Letter: My VHR Proposal

The following was presented by Douglas County Commissioner Danny Tarkanian during Thursday's meeting on the future of Vacation Home Rentals (VHRs) at the Lake Tahoe portion of Douglas County (Tahoe Township). He gave this to share with readers prior to the start of the meeting:

What I try to do, as your commissioner, is to evaluate what is in the best interest of the County collectively 
and what is fair and equitable to as many people as possible.

My proposal accomplishes both goals. It protects the tax revenue brought into the County by VHRs. It protects 
the jobs created by VHRs. It protects the VHR permit holders in areas where there was an expectation of tourists 
traffic, and it protects the health, safety and quiet enjoyment of the homeowners who live in neighborhoods that 
are not near tourists’ attractions nor had there been any reasonable expectation that tourists would flood their neighborhoods.

Vacation Home Rentals is an emotional and passionate issue for many. There are some people who believe that they have a constitutionally protected property right to use their home anyway they want. That isn’t necessarily true! There are many restrictions government puts on the use of a home for the betterment of the community. How many of you think a strip club should be allowed next to your home? A better example is a Bed and Breakfast. You cannot operate a Bed and Breakfast from your home without a Special Use Permit. Bed and Breakfasts are similar to VHRs.

There are others who argue that vacation home rentals are an unlawful commercial use in a residential neighborhood. That isn’t necessarily true either! In a recent case involving Elks Point, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that homes which are legally restricted to a single-family residential purpose may use their homes for transient commercial use, such as short-term vacation rentals, so long as governing documents do not prohibit it.

Therefore, it is up to the Board of County Commissioners to determine where transient commercial use, or Vacation Home Rentals, is appropriate and where it is not. Douglas County Ordinance 20.6222.010 B.7 states, “It is the intent… to make the transitory lodging activity… to resemble the existing residential uses made by resident owners and lessees.

This Section makes it clear that neighborhoods are not to be treated the same. This Board must look at the intended use of each neighborhood to determine where VHRs are permitted, where they are restricted, and where they are prohibited.

This Board has previously determined that vacation home rental use is prohibited in the Carson Valley, but it is permissible in Lake Tahoe. The argument used by the people who defend this distinction is that Lake Tahoe is a tourist destination, and the Carson Valley isn’t. Advisory Board member and VHR permit holder, Patti Graf, stated “VHRs are great family place for visitors in this vacation destination area, Lake Tahoe.”

The argument goes that use of VHRs in a tourist destination resembles the existing residential uses in those areas.

I would argue that there are areas of the Carson Valley which attracts tourists as well. I would also argue that there are areas of Lake Tahoe that are not tourist destinations. What is the difference from the gated community at Genoa Lakes and the gated community at Glenbrook. Besides a much larger bank account of the owners in Glenbrook there isn’t.

How many of you believe that the owners of Glenbrook intended for their neighborhood to be used for a transient commercial purpose. It is 10 miles from the tourist corridor (skiing and casinos). There are homes in the Carson Valley located on Foothill Rd. that are closer. Glenbrook has one and in some places two private gates, it has its own privately security guards. The roads are very narrow and their beaches and other amenities are solely for the use of its residents, they are not available to the public. The closest major public beach is at Zephyr Cove. There are no time-shares or other short-term rentals in the neighborhood.

The Glenbrook HOA, which governs all but 54 homes in Glenbrook, has banned VHR rentals to people outside the association. It is pretty clear VHR rentals to tourists do not resemble the existing residential use in Glenbrook.

Imagine the unintended harmful consequences to the 54 homes outside the HOA. Is Douglas County really going to force the homeowners in this neighborhood to allow VHR permits. The rest of Glenbrook bans VHRs to tourists but Douglas County forces 54 homes in the same neighborhood to allow them. (how many homes in Glenbrook HOA)

Douglas County lumps these 54 homes with 53 homes in the HOA in what is designated Glenbrook South. There are currently 16 VHR permits allowed in Glenbrook South. If the 53 homes in the HOA don’t use any of the permits that means 16 VHR permits will be allowed in the 54 remaining homes. (30%) What a cluster-----.

Who on this Board thinks that VHR rentals at those 54 homes resemble the existing residential use in Glenbrook South. Who in the audience thinks this is fair and equitable to the 36 homeowners outside the HOA.

Elks Point is a 501 C-7 non-profit social club founded in 1925. Its bylaws restrict homes to single-family residential purposes. The bylaws prohibit its members from making a commercial profit. The roads in Elks Point are very narrow. Emergency vehicles have a difficult time navigating them. In fact, the International Fire Code requires a minimum of 20 feet in width, yet every road in front of a VHR home in Elks Point is less than that. The homes are right on top of each other. There is very little parking forcing VHR guests to illegally park in the streets, causing additional significant hazards. Elks Point, like Glenbrook, is a gated community. It has no public beaches or other public amenities.

Is it fair and equitable to the homeowners of these private secluded communities to have a plethora of tourists use their exclusive beaches and amenities. How many of you think that it is fair and equitable to have VHRs in this neighborhood.

I have heard some say that the VHR problems would be resolved if the County did a better job enforcing the Ordinance. History is replete with examples of people breaking laws that they don’t believe in. How many of you have driven above the speed limit? Smoking Marijuana in public is illegal but it is done everywhere. I think it is disgusting my 12-year-old son can distinguish between cigarette and marijuana smoke. Additional enforcement has been in place for over a year now, yet there are still so many problems with these renters.

I recently discussed with County staff a sexually disgusting picture at a home in Elks Point. I was told there was no Douglas County regulation that prohibits this conduct, and in fact, this type of behavior happens often at public beaches.

THAT IS THE POINT. We may not be able to preclude rude, obnoxious, sexually explicit acts and comments in public but we sure as hell should try in purely residential neighborhoods.

On the flip side, there are neighborhoods where VHRs were intended, appropriate and beneficial to the community. Tahoe Village is located right next to the ski lift. Most of the homes are time-shares or VHRs (there are 192 VHR permits in this neighborhood with 50 more on a waiting list). The County has not received any complaint about VHRs in this neighborhood.

Homeowners bought their homes with the knowledge and understanding that there would be a large turnover of tourists. Why in the world would the BOCC not want more VHRs in this neighborhood. What rationale basis does the Board have in denying a permit to the 50 currently on the waiting list. In a neighborhood like this, there should not be any limit on the number of VHRs.
Then there are neighborhoods, not next to, but relatively close to the casinos, ski resorts and public beaches used by tourists.

Some people in these neighborhoods bought their homes with the understanding that they could rent them on a short-term basis. Some are relying on this income to make their mortgage payments. Many will see the value of their homes reduced if they are prohibited from renting short term.

Many more people bought their homes in these neighborhoods with the simple basic understanding that their neighborhoods would be quiet, peaceful, and safe for their entire family, a right which should be guaranteed AND protected for all.

This is a tough balancing act between two legitimate concerns. I asked the VHR Program manager, Ernie Strehlow, to personally inspect every neighborhood, using several different factors, to determine where VHRs are appropriate, where they should be restricted and where they should be banned. Mr. Strehlow did an exhaustive study evaluating the width of the roads, the condition of the roads, the ability of emergency vehicles to maneuver on the roads, how close homes are to one another, trash disposal, and parking.

After evaluating these factors, Mr. Strehlow suggested VHRs should be banned north of Cave Rock, unlimited in Tahoe Village, and restricted to certain numbers in other neighborhoods based upon the different factors just mentioned. In my opinion this is the right approach, along with banning VHRs in Elks Point.

I understand no one will be entirely happy with any result the Board chooses. What I try to do, as your commissioner, is to evaluate what is in the best interest of the County collectively and what is fair and equitable to as many people as possible.

My proposal accomplishes both goals. It protects the tax revenue brought into the County by VHRs. It protects the jobs created by VHRs. It protects the VHR permit holders in areas where there was an expectation of tourists traffic, and it protects the health, safety and quiet enjoyment of the homeowners who live in neighborhoods that are not near tourists’ destinations nor had there been any reasonable expectation that tourists would flood their neighborhoods.

My proposal will adversely affect a limited number, 41 VHRs, located far from the tourists’ destinations but it will add 50 VHRs next to the ski lift in Tahoe Village. The County will actually earn more TOT money and more jobs will be created. VHRs will be permissible in areas they were intended and prohibited in areas they were not intended. I believe this proposal is in the best interest of the County as a whole, and it is fair and equitable to many more people, than it harms.

The BOCC have far too long punted this issue down the road. Some BOCC members suggest this Board should rubber stamp what the Advisory Board recommends. This is the safe approach. Don’t take responsibility for the end results. Pass on this difficult decision which will make some residents unhappy to an unelected appointed board who never faces the wrath of the public at the ballot box. This BOCC was elected to make the tough decisions. Each of us should be held accountable for how we make these decisions. I am very comfortable being held accountable for my proposal.