business, low-regulation governing philosophy. I do believe the town has been harmed by the lack of VHR homes as lodging alternatives. It was said it altered the money velocity in this town, in a bad way, and I’m inclined to believe that. As Cody has repeatedly said, you have a clean slate moment, please make the most of it. Insist on buffering, it is indefensible and delusional to move forward as though the market will somehow self-regulate the residential experience through enforcement alone. These are two different topics. Density. Neighbors. They matter.
Allow the ghost of Measure T to inform you on this, or it may haunt you in the future. Give the voters what they wanted: their neighborhoods back, in a thoughtful way, spaced apart.
Eric Bickert, 35-year local Stakeholder, property owner in the City No VHRs