Opinion: VHRs critical to SLT’s recreational future
By Scott Valentine
I was accosted in front of the grocery store the other day and I was asked to sign a petition that would allow for a public vote to contain vacation home rentals to the commercial core.
Interesting. I am all for the democratic process, but majority rule does have its issues. For example, if the majority voted for a set of laws that encouraged gender discrimination and devaluation of women in the workforce, it would still be morally and ethically wrong, even if the majority of people voted for it. A vote like that would never happen, but we still need to be very careful about how we go about voting for new rules.
Scott Valentine
Moving VHRs into the commercial center of town might help solve a problem in my neighborhood, but it also concentrates the issue in someone else’s neighborhood. Our commercial core happens to be where many of our underrepresented minority populations reside. It seems unjust for a white majority to simply vote away their problems, and place that burden on those that cannot defend themselves due to their population size. The VHR issue is not really being solved, just relocated.
There is however, another important issue here. We voted for Measure P. The recreation complex was supposed to be demolished this summer and the facility we voted for was designed to meet the changing demands of our local and visitor populations. Unfortunately, this VHR ballot initiative has derailed those plans, along with many other recreation initiatives. The city cannot go to the bond market to fund the construction of this facility since VHRs and the TOT tax they generate contribute significantly to the recreation budget. Put simply, no one will give us a loan if there is no mechanism to pay those loans back. We tout ourselves as having a recreation-based tourist economy. Yet here we are voting to reduce visitor lodging, and limit the primary funding source for our recreation budget.
As citizens, we need to recognize that improvements come at a cost. We also need to recognize that if we shoot ourselves in the foot on this November ballot, there is a very real possibility that we will not get a new recreation center, or we might have to settle for a less attractive version that does not meet everyone’s expectations. It is rare to have an opportunity to rebuild a rec center. We might only have one shot at this and we need to think about how to do it right.
It sounds to me like our citizens and our city leaders need to rethink how best to move forward and resolve some of these issues. I use VHRs when I go on vacation, and I would be a hypocrite if I voted to ban them in my neighborhood. I would also be a horrible human if I voted to relocate my problems into someone else’s backyard without first resolving the issue, or at least giving those residents a fair say. It is also important to recognize the interconnectivity of this issue.
A vote that impacts VHRs could effectively undermine our ability to radically improve recreation in our town. Placing something on the ballot without thought to the many unanticipated consequences of that action could set us up for a future that no one really wants.
Scott Valentine is a former South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation commissioner.
This is a lake-wide issue and TRPA should also be addressing it as a REGIONAL issue
Wow, just wow. You appear to be comparing VHRs to gender discrimination while also suggesting that VHRs moved to the core of town would discriminate against minorities while also ignoring that low cost housing has directly taken a hit due to VHRs removing rentable inventory. Are you kidding me?!
I believe that a ban is not the right answer but I can at least argue my case without this kind of baloney. Like most things, the middle ground of limited VHR availability with strong enforcement will likely find this middle ground. The City’s new measures are a good start even if they are late to the game. If this motivates the VHR management Company’s to do their part and enforce these rules on their tenants and actually verify that their tenants are following the rules rather than leaving the management of their business to the neighbors, we might just get there. No one wants to go home and be left to be the bad cop because some business is allowing their business to run with no supervision.
One has to also ask, how do VHRs impact Motels? Many decry our Motel industry as run down and shoddy. Do we really believe that giving Motel’s more competition and encouraging our guests to go elsewhere will motivate the Motel owner’s to improve their properties? Do we really think it is fair to require Motels to meet safety and handicapped access requirements to a larger degree than their VHR counterparts is appropriate? VHRs are not playing by the same rules and this is wrong.
Many claim that VHRs bring huge amounts of money to town. These claims are based on faulty surveys which assume much. We don’t really know if our guests will return to our motels or stop visiting if VHRs are removed from the equation. It is a possibility but not a certainty. Our guests could as easily, return to using our Hotels and Motels. If the VHR ban passes, maybe it will be time to create grants to help those businesses improve rather than encourage other businesses to take that business away? Maybe it is time we support our long time businesses rather than thinking we might become Vail. I have yet to see a car named “Vail” but there are plenty of “Tahoes” around. Why are we underselling ourselves.
Please use better judgement in your future arguments. Gender discrimination…. Really?! You might say your post accosted us all.
Ditto to Mr. Ramirez’ comments. You are way off Scott Valentine! Unfortunately, it takes the City YEARS to come up with a way to address problems forwarded by residents; e.g. VHR’s, SnowGlobe, Road conditions, etc. Code Enforcement for both VHR’s and SnowGlobe would have worked YEARS ago…. And, the City would rather spend lots of $$ remodeling the Airport lobby instead of fixing roads. If residents can’t enjoy their neighborhood homes, why would they suffer to build something for the City? Glad you are no longer “serving” on the Commission!
PS to Mr.Valentine. I doubt you were “accosted” at the Grocery Store by those getting petitions signed. I have seen those folks at many locations, and they are pleasant and respectful – whether you want to sign or not!
Dear Kae:
I read Mr. Valentine’s opinion article that was published on April 10, 2018, and I disagree with much of his analysis and conclusions.
However, one of his concluding statements is worth examining, Mr. Valentine said “it sounds to me like our citizens and our City Leaders need to rethink how best to move forward and resolve some of these issues.” My question for you, Mr. Valentine, is where are our City Leaders? If you would review the history of this VHR dispute, which has been ongoing for a number of years, time and again, residents with “hat in hand” sought relief from the City Council by asking for better enforcement, appropriate restrictions, and a reasonable cap concerning the number of VHRs.
Again and again, the City had been under-responsive, slow to react or failed to reach a consensus with, at least, three City Council members. The Council, instead of taking action, wasted money on studies, continued to hold hearings without conclusions, failed to consider a temporary moratorium, and even failed to bar the construction of mega homes in residential areas, which homes were to be used solely for VHR activities.
More recently, before initiative was submitted to the City Clerk, when the residents opposing VHRs offered a compromise to the City of South Lake Tahoe, the compromise was rejected on a 1-3 vote, and these concerned citizens were left out to dry.
As I happen to be familiar with local initiatives, the City Council can still seek to resolve this dispute before the petitions are submitted and the matter decided by ballot. But, where are our City Leaders? Or are they just hoping that the VHR initiative does not pass?
Your opinion article is misdirected. The fault does not lie with the residents seeking to preserve the character of their neighborhoods. The fault lies with our City Council for their failure to engage and seek a mutually acceptable solution.
Mr. Valentine, your opinion fails to address the other problems with VHRs, such as the fact, that there is a lack of housing for workers in our community, and the fact that residents are “accosted” by VHR activities.
Lastly, we should determine public policy based upon merit and not the collection of taxes for the City’s coffers…and, we should not allow this discourse to be reduced by the fake arguments of race.
Bruce Grego
The VHR issue has been around for twenty years. The people in the Keys were complaining years ago. Past council members including Bruce Grego should ask what they did to resolve the issue when they were on the council? Perhaps if earlier councils had taken action we might not be in the situation we are in. This is not new it’s exacerbated and one reason is because other councils kicked the issue down the road.