Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council,
As you are aware, at your May 6 meeting, we recommended that the Council, in considering your actions regarding VHRs (Vacation Home Rentals), enact an ordinance that would be simple, consistent, predictable and fair. The decision reached on May 6, admittedly well-intentioned, did not completely match up to the four ideals hoped for.
Simply dropping the moratorium and allowing ordinance 1114 to immediately go into effect was the best of all the possible actions, as will be explained below. That of course, was with the proviso that every single speaker agreed on. That was enforcing the rules.
While it is evident that every member of the council leads with their hearts on these matters of intense community interest, it is also wise to bring your intellect along on the same trip.
While well-intentioned to meet everyone‘s concerns, the long, well-argued compromises that have been made as a result of the last two meetings have cost the City of South Lake Tahoe valuable time regarding the ability to put hundreds of local employees immediately back to work and scores of local small businesses back into profitability. Staying on this path will cost a summer of jobs and revenue. The approximately 70 closed-down local businesses are proof enough that time is of the essence. July 3rd is far too late to begin only starting to process VHR permits. Those who need to be back at work include plumbers, electricians, carpenters, housecleaners, laundry workers, reservationists, grocery clerks, cooks, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, baristas, gardeners, painters, and many more. In addition, with the city gaining $500,000 to $900,000 from every 100 VHRs rented monthly, a lot of potholes could be filled. Matching funds for grants for fire suppression efforts, as well as affordable housing, could be obtained.
It is not simple. The Chamber has been receiving well above the normal number of information calls. People are trying to understand the ramifications of the complex ordinance up for reading. It is not clear who gets to go first, and will those who used to have permits in good standing will be limited or possibly eliminated by the distancing. The language regarding condominiums, for example, is disputed and not clear to many.
It is not consistent. The May 20 ordinance is greatly different from the El Dorado County, Placer County and Douglas County ordinances and significantly different than it was on May 6. It is a rare person outside our community who knows our borders and follows governments closely enough to make heads or tails out of the disparate rules. Potential families who want to vacation here are completely confused. So are those in the home rental business.
It is not predictable. Because the half-decade lawsuit was over Measure T and the ordinance it halted, by then tossing not one but two changes into the mix in the past two meetings, no one could make any plans of any kind, including city staff and homeowners. It creates a bureaucracy of employees needed to explain, inspect, and enforce the distancing aspect.
It is not fair. Given that several neighborhoods are not suited to having VHRs in any good numbers, the number of VHRs theoretically allowed under the ordinance currently under review for the reading may be completely impractical and calculated in error. For instance, the Sierra Tract and Bijou areas have mostly smaller homes that are not the most desirable for renting out as VHRs. The theoretical numbers allocated to those neighborhoods most likely won’t materialize there. However, if they do get put into use as VHRs, they might actually take out smaller homes that are currently long-term rentals. No one involved in this issue wants to encourage that. Further, the distancing proposal does not take into account the differing sizes of lots. Those homeowners that have waited over 5 years to have the court rule in their favor may now still be out of luck because someone else obtains a permit close to their property. They may have actually had a perfect record as a former permit holder but because this ordinance effectively picks winners and losers, they are going to be unfairly treated. In the previous meeting to May 6th, the Council had rejected the idea of distancing. It was to say the least alarming to see distancing become a central part of a compromise that did not need to be made in order to have a good ordinance. Having been an elected official for over two decades I understand the intense pressures t6yhat can be brought by differing views by the voting public and how things can seem to be needed to be compromised. The saying,” never meet someone halfway down the wrong road” seems appropriate in this instance. So does “it is not always wise to chase the perfect and ignore the good.” Ordinance 1114 was a good ordinance based on real data collected by the city enforcement records. Following the current path will not save our summer tourism, especially for families that desire to stay all together in homes like their own. That is a solid industry trend that our community fell behind on due to Measure T. That measure was ruled to be unconstitutional due to one inseverable main part. It had passed by about 50 votes. However, having Measure N defeated with a 70% no vote is a strong indication of the current sentiment towards these job killing measures. We voters woke up.
Existing Parse.ly customers can enable
As a result of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Council pass a motion on May 20th to end the moratorium immediately causing the previous ordinance 1114 to go into effect thereby allowing staff to start issuing permits causing jobs to be brought back, businesses to reopen and city coffers to begin filling. Then the council can amend the ordinance in a timely manner to add in all the enforcement policies needed and agreed to.
Respectfully,
Duane Wallace, CEO, ACE
South Tahoe Chamber of Commerc