No resolution to SLT vacation rental policy
Real estate agent Stan Freeman let’s people know his view on vacation homes. Photos/Kathryn Reed
By Kathryn Reed
With two-thirds of the vacation rentals in South Lake Tahoe being in residential neighborhoods, it is big business. It also means non-traditional neighborhoods are being created.
Those are the overriding issues when it comes to vacation home rentals – economics vs. locals not wanting residences used as a business.
Since the City Council has been toying with tweaking the VHR ordinance the number of VHR permits has gone from about 1,600 to 1,800.
Before Tuesday’s City Council meeting the real estate community mailed material from its viewpoint in regards to property values and private property rights if the proposed ordinance became law. Then they and other advocates filled council chambers and the lobby June 16 to make their case.
City staff at the meeting stressed that private property rights don’t allow people to essentially run a business from their home without oversight. The city’s perspective is that vacation home rentals are a land use issue.
Those in support of the city’s proposed ordinance were in the minority by a long shot. But if they don’t ultimately get their way, there is talk of asking the voters to be the ultimate decision makers. This is much like when people didn’t want parking meters; a ballot measure ended that practice. This means VHRs could also be cast aside by voters.
Police Chief Brian Uhler escorts Jim Morris away from the podium.
Advocates for this type of lodging point to how this is the way of the future and that VHRs are growing. They also say even the threat of drastic changes is getting home buyers to rethink purchasing in the city limits.
Repeatedly most of the 27 people who spoke Tuesday said enforce the rules on the books so it can be determined if a problem really exists, then address problems at that point.
The city is also doing a “holistic evaluation of VHRs from quality of life issues to zoning, real estate values, residential impacts” and more. This should be finished in spring 2016. There were multiple requests to wait to see what that study produces before changing anything.
Ultimately, after three hours of testimony and deliberations by the four council members it was decided that Wendy David and Austin Sass would form a subcommittee to further look at the issue. (Tom Davis recused himself because of his interest in Tahoe Keys Resort.) David is a supporter of VHRs, saying she lives among them and uses them when she travels. Sass is the most vocally opposed councilmember, repeatedly asking that there be a maximum number of VHRs. However, the only types of businesses the council has restricted are medical marijuana, and the sale of puppies and kittens.
The duo will decide if workshops will be conducted or if stakeholders will be part of the committee or some other scenario is created with the ultimate goal of reaching consensus so the entire council then votes on something.
The electeds did agree the subcommittee is to work on a permit procedure that goes beyond today’s administrative process, to not mandate ADA requirements beyond state and federal rules, to allow residential input but not allow neighbors to have veto power, and to not force those with hot tubs to meet the same guidelines as hotels.
The meeting was conducted in a civil manner except for when Jim Morris with Lake Tahoe Accommodations verbally attacked the council, the city manager and city attorney, wouldn’t leave the podium and had to be escorted away by the police chief. He also nearly got in a fight at a previous meeting with someone who had an opposing view. And he has filed a lawsuit against the city.
—-
In other action:
· The council passed the single residency hotel ordinance on a 4-1 vote. Councilman Tom Davis wanted more time to discuss the issue with those who will be affected.
There is no way 2/3rds of properties are vacation rentals. Not even close. That is likely second home ownership, which is entirely different.
SO much easier to write new law than to enforce the existing ones. . . typical city governance.
The lead has been changed to state that two-thirds of the VHRs are in neighborhoods. We apologize for any confusion.
LTN staff
Dogula, not sure if you read the article, but your statement is a bit premature as nothing was changed as of yet.
Clearly, some reasonable limit on NEW vacation rentals would be welcomed by the voters if our town is to survive. Are we a community with real citizens and living neighborhoods or one gigantic motel? Is it democratic to let outside market forces decide the fate of our town or should the voters who live, work and raise families here have a say? Where is the school district and teacher’s union on this issue? It seems that they have suffered the most from declining enrollment and unaffordable home prices. How many homes sold in the last year were to locals verses investors? Jim Morris and others have built their empires but want more, and more, and more. Enough is enouph already!
Half the homes on my street are vacation homes with the same people coming to their second home when they can. Vacation RENTALS being occupied by dfferent groups you’ll never know what you’re going to get from your part time neighbor. Noise, loud parties, cars parked all over the street and trash left out several days before pick up day which brings in the bears which make a huge mess eating the trash. Other VCR renters are very nice and respectful of full time residrnts and the neighborhood.
I was just told by some out of town home owners they are going to make there home into a vacation rental. We’ll see how that works out. OLS
So tired of old entitled white men. Sit down Jim Morris.
These are supposed to subdivisions zoned as single family residential, no longer should homes be treated as motels.
The only fair way to put these issues to bed is at the ballot box. Then the debate and acrimony are ended.
Enforce the rules on the vacation rentals, so residents can gain back their right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes, if not, my vote would be to ban them completely, I can’t live like this anymore, it’s ruined my neighborhood, and I get it, if your not affected by it, it’s hard to relate, but it’s unlike any living situation I’ve ever been in.
I’m pretty sick of all the fearmongering and spreading of miss information from the real estate agents. Really disappointed in you folks.
Bigs, I read the article. Wasn’t all that long. . . I’m well aware nothing was changed yet.
But they are talking about adding more laws and regulation, as if the current rules are not enough? I haven’t seen them taking care of existing regs, why even talk of new?
If the city REALLY cared about vacation rentals being a problem, they’d stop approving 7 to 10 bedroom “home” construction permits.
Enforce the ordinance on the books. Mr. Sass has no more right to vote than Mr. Davis, he has a personal vendetta with a home near him should ethically recuse himself. Wasting time, energy and money while all the while more important issues are cast aside. How to bring a more vibrant economy? If that were the case, homes would be purchased by full time residents not just second home owners. I have lived here for 40+ years in harmony with vacation rentals. I have owned a vacation rental for a few and had I not converted my home it would have been lost to foreclosure. No fear mongering going on, the realtors are correct. No option to rent out second homes Real Estate will drop in value. Less realtors means less jobs. Enforce the code on the books and weed out the problem owners and this is all done. Look at every tourism destination across the globe and you will find VHR’s. The communities that I visit welcome the visitors and their dollars as it is vital to the sustainability of the town. Mr. Morris had to be escorted out because his frustration of being ignored as well the opinion of 99.9% of those that spoke were ignored. Ms. Kerry who do you work for? Mr. Watson with all your expertise do you really want to waste needed city funds on a lawsuit? Once again, fix the problem by enforcing the rules on the books!
“Architectural marvel” is right. . .
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1321-Ski-Run-Blvd_South-Lake-Tahoe_CA_96150_M24920-11682?row=2
While I don’t operate a Vacation Home Rental (VHR) I was the recipient of mailed correspondence on this topic that was paid for by the “South Tahoe Association of REALTORS” which contained massive amounts of misinformation. Their written mailer made it appear completely obvious that that group had no interest in working toward a resolution that could be satisfactory for all involved parties and they want everything their way. I think that the SLT City government and staff should stop wasting anymore of their time trying to appease everyone, along with needing to address Mr. Jim Morris’ “lawsuit” against the City, and that the public should just vote on this and make a decision on VHRs once and for all.
I would like to remind the South Tahoe Association of REALTORS and the VHR Property Management Businesses that it would be the registered voter populace of SLT who actually live here who would be voting on this since individuals are only allowed to vote in the jurisdiction in which they are registered. Non-resident 2nd homeowners generally register to vote in the area where they reside and work and not where they’ve made an investment so they would have no influence in this matter. Perhaps the South Tahoe Association of REALTORS and the VHR Property Management Businesses should reconsider compromising with the City and eliminate their take no prisoner’s attitude before the local voters insist on making the decision and they (the Realtors and VHR Property Managers) lose it all.
I question the city allowing a new home being erected on a formerly vacant lot which will be used as a vacation rental. The permit states it as a personal residence when in fact the owner, who lives in town, plans to run it as a business. By the way, the house is 3 stories, 39 feet tall, covers most of the property and other than the garage there isn’t any paved parking. Wonder how many renters will occupy this 4 or 5 bedroom house and where will all their cars park?
4mer- That is probably the best response to the solution which I said at a council meeting a couple of months ago. I understand you watch everyone of them so you must remember as most people make a habit of dissecting everything I say or do. I am finally glad to see we are on the same page for once. We were a community that became a city to benefit the community then we became a resort destination town. We need to go back to the community needs and put these hotels and motels in our neighborhoods back to the “Town Centers” that all the agency’s are touting. We have a serious problem with the motels near stateline due to the fact that they are losing approx. 6800 heads in beds a night because of vacation rentals. If the city just enforced the rules the 6% bad apples would weed themselves out. Why punish everyone for those few problems.
With regards to the voters deciding private property rights, I’m concerned since so few of the voting population actually own their property.
According to the SLT Master Plan (2014): 44% of homes in the city are vacant, 51.5% of all housing in the city is renter occupied and 60% of sewer bills for single family homes are sent to zip codes outside Tahoe.
This means the majority people eligible to vote have no property ownership (vested property interest).
As someone who used to rent his home as a vacation rental, that process allowed me to be able to afford to own a 2nd home which I then used for my vacations. The trend I see today is different where people are buying/building houses which will only be used for income and the owner has no intention of using it themselves. This is commercial use of residential property whether it’s vacation rental or full time rental. In my mind it’s different than what I did or what some of my neighbors do today. I know those neighbors because they use their property to enjoy Tahoe and put it up as a vacation rental when they aren’t enjoying it. They might not be able to afford it if they didn’t rent it out.
It’s a complicated dilemma and I’m not sure the eligible voters in the city are the ones to decide how you use your home.
For anyone who owns a home in South Lake Tahoe, the value of your investment is driven by Market forces which are set by the next prospective buyer of your home. In our market that is based on earnings of full time residents and part/full ‘investors’ who may generate income from your home. If we remove the ‘investors’ from the picture, house values will fall to align with on local salaries. A lot of homes that cost 500k today will fall to about 300k similar to other nearby non tourist communities such as Minden. Lower property values will result in lower taxes for our county.
In my local neighborhood – Al Tahoe, there have been a lot of new homes popping up in this last year. In our area, it will be very difficult to buy and site and build a 3-4 bedroom home that can be sold profitably for 300k. These new homes are typically sold for 450-600k today.
I would question how many full time investors are out there. You cant really earn enough money from VHRs here to cover the cost of home ownership. Houses are too expensive and costs (including wear and tear) are too high to cover the costs of a 500k home. There are better investments out there. I think most ‘investors’ out there are people who use their second home and rent it out to reduce their costs.
While there are isolated cases of problems with vacation rentals from parties and noise etc, especially in the summer, that is not the primary livability problem in Al Tahoe. The great majority of blight(trash, derelict cars etc) is caused by fulltime renters many of which are crowded into residential ‘hotels’ and small homes. Vacation rentals typically rent for 2000-3000 dollars a week in the summer and those properties need to look nice or they don’t make their price.
In the 6 years I’ve lived here, the biggest livability issues in the Al Tahoe neighborhood are caused by long term unemployment and also hard drug dealers which have brought gang related crime and drive by shootings into our community. This is where the city should be focused. While the VHR issue can sometimes cause a nusance, the crime issues are downright scary.
Democracy has its flaws, and far from always produces the results I want. But what’s that quote, something like, “It’s a bad system. Only thing worse is all the others.”
So simple solution as others here on this blog have pushed for, let the people decide! And we’ll finally resolve this issue one way or the other.
But just have to say to those who state vacation rentals mean all these jobs and dollars to our local economy, I can generate a lot of jobs and dollars if you let me deal drugs out of my house. Or sell alcohol.
There’s a reason residential zoning exists. And it’s not so mini-motels, disguised as homes, that were probably built with residential allocation, can be built in the residential neighborhood by CA Base Lodge!
tahoeadvocate:
“It’s a complicated dilemma and I’m not sure the eligible voters in the city are the ones to decide how you use your home.”
If the eligible voting residents of SLT are not the ones to make decisions about the community where they’ve chosen to live (not where they’ve merely made an investment) then who should make those types of decisions? Since SLT is a tourist destination I think people often forget that it is also a community with individuals living and working here, raising their families, etc. Would anyone think it reasonable for people living in SLT to tell people living in Palo Alto or Fremont how their towns should operate? I think a likely two-word response to that scenario would be obscene and unprintable.
Is anyone following SB 593? This vacation rental legislation is supported by the California Police Chiefs Association, California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance of Retired Americans (900,000 members strong) California State Association of Counties (representing all 58 California counties), The California League of Cities (with upcoming amendments), The Rural County Representatives of California (representing rural California counties), The Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs & Riverside Sheriffs Assn., California Apartment Association, Association of California Insurance Companies, California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, California Labor Federation, California Narcotic Officers Association, San Francisco Apartment Association & the San Francisco Tenants Union, etc.
Tahoe Advocate..
You said:
“This means the majority people eligible to vote have no property ownership (vested property interest).”
So what you are saying is simply that it is the owner of a house in Tahoe, whether they vote here or not, that is really the entitled one.
This is absolute BS
Do you really believe the residents which are renters should not be able to vote on the conditions under which they live?
Our constitution does not provide for only property owners to vote.
Get over it or get out.
The fact that most of you think people should be able to vote to determine what a person does with his/her own property is baffling. Sure, if you choose to buy a place in an HOA, you agree to the rules beforehand. But for the city to be able to come in and change the rules, AND let the neighbors make decisions about other people’s property, after the fact, is absurd.
Which ‘basic economics class” do you suggest one takes that teaches about the historical great successes of libertarian sociopathic greed-anywhere/ever
It’s a bigger wider world than Ayn Rand or the so-called freedom thinkers espouse-
I consider those that support this nonsense reprehensible excuses for human beings-but I’m sure well known greed/p rick Jim Morris agrees with you
Dogula:
Comparing an HOA to a jurisdiction doesn’t track well. SLT didn’t start out in the VHR business so the rule change was actually the implementation of VHRs by businesses and individuals followed by an Ordinance to try to protect the local residents’ interest. It surprises me that you think it’s inappropriate for people to be able to vote to determine what affects its community members. Did you think that voting on paid parking was absurd also? While I supported paid parking and didn’t agree with that outcome I nonetheless had to respect the process.
The paid parking issue was not a private property situation. it was about parking on public (taxpayer supported) streets. Completely different.
As far as ‘not tracking well’, your interpretation seems flawed. SLT is not ‘in the VHR business’. Individual homeowners are exercising their right to use their own property as they see fit. It is none of SLT’s business, unless those VHRs infringe on the rights of other people. And if they do so, then whatever law covers that infringment will quality. We don’t need new laws.
I believe that we should respect private property rights, however, they are not unbounded, and our city legally set up zoning regulations to segregate commercial and residential activity, and VHRs are an end-run around those regulations.
I wish those whose write nasty comments here would lay off it – it’s tiresome. If TeaTotal hates everyone who disagrees with him or her, he or she hates a large part of humanity. One can disagree without being disagreeable.
City Residog-who do you think you’re kidding?- always the persecuted Rand character- quit the whining
If less VHR opportunities exist, demand for homes will go down, and that should reduce the average selling price.
It’s not a clear cut “bad” or “good” thing when home prices fall. Falling home prices are not bad for families who want to buy a home and stop renting.
Dogula,
It still surprises me that you think it’s inappropriate for people to be able to vote to determine what affects its community members.
I disagree that my interpretation is flawed. In 1965 when the people of this community incorporated SLT I don’t think there were VHRs so it was the implementation of VHRs afterward by property management businesses and individuals that changed the rules so they could use residential property as a neighborhood business without regard for persons owning surrounding properties. Government has laws to protect all property owners and it was those businesses that began operating in residential neighborhoods which created the need for an Ordinance. I doubt that it would be better to not make improvements to existing Ordinances, or worse yet to have no laws and just let neighbors settle their disputes by shooting it out via weapons or mouths. But then we’re each entitled to our own opinions.
What happens to my home’s value when I have to disclose that I have been disturbed by a VHR to the point of having to call the cops 16+ times/year? Doesn’t sound like a neighborhood I would want to buy a home and live in, in hindsight I would be very leery to buy any residential property in this town, because even if it’s ok today, it could totally change tomorrow, and your whole life could be turned upside down by one of these VHR’s, better to rent, and move if a neighborhood gets bad, or move to some town that doesn’t have this problem.
I think the biggest issue with this is lack of trust that anything will ever be done, based on past experience with the city and police Dept. (note called 16+ times in a year! :(, so much for 4 strikes your out. We thought the VHR owner, Manager and cops would get serious before the 4th strike and adjust behavior, but nothing happened, so of course it just went on, and we were the only losers.
Renting your vacation home turns into a giant money grab. Tahoe Vacation Rentals takes 30%, then charges $100 to clean your house. They require HD Cable TV in every room with phones. Charge $500 / year for spring cleaning. The county taxes you on the assets in your once personal home, then taxes you on what’s left of the rental revenue once TVR is done. Then State and federal taxes step in. Snow Globe attendees rent your house for 8 occupants and bring 30….trash your house and TVR sticks you with the repair bill because they did not monitor your home like they promised they would. In the end….you lose money and have the marred walls and floors to prove it. I own and have a lot of friends who have homes in SLT. The new model is Word of Mouth amongst trust worthy families…cash transactions…no one gets hurt. This is an unstoppable trend…
Air B & B will soon vaporize any hope of monitor and tax business model from the 1940s…
Good reporting Kae as I was unable to attend. This is not a new phenomenon for cities facing vacation rental home issues. Would it be possible to investigate other successful cities such as San Diego and Carlsbad on how their communities came together peacefully and productively on this topic? We might learn something.
Put it on a ballot, let’s vote on this. Let the people decide.
As a more than 50 year resident, I resent living in a motel district! What was once a peaceful residential neighborhood has now turned into party central.
I sat through all of the City Council meetings regarding this issue more than a decade ago, and listened to Jim Morris and all the others involved in real estate threaten the City with litigation if the City disallowed vacation rentals. At that time, there were a handful of vacation rentals for which the City had been collecting TOT. Jim Morris and his “friends” threatened to sue for return of the TOT that had been collected.
Back then, I could see that if this horse was let out of the barn there would be nothing but problems. I even attempted to convey my concerns to a couple of then Council members, to no avail. Unfortunately, the City caved.
Here’s something else to think about… In 2007 I saw an article in a Bay Area newspaper announcing a new catering business. A person could go online and order breakfast, lunch, and dinner that would be prepared and placed on dry ice, then drop-shipped to Tahoe. Gee, I wonder if anyone ever thought about the potential for a drop in business for our restaurants.
Then, there’s also the fact that if you wait on tourists for a living, you need to get away from them to recharge your battery so you can return to work refreshed and be pleasant. I often hear stories of our workers being rude to tourists. We MUST be courteous to tourists, but if we are surrounded 24-7, tempers will flare.
Contrary to statements Jim Morris has always made, it is NOT a property right to run a business out of a single-family residential neighborhood. And make no mistake – renting a home is commercial activity.
Please, Council, start enforcing the zoning laws!
Care, if you called 16 times(which is on tenth of the calls received) Then this is a enforcement issue. The current law on the books would have covered this if the police were able to verify the disturbance. This new ordnance would not change things for you if the police refuse to enforce things as they currently do not. You are not really required to disclose the complaints about bad neighbors to buyers.
Those of you who believe that putting it to the voters will get you a tougher law on vacation rentals may very well be In for a rude surprise. It is my belief that RE Agents and Property management would be more than able to get at least 2000 votes against to stop it. That is all it would need. Think about it, scare the cleaners, tradesmen, reservation agents RE agents and all of their friends and families. Scare homeowners who have their most of their wealth invested in their home. Who wants to sell their home for less than the mortage?
Anonymous & careabout,
Exactly!
reloman,
A lot of the realtors don’t live within the City limits and aren’t dealing with these problems. But great, you like VHR’s in neighborhoods. You think it’s good for the town and the economy. So another person for letting the people decide!
Let the voters decide!
Reloman – Just more fear mongering, hyperbole and threats. Yeah Tahoe has more realtors per capita than almost any other place on earth but you do not own this town – not yet – and be careful with your threats, a showdown at the ballot box. YOU might be in for a rude surprise. In their 2015 National Advocacy Agenda the National Association of Realtors state that “a fundamentally sound and dynamic U.S. real estate market is an essential component of the American economy and fosters vibrant communities in which to live and work.” Because of vacation rentals we have an inflated real estate market that is not fundamentally sound based on what this community can support – and based on what it fundamentally needs. Just how vibrant and sound is our community when almost none of our kids can buy homes in their home town, and those who can must put up with zoning abuses and muscle from certain realtors? You are out of step with the rest of your profession! Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty — look it up.
Yet our market is considerably lower priced than the Bay Area, primarily tech which can be done almost anywhere,and WAY under Hawaii, another tourist economy. People don’t have any inherent right to live where they want. If you can’t afford to be where you want to be, you’ve got to go somewhere else. That’s how many of us started our climb up (or down) the real estate ladder.
After the presentation and all the public comments, it seems to me that the City Council decided to do nothing at all. What good is a committee? Months from now when the committee makes its presentation to the Council, the Council members still won’t want to do anything. It seems like we can’t look to the Council to solve problems. Let the town vote.
Also, the last paragraph — I would be interested to hear about the Jim Morris lawsuit against the City if it pertains to this issue.
Cityresident is correct.
Yes I believe in private property rights. But I also purchased my property,as did everyone else, with the knowledge there were zoning ordinances.
Single family home zoning eliminates commercial use of a home. No VHR.
If you think VHR’s are ok, then how about an auto repair shop next door or an all hours night club?
VHR’s are illegal.
You have realtors as friends, they are the root of the problem and along with developers they are destroying Lake Tahoe with their greed !
Neighbor, it seems that I have hit a nerve. I may be wrong or you may be. I still believe that voters will not vote to get rid of them like you would like. BTW It is not the RE prices that stop young people from buying but rather income. You can still buy a starter home under 300k maybe not the home like what their parents live in but very little areas in California can you do that unless you make great income. A good many first time home buyers start with a fixer upper or a condo.
If what you are saying in regards to renting homes part time or full than your logic would dictate that long term rentals are a commercial activity. If this is the case than nobody should be allowed to rent a home. In this line of thought where will people live? Check the police blogs (facts) 3 times the number of calls to permanent rentals for police than VHR’s. 1 citation to a VHR last year.
Every vacation destination in the world has VHR’s. Why is it that Tahoe can’t just acknowledge and utilize the ordinance in place. Why is our city wasting all of this time on an issue that will eventually end with very little change and attorney fees paid by taxpayers. Former and many others want infrastructure improvement and funds generated to do so. Check the numbers folks TOT is one of the largest revenue sources the city has. I will say it again……enforce the code in place, weed out those that don’t abide by the rules or pay their fees. If you don’t like living in a tourist destination, by all means move. As long as Tahoe is blue, the air is clean and the majestic beauty of this wonderful place that most of us are so lucky to call home, we will have tourism.
This city is in dire need of strong and decisive leadership! Committe for this, consultant for that make a decision or what is your purpose? Regardless of what the city does the county will continue to have VHR’s. Is it fair that a random line or street should have different rules or rights. Mr. Morris is not the guy to blame, he is protecting his livelihood and that of so many in this town. Continue to draw up laws and regulations and the government employees will write themselves right out of jobs as well. We need realtors, contractors, government employees, tourism jobs, and for that manner any other jobs we can get. I have six vacation rentals in the ten homes that surround me, I live in a neighborhood where the homes are very close together. I have not lost a night of sleep and always have a parking spot. I live it too, but mind my own business and appreciate the visitors bringing their money to our town!
Harbinger and all others, if you check the article above and the video from the meeting all 4 council members did agree that there would be an application process. This is a big change from the current walk right in and get one. Huge!
The council is moving forward albeit slower than most want. There is a subcommittee and given who is on it I trust they will make something happen. The gov’t process takes time. That’s the way it was designed. Not saying its right, but it is the law in most cases.
I do not believe future VHR licenses will require a process where neighbors will be able to weigh in if they choose. (Lets see if they do). I do believe city safety standards will need to be met. I do believe RE agents will probably have to knock on doors on behalf of their clients to see if there is any or reasonable opposition if they want to earn their commission checks.
All councils are different and just because this was not dealt with 10 years ago does not mean it won’t be dealt with by this one. I voted for 3 of five current council members and I am willing to be patient for up to 60 more days. Look at the good that came out of this meeting. It was substantial.
Joby,
A long-term rental is for??? What?? Residents!! Thus conforms with residential, not commercial zoning!
1 citation to a VHR? Well if you see the posts that’s because the SLTPD is not responding to the calls. Even those for the VHR’s are saying the existing rules are not being enforced. Turn your head on enforcement, and guess what? There are suddenly no problems and no citations!
But we can eliminate all this back & forth by having a vote of the citizens of South Lake Tahoe! If VHR’s are benefitting so many, then the vested interests in VHR’s should encourage such an exercise in democracy!
I have had one indecent with the VCR next door in six years that resulted in a call to the police.
The police arrived in ten minutes and the property owner was noticed. One or two times a year I have issues with noise (mostly car doors late at night).
The born and raised in Tahoe neighbor of forty years causes more noise and smoke and trash issues in a week than the VCR next door does in a year.
I like it when the vacation renters park on the street. It keeps the local drunks drinking at local bars from driving over fifty while drunk on residential streets.
In 2012 I had a problem with a local bars live entertainment. The police and city employees in charge of entertainment permits did a GREAT job.
I find it hard to believe that people have called the police about noise and haven’t had the issue settled.
Parker, understand you are voting for a decrease in your home value. I don’t know the amount, nobody does, but it wont be trivial.
On the other hand could be a good time to pick up a long term rental.
Parker, following logic from posts above. You are making money from the rental of your home therefore commercial. Wether full or part time the people renting the house are residents! They are not bringing elephants or chimpanzees.
Once again, check the facts 2/3 more calls to full time rentals, not made up, fact.
SLTPD responded to 163 vacation rental calls, so you are incorrect that they don’t respond. In talking to an officer that works the streets, when a call comes in rarely do they know if it is VHR. Any noise violation is responded to, as long as the officer is not on an emergency.
Joby,
By your logic, someone who lives in the home they own, if it rises in value, is in a commercial enterprise, cause they’re making money off it. So Yes, if you want to take it to an extreme, all real estate is a commercial enterprise.
A more rational view is residential areas are for residents. And I know, know!, there are instances where the PD doesn’t get back to the complainer until after the vacationers are back home. And then tell the individual, well the issue is kind of minor, to late now to do anything.
Long-term rentals, the PD has more time to respond, (Yes the PD can sometimes take day/s to respond if they view an issue as minor.). And since long-term renters are present year-round, there are going to be more calls about them. So it’s not an accurate statistical comparison.
Yes Moral, homes might become more affordable if they’re used for their intended purpose. Would keep more people living hear, and enhance our community.
But if it’s all about $, ok then. Zoning doesn’t matter. Then let me open liquor store at my house. Or as someone else pointed out, an auto repair shop. Or whatever? Cause it’s not about zoning. It’s all about what generates money.
Parker I believe Joby is saying is that all home rentals are residential. Many people here keep stating that it is a zoning issue. The ultimate authority on zoning in this area is the TRPA and their zoning allows it. If the people here want to take it to a election they should get off their butts and organize like tahoe4tahoe did, otherwise stop complaining. At the same time make sure you add a RE tax increase that increases it by 50% to make up for the RE taxes the city will lose and the 2 million dollar TOT annual revenue loss.
Also I do believe that it is low income that force many people to leave the area rather than high home costs(thought compared to the rest of Cali the cost here is low)
While you are at it when you get rid of VR s make sure you start businesses to employ the 1/10th of the employees that have lost their jobs. Because VRs bring in 1/5 of the vacationers.
Parker, not anything close to my logic. Appreciation/depreciation have no bearing on commercial activity. Very much your own interpretation that makes zero sense. A resident is just that long or short term by definition.
I don’t think you “know, know” anything as I have spoken to the police on the street. If they get the call they respond. As well, why in the world would the PD have more time to respond to long term rentals? Police are not plumbers, they respond to all of the calls on that shift. The call comes in the dispatcher lets the officer know, they respond.
“and since long term renters are here year round more calls about them”, also makes zero sense! The property is there year round, it is the property they are responding to, and the noise or problem.
Homes losing value does not create jobs. Homes losing value has a long term affect on the local full time population. All of us lose.
Opening a liquor store in a residential neighborhood vs people occupying a home has as much relation as building a prison in a mall. There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
If it’s not about generating revenue then where are your community services going to come from? I keep watering my tree with pennies but it hasn’t started growing dollars. So the generation of income has to come from somewhere. Currently over 2 million comes from short term rentals. I guess we just raise taxes in a community with no jobs.
Couldn’t help myself because I found no logic whatsoever in your response. Go ahead and misinterpret my words again, I’m done!
Joby,
You don’t understand the difference between a resident and a vacationer, you don’t understand zoning, (‘residential zoning’ means for residents, if you want to junk the zoning, you junk all rules about it) you don’t understand statistics (people that are present year round, that are present 365 days, are obviously going to create more calls than people that are here in 2 or 3 day periods.) so you don’t know the facts!
If it’s not viewed as an urgent, the PD may wait on an response. If the vacationer has already gone home, the PD doesn’t see a crime, just a nuisance, you get a shoulder shrug.
A long-term resident will still be present and dealt with. Understand?!
Reloman, disagree with your #’s. But at least we can agree, let’s take it to a vote!
With over 1700 tot paying vacation rentals with an average of 4 guest per rental the city is generating tot on 6800 people. I don’t know the number of lost tot lost revenue from the motels that are long term rentals but the overall number in our Town Centers is greater. If we get the people out of our neighborhoods and into the Town Centers that the agency’s are envisioning for our future we would be better off as a community. When someone stays in a vacation home they tend to cook there and party there and then go to the clubs thereby disturbing our neighborhoods. If someone is long term and cause disturbances we can usually get them out of the home with complaints. When they change weekly the complaints change weekly the vacationers are sometimes cited but the owner gets a pass and start all over again next week with a new set of complaints and vacationers. If we just enforce the ordinances against both the owner and short term renters this problem will solve itself. The motels in our town centers will fix themselves up and make more money by becoming a motel again. The city will make more money due to the fact that there are many more motel rooms vacant now that will be filled. I don’t understand why everyone is being punished for a few. As far as the market crashing I hardly think so. The home prices up here are so over inflated that a crash might get them back to reality and affordable for the influx of the new generation that would like to call this home and not a short term investment. My opinion only.
Good comments on the vacation home rentals(VHR) issue. I would say, yes, lets enforce what’s already on the book and extend it on to full time residents as well!
It seems their is always one house on the block that is a dump. Broke down cars, junk piled up every where all around the property surounding a tired and old dilpapitaed house in need of repair or removal.
Lets clean up South Lake Tahoe and make this a place where people want to come back to as visitors as well as to move and live here full time.
Watch those VHR homes and ask them politely to keep it cool. If that does not work ? Call the police. 542-6100.
Worth a try, right? Take care, and stay out of the fallen pine pollen. Old long Skiis
People scream for smaller government, than whine to impose more government cost to be able to micro manage every issue by virtue of a vote.
Let your elected council members do their job! You don’t like the job they do, vote ’em out.
And anyone that thinks we are not and will not always be a tourist town: Get real. I’m all for economic diversity, but anyway you cut it, tourism pays the bills in a resort/recreation/national forest with national park worthy beauty! VHR’s play an important economic role in our community.
And by the way, If you want to be a groovy deeded timeshare property owner, you should either have to pay all property taxes, or you should have to pay a TOT for your stay.
Kenny, investors are standing in line to build motes/hotels in Tahoe. They are refurbishing at an alarming rate. Oh yeah, no there not. How about you, jump in and build a nice new hotel that will facilitate those folks. Are you willing to make that move and investment. Those converted motels didn’t decide they made more money if they had full time tenants. They were not getting the room nights needed to make the necessary upgrades. We are fortunate that a few properties have new owners with the capital to do needed upgrades. VHR’s are how people like to vacation these days. Tahoe is not the only community with vacation rentals. As stated multiple times above every resort town in the world has them. I can tell you that 6800 people aren’t paying the $2,000,000 in VHR generated TOT. With your math that is $295 per visitor. The 1700 only in the city, how about the number of vacation rentals in the county. They are not going away and regulating and pushing them out is the worst possible solution I can think of. I usually agree with a lot of what you say, but this time not at all! Usually you are pretty good at providing substantiated fact, once again this time, not even close.
Joby, I need to clairify something. They are spending 20 million in rent a year plus another 60 million doing other things. You are correct in that many will not rent in a motel, rather they will go to another city, maybe North Shore. Most of the properties that rent to long term renters are under 20 units make it as nightly as they cant spread the expenses of 14 hour front desk and maid service to enough units to make it viable.
Ski bum are you going to get the county to ban VRs in your neighborhood also?
Never said I wanted them banned. We can coexist with vacation rentals. All they need to do is enforce the ordinances and weed out the 6% bad apples. Why punish everyone for a few. What this town needs to be concerned about is what the West Slope is saying about us again. We are becoming a Red Headed Step Child again. We as a community can work together. I don’t own any rentals jeez I don’t even own my house. The house across the street from me, county, started out as a Bed and Breakfast but were shut down. Great idea, great concept but they were not zoned for a commercial business. Neither are most of the vacation homes. If some want them gone then file a complaint with the TRPA and Building dept. for zoning issues. We can coexist with everyone. Pull a Jim Morris in reverse. My opinion only.
Sorry Kenny, my mistake, i miss understood your position. You are right, it is an enforcement issue. The city is hiring 2 enforcement officers whos sole job is to enforce VR issue that neighbors are complaining about. They will be working nights and weekends when most of the issues arise. The problem in the past has been when a call is made and a higher priority call also comes in, the noise complaint is responded to last and by the time they get there the issue has abated. Lets all give the new enforcement a chance before we try and throw the baby out with the water.
Hopefully the city announces when the new hires start.
It seems that the only way for this to work will require compromise by everyone. While the City wants to try to appease the local residents and the VHR owners/businesses, nothing is going to work as long as the opposing sides extremists are dictating a line in the sand and have adopted an “it’s my way or the highway” position.
A vote on this could certainly ascertain the public’s position on this matter but it should not be overlooked that in the end one side will win and the other side will lose. Too bad people can’t get together and make this a win-win for everyone rather than making it all or nothing.
The parties involved, should take 4-mers advice.
4 mer, that always seems to be the case with some people, like Mr Morris and Mr Sass. Who are on opposing side of this. Kind of what is happening on the national level with the demos and republicans, they are so far to the left and right when the country is mostly in the middle. Which is suspect is where the city is.
Reloman, obviously you did not watch the meeting. The spirit of compromise was obvious. Go back and watch the tape.
4-mer, your comments always seem to be a voice of reason and sanity. Thanks, makes reading LTN more enjoyable.
I remember when the second vacation home market hit in the late 70’s – 80’s, all the Real Estate people said that rising home values was Nirvana and so what if people were leaving town. Then when the Vacation Home Rental business took off in the 90’s and even more people left town, again the Real Estate people said Nirvana was around the corner.
Well… what happened?
Rock – Rising home prices are good if you want sell your home, abandon your family, friends and neighbors and leave town; or if you use your home as a piggy bank and risk bankruptcy and foreclosure as so many did before the banking and real estate crises. A stable housing market, with normal turnover, profits few middlemen. I know many people who cashed-in, bought larger homes and moved to places like the Carson Valley or Dayton ten years ago only to lament their decisions later, especially when they discover that they are now priced-out of the Tahoe market and cannot return. Almost every week I get a real estate flyer in the mail celebrating the high sale price of some home in my neighborhood. Why? To entice me to grab cash and flee Tahoe as so many others have. I have to ask – is this healthy for our community? I thought transiency was terrible here in the 1970s, but its 100 times worse now.
I agree with former and Lou, compromise!
Yep. In 1990 SLT had a population of around 22,000 then in 2010 it had dropped to around 21,000. Meanwhile, the entire population of America increased by some 58 million (or 22%).
There are currently 100’s of VHRs located in parts of our city that are zoned for commercial use, but the realtors continue to lobby for unlimited VHRs in all neighborhoods. Those of us that live in residentially zoned neighborhoods that have had their zoning laws ignored have a reason to feel betrayed. Past city councils have failed to uphold our own city zoning ordinances and now one member of this council (WD) did a 180 and stated that she likes VHRs. Does that mean that the majority that would prefer that these commercial use properties be located in areas that are zoned commercial no longer matter? If you are a council member you must represent the entire community not vote for what you like.
By any measure, the proposal that was being considered by the city was a compromise. The existing 1800 VHRs would have been grandfathered in and future VHR permittees would have needed to apply through a zoning variance process, with no guarantees of approval or denial. The realtors have rejected this idea and want unlimited future permits.
I suggest that we leave the several hundred VHRs currently in commercial zones and vote to eliminate the ones in residential areas. Our city has made a mockery of our zoning laws and now the voters need to step in to save our neighborhoods.
Faye, for the fifth time they are residents! All be it short term they are residents! Long term renters vs short term is no different. Many long term rentals turn over four times a year. So zoning requirements should consider long term rentals the same. The only difference is long term rentals don’t pay TOT which provides your vital city services. Commercial use would be turning my house into a restaurant, tattoo parlor, barber shop, auto body shop etc…..The definition of resident,’one who resides in a place’.
A long term rental, pays rent to a landlord for profit. Commercial activity! So no one should be allowed to rent their home based upon your logic.
VHR’ are the evolution of tourism. Tourism drives our economy. There are many people that believe Tahoe to be theirs? It’s not it is everybody’s!
Neighbor, it’s considered a stable real estate market in SLT right now. Prices are increasing very slowly, and supply is reducing slowly which is leading to shorter time on market, but that’s about all that seems to be tipping it into a sellers market. Prices are about where they were in mid 2004. It’s not the frenzy of 2005 and 2006 yet.
As to the question at hand, I would rather not see new ordinances, but would like to see better enforcement of the current taxes. How about a website where people can report short-term rental activity at an address? These can be followed up on to see if owners are paying taxes. Cash transactions are not exempt. Peer pressure and the fear of being reported will go a long way in curbing the bad apples. A few years ago Park City started investigating owners of properties renting on VRBO that had not paid their taxes. This went a long way in making the situation more manageable.
Webster’s Dictionary: resident 1. living in a place for some ‘continuous’ period. 2. living or staying in a place while working, carrying on official duties, etc.
In other words it’s not someone on vacation! Unless you think Webster’s Dictionary is a terrible source?
The details of the zoning codes would be better than a dictionary. Times have changed, time to update or refine the codes to adapt.
I got mine from Meriam-Webster, are you going to say that’s a terrible source?
The zoning code allows for that specific type of use. We aren’t debating the subject because of definition or zoning. We are debating because some are rigid on one side of the issue, the same on the other. “Can’t we all just get along”.
Where does it say in Meriam’s, where is there a definition that vacationers can be viewed as residents? I mean you can say it depends on what your definition of is is? Or you can say the Earth is flat?
Or we can see if there’s a way we can get 80-90% of the town together on something (no such thing, and impossible to get 100%)? And solidify it with a vote. Or at the very least send the issue to a vote so us citizens can resolve it one way or the other. And then move on as a community.
But we should start with some common facts. And plain & simple vacationers are not residents. Per the official dictionary and basic logic. Period!
This issue is going to be resolved by a zoning issue lawsuit by a private person in one of two ways. Small Claims Court where lawyers are not allowed and the person starting the lawsuit has greater flexibility in questioning the owners as well as the owners with their own questions. This should be a cut and dry case as it deals with zoning laws that are currently on the books and takes out the emotions and influence of councils, real estate agents and lawyers that can interpret laws ten different ways. It is just you the plaintiff, you the owner of the property and the Judge. Each case will be one at a time but the first one to win will set the precedence for all the rest. The other way is to file a complaint with the Grand Jury and they will have to investigate the problem and once again no council, lawyers or agents. It is pretty obvious this is a subject that is passionate with us who live here that work here with the tourists everyday and would just like to go home without them. Think of it this way, remember when a relative would show up at your house with all his junk, kids, animals and personal baggage and you would go out and show him our beautiful area we live in and then they come home with you never leave. Before anyone gets all butthurt with the Kenny is against everything, I do believe we can coexist. My opinion only.
We have motels being run as housing and housing being run as motels. Anyone see a problem here? Does anyone wonder why we don’t have any new hotels being built and our latest claim to fame is having the front part of the hole made into a little bit of retail?
Other vacation destinations (Jackson hole, aspen, Vail, mammoth, Los Angeles, etc etc) have figured out that zoning is there for a reason. Residents live in residential zones and tourists stay and play in commercial zones, where we can create a tourist Mecca to showcase our amazing city!
Hate to question your remark, but all of the above mentioned resort communities have successful VHR’s. VHR’s are the preference for most vacationing families by a wide margin.
Lodging options have evolved and this entire debate is ridiculous fodder! Enforce the ordinance on the books. City staff should focus on job creation, enforcing current code and bringing our community together. Instead an agenda that in the long run will create lawsuits and further divisiveness.
30 years ago, you wanted to take a trip you called a travel agent. How many travel agents do you know? It’s the evolution of tourism. There are no developers building hotels because their is no demand.
Enforcing what is already on the books would be the right thing to do. Although the Realtors economic threats about the housing market make me wish the council would just shut them down. It makes me want to puke when just a few years ago the board of Realtors were asked to take a stance against marijuana grows but they stayed silent then for their pocket books. Hate to loose a sale to drug lords or VHR’s.
To generalize all realtors is tough. Our community has lost so many sectors of employment/jobs, we can’t afford to lose another. Today’s Tahoe employees my friends in realty, construction, government and realty. We need them all!
Pine Tree, agree with you regarding the realtors. They have shown their true colors and it starts with G for Greedy. Not all, but certainly the ones that blindly follow and listen to the leadership at the South Tahoe Association of Realtors. They provided direction on the grow houses and the VHR.
The average realtor just wants to sell, donate their time to our community in a positive way to network and do the right thing and stay out of the larger more controversial issues facing our community. They want to come across as good people and protect their reputations. None of them want what the South Tahoe Association of Realtors is selling. Unfortunately, if they don’t follow along they will ostracized by the association.
Get the vacationers out of our neighborhoods.
Put them back in the motels , hotels where they belong.
This is just common sense.
a friend told me that the subcommittee met with several people to discus the VHR item last Friday. she also said the realtors were very stubborn and single minded. In other words, sell baby sell. Do nothing to slow the process. Basically, screw the locals and let the vhrs take over as many homes as they want. “its a free market” I heard they even said that locals should have no say in how a vhr is used even when its next to them. Must say, I won,t let these realtors get in my “local butts” way.
This town would collapse if it’s main industry, tourism did not flourish. Most of the residents make a living somehow connected to tourism. What’s the alternative– Not having the housing to support our economy (the visitors) or building huge hotels? Vacation rentals have always been a part of Tahoe and just because websites make it easier doesn’t mean the rules should change. I think it’s actually more peaceful not having my street packed full of neighbors, but instead with part time seasonal visitors. Don’t change a thing.