SLT council solidifies vacation rental rules
By Kathryn Reed
Vacation rentals are a $20 million business in South Lake Tahoe – and then some.
That’s just how much is collected each year by property managers. It’s a big business that was brought to light at Tuesday’s South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting. People and entities are profiting greatly from this somewhat controversial industry.
The city collects a 10 percent hotel tax on those properties. That amounts to $2 million a year.
Some property managers – the middlemen between owners and renters – take 40 percent off the top.
House cleaners, repair people, hot tub cleaners and others are ancillary businesses benefiting from the vacation home rental (VHR) market. Then there are the businesses and employees in and around the neighborhoods that provide services and goods to the tourists.
This economic pyramid was brought to light April 7 during the course of the several-hour discussion about how the VHR ordinance should or should not be changed.
On the flip side were those who are furious about having residential areas being turned into lodging rows, where it’s not about having neighbors, but instead being party central every weekend. It’s about having strangers populate the street on a regular basis.
Some wondered why permitted lodging establishments must meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and other laws, while VHR properties don’t.
An unknown is whether the proliferation of VHRs is contributing to the low occupancy rate at hotels in the city.
In all, 30 people spoke at the meeting. The city received 57 letters. The room was packed, with about another two dozen in the lobby watching the proceedings on television. (Councilman Tom Davis was outside the chambers because he is not allowed to participate because of his ownership in Tahoe Keys Resort.)
Enforcement of the rules already on the books was a constant refrain. Property managers were quick to point to the 162 complaints the city received from the 22,000 rentals — saying that is minuscule. What the industry doesn’t disclose is how many complaints are made to them that the city – aka public – never knows about.
At the end of the day, the council agreed:
• To have future VHR permit applicants follow a process similar to getting a special use permit, which will include notifying neighbors of the desire to use the structure as a vacation rental. Exact details will be brought back to the council this spring.
• Occupancy should be limited to two people in a studio, four in a one-room, then two per bedroom plus four others for two-bedroom and larger places.
• To have two ordinances – one dealing with rentals in neighborhoods, one for those in tourist areas that would include places like Marriott and Lakeland Village. This is because the commercial areas have different rules already for things like trash, and health and safety regs.
• No noise is permitted after 10pm.
• Trash mandates would be deferred to the Waste Management JPA, which expects to have rules in place for its three jurisdictions – South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado and Douglas counties – in the coming months.
• To not deal with individual room rentals in a residence.
• Renters and owners who violate the ordinance will face fines, with the fourth infraction in a 12-month period resulting in revocation of the VHR permit.
• To hire people to make the program work — including more and better enforcement.
Lets get the governemnt involved and see if we can kill this off like we do the small restaurants…
The government has BEEN involved all along, and look what a great job they’ve done of it! As usual. But sure, let’s let them have more authority, more regulations, and tax us higher.
That always fixes the problems.
We have used Airbnb houses out of town and find them more comfortable than hotels. We treat the homes and neighborhood as we wish to be treated by visitors to our neighborhood. That has not been the case in several instances with overloaded houses and the tenants using our properties like public parks. Prior to this year the City did not enforce its ordinance regarding noise and trash. As long as the City responds to complaints and enforces its ordinances we don’t mind having people enjoy Tahoe as we do. However, we don’t want people who trash the properties any more than motels want that type of clientele.
Dogula:
Did you move to Nevada?
If the city gets $2,000,000 a year from a 10% hotel tax on VHRs, and 3 new employees to oversee the situation costs $150K a year per employee,…..This doesn’t even count the inevitable fines.
Who knows, might bring in more family recreation focused renters.
The City created the problem in the first place by failing to recognize and enforce existing neighborhood zoning regulations, then failing to enforce its own rules when it capitulated on the zoning restrictions.
The City used to publish the name and phone number of a local contact on its vacation rental website to call when there was a problem, it no longer does and the only solution it offers is to send out the police only after other police priorities are met. It is no wonder this elephant in the room has now resulted in today’s unwieldy mess.
Interesting no one mentioned the parking problems. This seems to never be enforced. I have a rental on my narrow street that accommodates 17 people. They NEVER abide by the parking regulations. Sometimes the cars block the street. I have even come home to cars parked in my driveway. I recently had a group of young people walk onto my rear deck late in the evening looking for the party house. They are lucky I realized quickly what was going on. It could have been very tragic.
No noise permitted after 10pm is critical!!!
I think the # of guests allowed is too high. It should be 2 per bedroom in addition to 2 others – MAX. Most VHR’s have one hide-away couch/bed in the living room. To allow 4 persons in addition to 2 in a one-bedroom, is 6 people in a one-bedroom place – WAY TOO MANY!
Glad I don’t own on your block Noel — 17 people in one place should be a HOTEL.
The realtors missed an opportunity to define the market when they said they were supportive of unlimited vacation home rental properties within the city. Can’t imagine anyone but a realtor or vacation management company OK with that stance.
Gee, I thought they were charging a special fee to hire an enforcement officer that was going take care of the problems? What? They’re still collecting the money, but no officer?
The City so often puts off dealing with a problem be it signage or VHR’s by stating, “From now on we’re going to do a better job of enforcing the rules that already are on the books…”
Then every couple years the people have to complain about all the problems, and the Council tries to resolve the matter with the same statements. It’s Groundhog Day!
Yes, there’s money to be made and revenue generated with VHR’s. But that would be true if you allowed a lot of commercial activities in residential areas. And the VHR revenue doesn’t take into account the lost hotel revenue by allowing VHR’s!
Noel, as long as VHR’s are allowed, you’re just going have to accept crowded streets in what are supposed to be quiet residential areas!
I’m glad the city is going to start enforcing the rules on vacation home rentals as it’s long overdue.
I know living in a resort town can sometimes be trying. But give us old barnacles clinging to the sinking ship that is SLT a break!
Too many people crammed into one house, cars parked on my property and blocking the street, partying till sunrise and stealing firewood from my front porch.
Enforce the rules, city of SLT!!! OLS
We need to get the tourists out of the neighborhoods and back to the motels. I can see lawsuits if a total ban and I can also see this going to the voters. I would rather see the new enforcement department monies go to roads.
When the city approves a permit for a TEN BEDROOM HOUSE near Heavenly, they know damned well what that house is: a HOTEL. Nobody buys a ten bedroom house for their own private use.
The city has known all along what the issues are, and they don’t give a damn. As long as they’re getting their money, the full time residents can lump it. You let them curtail your ability to run a business out of your own home with their zoning laws, but then they ignore those same laws to benefit their cronies.
That’s what your city council thinks of you.
Perhaps we should allow the real estate market to operate freely-w/o any gubmint regulations-let them police themselves as far as vacation properties are concerned-yea that’s the ticket-what could possibly go wrong?
From the sound of the complaints here and at the meetings, it couldn’t go a heck of a lot more wrong than it already IS. WITH all the “gubmint regulations”, TeaTotaled. Apparently they aren’t doing much good, just costing everybody money and aggravation.
When have conservative economic policies ever made long term things better for middle class Americans in your lifetime?-being wrong for your entire life-and an inability to admit it-is pathetic teabaggerism
Why is it impossible for you to make a point without insulting someone?
When have there BEEN longterm conservative economic policies during my lifetime?? I have not seen them in the 60 years I’ve been alive. Not LONGTERM, anyway. And don’t go calling the Reagan years economically conservative. They weren’t.
But that’s not what this thread is about; you had to change the subject to make yourself appear right, and hurl another insult. Stick to the subject at hand, why don’t you?
I find it hard to believe that any of the ideas listed under “at the end of the day”, came with any agreement or input from full time residents ! The city is bending over for the VHR’s and the rental companies.
Why should a 4 bedroom house be allowed 2 per bedroom PLUS 4 EXTRA ? How many full time residents with 4 bedrooms have that many people ? This city fails to realize the number of people is the problem. Those 12 people in the 4 bedroom probably drive 6 cars, fast, and come and go at least 2 times, daily, thats 4 trips past my house for each car which makes 24 extra cars driving in my neighborhood, going fast and running stop signs.
I don’t see any mention of tracking the number of rental days at each VHR in order to insure the correct amount of TOT is paid. The honor system doesn’t work, and you can’t trust the management companies. Remember B. Gorman not paying ?
Dogula: Somalia has very few laws. It is doing… OK I guess.
Hahahahahahah Prunes, really, you’re playing the Somalia card? How about the “but who will build the roads??” card? You just exposed yourself for the ignoramus you are.
Somalia is actually doing pretty well now. It was badly screwed up for so long because of a corrupt SOCIALIST tribal government that fell. Takes time to come back from that kind of destruction.
‘You just exposed yourself for the ignoramus you are.’. Do tell.
Now I will play the ‘how old is the earth’ card.
Name a Libertarian coutry. No zoning, no environmental regulations, etc.
The fact that no one has followed your system should inform you about how realistic it is.
Hahahahahaha! Just can’t stick to the topic at hand, can you? This is not a thread about political or philosophical systems. This is about zoning laws, corrupt city government, and abuse of neighborhoods. Nice try, Bully.
Funny how a practice that facilitates tourism becomes a “controversial industry”. I used to do some renting of my vacation place on Tramway. Stopped because I could afford not to, and didn’t like the risks of liability, distant calls of complaints in the middle of the night, and the general given fact that renters never take care of your place like an owner does. I still make trips around the building each spring, picking up trash that my neighbor’s renters toss into the snow from their decks.
But, they are tourists with money to spend locally, and owners get to do with their property as they wish, in a free society. Not sure how on earth a 10:00PM quiet ordinance would be enforced. Will cops come with each infraction? If parking is a problem, then the property wasn’t provided with enough parking to start with. I can tell you that we have plenty of parking, but that it gets entirely filled, not by renters, but by Ridge Resort employees, whom the Ridge will apparently not provide parking for, themselves.
Don’t value zoning?
You need to check out Houston. You’d really like it, it is a total crap hole.
Ever been to Portland? You’d hate it.
I’m all for zoning. But enforce it, don’t ‘half-a*^ it’ by allowing what are in essence motels in residential neighborhoods!
Otherwise, throw the whole concept out the door. Might as well let neighborhoods be a free-for-all mismash of any commercial enterprise desired!
VHR’s are justified by the rationale of job creation & revenue. Well then let
you might as well let people do whatever they want with their homes. Because there are many other ways we can create jobs and $ if people are given such freedom!
So to the City I ask, “Are residential neighborhoods for residents? Or is that phrase meaningless?”
kind of interesting that most no one here was at the meeting or watched in on the net.
1. Parking , it would be illegal for them to stop people from parking on public streets, unless they where parked illegally. Unless a area wanted to do a permitted parking zone. They statee at the meeting that they will start ticketing all illegally parked cars(watch it locals this mean you too)
2. it is a max of 4 people in a 1 bedroom.
If you ban VHRs in town you will decrees our economy by 20% because most want to rent homes(very few will go to motels) so instead they will go on vqcation elsewhere or north shore, This means 1 out of 5 LOCALS will lose their JOBS.
This will also mean a 40% drop in real eatate values.(at least)! because people who bought 2nd homes hoping to cover the cost by renting cant so they have to sell. And those who were going to buy, wont because they wont be able to afford it will no longer be able to with out the rental income.. So if you bought a home in the last 13 years and put money down, its gone. If you built up equity and were planing on selling and moving to a smaller home to live in retirement. Guess what you can retire because the equity you were hoping to live on in retirement is gone. Sorry you have to work into your 70s. If people think the last 6 years drop in home values was bad. withput VHRs it will be a bloodbath.
Private property rights trump all else. But that also protects those unhappy with their neighbors. Rental units can’t infringe on the rights of the permanent residents any more than the permanent residents should be able to infringe on another owner’s right to use their property as a rental.
If you don’t like rentals, live in a voluntary HOA where it isn’t allowed.
The biggest problem here is that your existing governing body (city council) hasn’t been holding up their end of the deal and honoring their promises. You’ve got zoning laws. The building dept ignores them as it chooses to allow hotels be built in neighborhoods.
What good is your government if it picks and chooses the laws it will enforce?
Relo makes a good point if you shut down property rental it does not mean these people are going to stay in a hotel. Also the city needs to understand the impact on home values if the market is flooded with people selling their houses as there could be a big financial impact.
Where the heck do you come up with those #’s reloman?! From one of those many City hired consultants?Right, 20% of our town would lose their jobs if VHR’s ceased. Baloney!
Would everyone who currently stays in a VHR stop coming if they in the future couldn’t stay in one? But instead had to stay in a nice hotel? Maybe some, but certainly not all.
And your 40% #? Well if true, great! Housing would become more affordable for the town’s working class since the housing stock would be used for what it’s indended & zoned.
Seems like the VHR industry is trying to put forth some scare tactics?
Again, if you want to junk zoning, fine. There’s a lot of different ways we can use our residential areas to generate jobs & income if we choose not restrict those areas’ usage in the manner for which they were/are intended!
Parker, sorry dont trust consultants, if you cant do, consult. VHR’s take 20% of our visitors. Most wont come to South Tahoe because they want to stay in a home so they will vacation elsewhere. Some may(but very few) will stay in a motel, others may stay in the county or Stateline. a large majoriy wont as there arent enough vhrs there. Tourism has changed since our 1960s motel were built, families like vacation homes. If we have 20% less visitors we will have $200 million less in our economy. $200 million is alot of jobs, sothose that have lost them will have to leave town. How can a local buy your cheap home if he has no job?
Strongly disagree that the VHR guests won’t come if they don’t have a VHR to stay in! There may be some instances, but I know other resort towns/vacation spots do quite well without relying so much on VHR’s.
So then that 1 in 5 # is an admitted exagerration! And scare tactic. Yes, we are heavily reliant on tourism in our town. But not 100%. And even you concede that some VHR guests would still come.
So even if that 20% source of guests stays were eliminated, it wouldn’t translate into a 1 out of 5 job loss!
Now my job is close to being 100% reliant on tourism. And that work experience tells me that not only would most VHR tourists still come. But hotels would then get a greater ROI, invest more in their inventory, and make what had been a VHR guest just as happy with their stay.
Disagree if you so choose. I state that though based on knowledge of the tourism industry, and direct contact with tourists.
So I’ll just say it again. There’s a lot of ways we can create jobs & revenue if you want to throw out zoning laws! And since they’re building mini-hotels, disguised as new homes, in residential areas anyways, in essence throwing out the zoning regs., and since it’s all about jobs and $, let’s stop the facade, and junk all rules & regs. in our neighborhoods!
I doubt it very much that someone who is staying in a rental house would shift to a motel. The quality difference alone between a rental house and a motel is enough to shift them somewhere else. That issue plus its a very different experience and cost structure I think people will shift to other destinations.
Has anyone looked at how restricting rentals under 30 days has worked for the June Lake Loop?
Much different than Tahoe. You can’t rent for less than 30 days but can camp on your vacant lot.
Some situations are just fundamentally incompatible.
I’m a vacation rental owner, and I try to be a model one. I run a house that can legally accomodate 18 people, but I limit most rentals to groups no larger than 14-16, for my own house’s sake just as much as my neighbors. I wanted to share a couple insights:
1) My one house generates a ton of business in SLT. Between maid service, furniture makers, plumbers, repairmen, landscapers, gardeners, carpet cleaners, gutter cleaners, snow removal service and everything else, I’ll probably spend $40k/year in each of the first two years of operating my VHR. I generate about $6k/year that goes directly into city taxes through TOT taxes, plus normal real estate taxes. That’s a lot of money going into the local economy. This does not include the money my guests actually spend in Tahoe, which I would put at about $750/week on average. That’s an additional $40k/year that’s being put into the economy. So it seems like each VHR is adding at least 1-2 jobs to the local economy on aggregate, and providing a solid revenue stream for city services.
2) Most people I rent to would NOT come to SLT if their only option was to stay in a motel. Tastes and travel choices are changing, and an increasing number want to stay in real homes when they travel. Especially groups. Hotels and motels will always have a place, but I do believe the desire to stay in them is shrinking in favor of an easier and “More authentic” experience.
3) I fully support some logical restrictions and better management of the VHR program. Banning outdoor music after 10 pm makes a ton of sense. As does a registry of VHR owners or some requirement for owners to share their cell numbers with their direct neighbors when they open a VHR, so the neighbors know who to contact.
4) I do believe that any neighborhood can and should support vacation rental properties. It’s very difficult for the government to get into the business of deciding what purposes are valid ones for someone to buy their home. Neighborhoods can still be great ones with vacation rentals in them, and most rentals are very well maintained, so they hopefully improve the look of the neighborhood. And those vacation rentals pay a lot more in taxes than regular homes in the neighborhood. Perhaps instead of 10% of TOT money going to the city, half of that should go to the city, and half should go to the neighborhood? I’d love for my neighbors to feel more like they’re benefitting from my rentals.
I hope to expand my vacation rental business, but I won’t be doing that if the city really rachets up the restrictions. I’m glad they’re taking a smarter approach.
Very interesting thread , I live in the county and had one vacation rental home on the street with some weekends 30 people staying there, so I see the intrusion upon our lives and our peace and quiet.Greatfully that home is now occupied by its owner full time.
What I want is one of the jobs mentioned @ $150,000 a year to monitor the renters.
is this a typo ?????????
SIGN ME UP !!
This has to be BS right ?? If it’s not then no wonder the city is in trouble.
$150k ??????
Steve.
Evan: Seriously? You have rentals for up to 18 people/night but you limit it to up to 16. I guess two more people would create a problem. Nobody wants one of your hotels here. Take your $40k and be gone. I live in the county and the only phone number I need is to EDSO.
$150k to monitor them? Yes, sign me up as well.
I think there is also a point to be said about what this is doing to locals. There is a lack of viable rentals available in town for families. I was happily renting in the keys (State streets), paying my rent, raising my family, tending to my lawn and my landlord (lives out of town) decides to turn the home into a vacation rental instead. This is his right, but to find a suitable place to live with a family is becoming very very difficult. The more vacation rentals you have the less residents you have.