If one wants a hot topic that will spur opinions voiced on all sides of the issue, Vacation Home Rentals (VHRs) would fill that category. Love them, or hate them, most people have an opinion about their existence in South Lake Tahoe. After years of public input, as ordinances were created for the popular way to find lodging while on vacation, and amended, some residents formed a group to create Measure T that, if passed, would ban VHRs in neighborhoods and allow them in the commercial and tourist core areas. It passed, but one portion of the measure that allowed locals to rent their homes up to 30 days per year was its demise.
Now, the South Lake Tahoe City Council is meeting to figure out the next steps to either create a new ordinance or keep what was in place when Measure T passed in 2018. They have voted to have a moratorium in place until an ordinance is created and voted on.
What is important to know is that the Council’s last ordinance in 2017, things of concern were starting to work – a curb on noise, trash, too many cars, and enforcement.
When creating the next ordinance, Council needs to remember what brought members of the community to create Measure T. Those initial concerns have not suddenly disappeared.
What would I do if I were writing the VHR ordinance?
Since almost half of the 1,400 homes that were permitted VHRs in 2017 have since been sold. Allow those remaining to apply first, as long as they didn’t violate Measure T. Several homeowners continued to rent out their homes on a short-term basis even though there was a ban on them in their neighborhood. In 2023, the South Lake Tahoe Police Department’s Code Enforcement team had 263 calls for service for VHRs and 46 so far in 2025, with 175 citations issued. The total of the original fines for those citations was $455,500, with $174,433.52 collected. Almost $300,000 is still owed due to extra fees added on, with some fines reversed. Some homeowners received more than one violation and fines. The council will be adding fines meant to deter bad renters and bad rental policies, up to $5,000 per violation.
I understand the council wanting to have “in-person” check-ins required, but that is almost impossible if your VHR rental company acts as the representative for hundreds of homes. People need to be responsible and understand the rules. Since many homes are rented digitally on VRBO and AirBnb, the homeowner or representative doesn’t always speak to the renter. This isn’t a deal breaker. I have friends who manage homes, and they require a phone call before booking, and a separate rental agreement that lists the ordinance that is required to be signed. It isn’t hard to require that in place of an in-person check-in. The new ordinance recommendations to have outside cameras and a decibel reader should take care of concerns that there are too many people checking in.
The cap of 900 (instead of 1400) isn’t unreasonable since so many homes that had VHR permits were sold during the last few years. Council could set up a perimeter around each permitted home where no other homes could be permitted within that zone, as they do in El Dorado County. If they were to go with that idea, whether it’s 250 feet or more, those who had a previous permit could still have a grandfathered new permit within the zone, no matter how close to another VHR they are. Then, natural attrition would take effect over time.
Requiring those wanting a VHR permit to have an approved defensible space completion may be a tough requirement for the fire department to meet each month due to workloads. Perhaps add that their work needs to be approved within a certain period, or the permit becomes invalid, and they go to the back of the line to get a new one?
It isn’t a bad idea that new home buyers in the city limits must wait two years before applying for a permit, though those in the real estate industry are not happy. The reasons are valid – the council doesn’t want corporations coming in to buy up many homes and turn them around immediately into VHRs. It also gives the new homeowner time to embrace their new community.
Maybe they could add requirements for homes that are currently being rented full-time to discourage people from being forced to move.
Since Measure T was overturned in El Dorado County Superior Court, the conversation is becoming heated again, and many who previously had permits may not understand the current moratorium. Since that date, Code Enforcement has issued 12 citations.
Whatever comes of this, people on all sides of the issue need to remember the history so we don’t end up with another divisive measure to vote on. We all love South Lake Tahoe for one reason or another, or many reasons, and the community is important. What is good for one isn’t always good for another, but we need to try to minimize the differences and enjoy living in Tahoe!