Letter: SLT needs to rethink motel ordinance
Publisher’s note: This letter was sent to the South Lake Tahoe City Council and is reprinted upon request.
Honorable City Manager and City Council,
I am writing to you out of concern about the possible new ordinance regarding motel housing. In the past six years I have been involved with working for and advising various properties. The seven different properties opened my eyes to a separate part of our community that goes mostly unnoticed.
Duane Wallace
This part of the permanent housing fills a need for very low cost housing. The renters can be single moms who for a variety of reasons are barely getting by. They can be elderly people who are on a small fixed income or who have health issues that take a large portion of their income. Unfortunately, some of the people who occupy these rooms are mired in drugs and alcohol habits that eat up their money. But many of these have children who need clothing, shoes and a decent meal. In any case these units are all these people can afford as they bounce in and out of homelessness.
I can see why there is concern for the condition of the properties. There ought to be a minimum health and safety condition. There are human beings occupying these properties. As I have managed these properties or advised the owners, I have actually seen little communities form as the occupants babysit each other’s children or share cars. They often help each other ending up working for the same businesses. It is not the type of housing they want or the type of housing we would live in but it is what they can afford. It is all they can afford. As a substitute teacher and a former Boys & Girls Club executive director I have seen how many children are housed in these month to month motels. If it weren’t for the Kiwanis, Christmas Cheer and other groups they wouldn’t even have suitable coats for winter or shoes.
My concern is that in the zeal to drastically raise the minimum standards that element of the housing mix will either be greatly reduced or completely eliminated. The residents are not an empowered group who will show up at a Council meeting to complain about the poor conditions. They may also not speak up as you possibly take away their only available place to live. They will simply become homeless.
There certainly are motel owners who don’t fix up their properties. And they certainly have health and safety issues. There is a feeling that they should be punished. However, as the various agencies in our County add ordinance after ordinance the residents are getting punished rather than the owners. Jobs are bleeding away to other places. On a macro level, states like Texas are reducing fees and laws while we do the opposite. As an elected person myself, I am pushing for reduced connection fees even as our utility is being forced by state mandates to do things that financially hurt businesses and residents. As a result of TRPA and strict building ordinances and high costs from the city and county who have followed suit, the motels here have become a literal museum of the 1960s. The only customer they are suitable for is for month to month housing. These agencies are dealing with market forces that it appears they do not understand. Until job creation and business advocacy becomes the primary objective there will be a need for the housing type that the old motels provide. Eliminating the motels won’t eliminate the need for housing. Only increased opportunities for work will do that. A comprehensive economic development plan should be implemented first. Maybe it is time for an economic summit that includes every aspect of our town. That of course includes tourism that is often reactive and creates secondary jobs but also retail, government and education as we jointly come up with a plan that creates primary jobs. We cannot legislate prosperity but if we are not careful we can legislate poverty.
My request as a citizen is for the council to set reasonable standards but to also create graduated improvement schedules that do not hurt the very families you would like to protect. By making draconian regulations the motels will either become mini black holes or be fixed up to a level that leaves these lower income community members with no place to live.
Sincerely,
Duane Wallace, South Lake Tahoe
Duane,
Well said.
We have too many people, for whatever reason, who live at the poverty level.
It is a complicated issue, but more restrictions are not the answer. Older run down property, sadly, has a need. Even if it sometimes is just one small step up from camping or living on the street.
I agree with both Duane & Les. Perhaps Habitat for Humanity and/or some other local groups can recruit volunteers to help rehabilitate some of these old motels (paint & repairs). The City must have a housing element that requires very low cost housing… but there is probably not enough available. Recently, a 74-year old friend inquired about the Senior Plaza housing, and was told there is at least a 3-year waiting list.
Thank you Duane for addressing this issue with sensitivity.
Can this town be everything to everybody? Does South Lake have to be the ghetto of the lake in order that we provide subpar low grade, dangerous housing for people with drug addictions?
If this town can’t simply apply basic code upgrade requirements to these units, like any other civilized town already has, then we are destined to be what we are now, the low point of the lake with declining visitation.
Complex issue? Yes. Do I want kids living in a tent? Of course not. Yet our lifeblood and ultimately our future hinges on the need to make changes to our town. And the changes involve cleaning up,modernizing and creating a place that is vibrant and beautiful, on all levels. This would include upgrading low income housing. We are lucky to have Carson Valley just over the hill. Affordable housing IS nearby, there are options.
WE ARE LOSING THE MOUNTIAN TOWN RACE GUYS.
Council, you are on the right track. Tax paying citizens of this town have demanded change as long as I have lived here. Apply the code requirements and let the chips fall as they may. Duane has seen it firsthand, I don’t doubt that. Yet using Texas’ deregulation as an example of success is a poor choice. Texas also has the highest rate of medically uninsured. Is that good for poor people; nope.
We do not have the responsibility to support everyone for every reason. Some scenarios are not sustainable.
We are a small ski town.
It needs to look good.
It does not look good.
Any questions?
Duane, Well spoken.The motels were not built and designed for full time occupancy.
When I put my old house next door up for rent, I was surprized at the number of people that inquired to rent that were living in old motels.
I grew up in our family owned motel business, and this was never heard of back then on So. Shore.
I hope this can be looked into by the city and these folks can find affordable permanent housing. OLS
With the upgrades being suggested it will increase each tenants monthly rent considerably, amny wont be able to afford it amd may become homeless. Some have suggested that they can find better housing for about the same price and the only thing is that they cant come up with the move in cost, but the real issue is that if they could many landlords wouldnt rent to them because they wont meet min. standards of good credit(most have extremely low scores or evictions) or employment.
As was brought up at the meeting last week, the real issues is not enough subsidized low income housing like section 8 and not enough tourism business being promoted to make it profitable enough for these owners to upgrade their units enough to compete as regular motels. Another factor that has contributed to these rundown places was the great recession and the old TRPA rules that locked these properties in a declining condition because if they wanted to upgrade they would also have to do BMPs which could add 10s of thousands to project, that would make it economically unprofitable to do so.
Economic vitality and the sprucing-up of the town will come with jobs. Duane, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth when advocating to keep the status-quo with the motels, yet lower connection fees at STPUD so ratepayers have to pick- up the slack. A BIG part of the problem with living in Tahoe is the high cost of basic things like water, sewer, electricity, phone, garbage, gasoline and food. Wages stay the same or go down in many sectors, as everything else goes-up including housing, hunger, unemployment and under-employment. We need every level of representation, add LTCC and Barton, to go after a federally funded (VA, maybe) center for rehabbing and educating veterans. We are a center of healing and lots of healing needs to happen yet. Good paying, full time jobs are the answer to hotels being permanent homes.
Making people upgrade their hotels to fit code is a basic service and right to the people living there. It will not drive out the low income people. To suggest that we should keep the code the same so that the rents will remain the same is absurd. Hopefully code requirements will make owners fix up their hotels, tear them down, or sell them to someone who will do it for them. Old hotels should never be the choice for low income housing. Thank you city council for starting to address this issue.
I agree with Duane’s concerns & Les’s and others agreeing, but with the title used was expecting to have another element included: that of the decline in available tourist accommodations, except for the time-share, condominium, and managed rental property markets.
Absent any vision & direction towards diversifying the economy beyond a ‘visitor’ base, any expected growth will be moot. . . and appropriate marketing cannot be done to build up revenue, as then only ‘corporate’ accommodations are available, but not in sufficient amounts. . .
Adding up the number of hotel rooms leads to the conclusion that the Village/Stateline corridor will again prevail. . .
Problem is, a lot of those patrons never venture too far from the Village, so any idea of marketing Tahoe as an “outdoor recreation” mecca will also be rendered moot, except in the minds of those advocating for it. . .
Their occupancy-rates are skewered (Tilt !). . .
Where exactly are “more” to stay (?). . .growth will be calcified. . . and the dreaded ‘day-tripper’ encouraged.
Nicely stated Dwayne.
Duane I agree with some of what you are saying. If we turned the hotel units in to condos, that would be one thing. Also, well said Atomic.
I am amazed at the lack of criticism toward the motel owners who have not reinvested back into their properties and are now providing unsafe and unsanitary living conditions. There is no excuse for unsafe wiring, unsanitary facilities, poor heat and the possibility that someone will die because of a fire. These landlords have profited (somewhere along the line if not currently)and are now taking advantage of the poor and mentally and physically disabled.
We don’t want to put them on the street but we are OK if they die from a fire?