SLT revamps vacation home rental ordinance
By Kathryn Reed
After hours of talk Tuesday by South Lake Tahoe staff and electeds, plus comments from 22 members of the public, the politicians went forward with a new vacation home rental ordinance.
Prior to that, during the temporary arts and crafts show discussion, Councilman Tom Davis said it was important to enforce the rules on the books before making changes. Members of the audience smiled and said “right on”. Enforcement – or the lack of it – has been a recurring theme in the VHR debate.
Davis, though, could not be part of the VHR discussion July 21 because he is part owner of Tahoe Keys rental agency. And therefore he could not be asked to apply the same line of thinking to the VHR issue.
The ordinance becomes the law 30 days after the second reading; so, most likely in early September.
The real estate community and vacation rental agencies believe the new rules will hurt the industry. They claim people are not buying houses in the city limits because it will become more cumbersome and expensive to obtain a VHR permit. Agency reps say the turnover in the VHR market is excessive and with the process more onerous it will send business across the state line or into the county, or even to the North Shore.
Agencies collect more than $20 million a year in revenue in the city limits off vacation home rentals.
The trickle down effect on ancillary businesses like house cleaning and home repairs could also be affected, according to opponents of the ordinance.
Jim Morris with Lake Tahoe Accommodations has already filed a lawsuit against the city regarding the current ordinance.
For those who support stricter regulations, they said without them it is possible lawsuits will be filed and the issue taken to the voters. They contend neighborhoods are being ruined and that these are businesses that have no right to be in residential areas.
Two-thirds of the vacation rentals in South Lake Tahoe are in residential neighborhoods. Prior to the city’s contemplating the ordinance changes there were 1,600 VHR permits. That number is now closer to 2,000.
Many asked the city to enforce the current rules and wait until the city-initiated socio-economic study is done next year before making changes. The council said no to those requests, instead voting 4-0 to adopt the ordinance as presented.
The ordinance changes how occupancy is counted, pools must comply with county rules (spas are not included), people in a 300-foot radius will be notified of pending applications, properties must be inspected, and marketing material must be truthful.
The community development department will be in charge of permits. Today the police department handles them.
In addition to the permit fee that is on the books and ranges from $150-$800 based on maximum occupancy, there will be a $544 fee. If someone wants to challenge a denied permit, it will cost $3,400 for a hearing before the Planning Commission.
All current VHRs will also have to go through a one-time building inspection upon renewal of the permit. A checklist will be devised so people will know what will be looked at. However, if inspectors see some other violation, then they legally must note it. The applicant will have the opportunity to correct the issue and continue the process.
—–
In other action:
· A Verizon cell tower is going in at Bijou Golf Course. The city will make $18,000 per year off of it. The fee could go up based on the consumer price index. There is a possibility of contract extensions for a total contract of 20 years.
· The city is looking at revising the sign permit. It will come back to the council in September. This would dramatically reduce the cost of the permit.
· SnowGlobe, the three-day outdoor music festival at Lake Tahoe Community College, will be allowed to have amplified music until 11pm in the Sierra tent on Dec. 29-30 and until 1am Jan. 1. This is to better disperse the crowd so everyone doesn’t leave at once and have to stand in the cold for an inordinate period of time waiting for a bus.
$3400 for an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission????? Outrageous! First of all, the Planning Commission position is a volunteer position! The facility is owned by the taxpayers, and perhaps one staff member would be required to record the meeting. Where does this outrageous fee stem from? I don’t own a vacation rental, however, I think due process should be reasonable. Seriously, this is rediculous!
PS – While I would not want vacation visitors raising hell in my neighborhood, I think a call to the PD for violations would resolve this. I think enforcement is the issue here! I think owners/agencies need to be responsive to problems about garbage (bear & animal problems), noise & parking. Three strikes & you are subject to losing your permit.
Also, what is the additional $544 fee for? Council health coverage for life?
Kae, can someone apply for and receive a permit now, before these guidelines get put in place?
the issue is about Mcintire’s new motel on Glenwood.
have you driven by and looked at it?
The City created this vacation rental mess and is now incapable of resolving it reasonably and logically. It is now so far off center that the only solution that will work is to let the voters decide the outcome.
Much time, money and energy has been wasted on this issue. Another reason to dissolve the City and its lack of sensibility now.
None of this new stuff was even required, good rules were already on the books, all they had to do was enforce them; which they were not doing.
Uh Chief,
He also built 2 new motels near CA Base Lodge. And someone else pointed out to me there’s been 1 or 2 of those built, don’t know if they’re his, in the Lakeside Beach area.
So is that what these inspections are for? To at least make sure what are in effect motels aren’t being built in residential areas? The shameless-
ness and the gall of it is beyond words! And why the City to date has chosen to look the other way….?
Enforcement would solve most of these problems. Nice revenue grab here.
Atomic, it’s my understanding that until the new ordinance is adopted, vacation rental permits may still be obtained via an application and payment via the Police Department. It’s likely that this will change in September, as Kae Reed reports.
Deny the permits, and extort an additional $3400. Ingenious! These people must have spent time in Russia, before coming here and ruining our country.
Fact – like most destination/resort towns the city did not forsee the future and allowed VHRs despite the fact it was contrary to their own zoning laws. Who to blame? Not sure (most every city got it wrong) they saw something that needed regulating and they saw something that could produce revenue.
Today – like most of these towns the volume and impact of VHRs has reached a level that locals are no longer accepting of the impact they make on neighborhood life. Like most towns, the industries that have grown (VHR management companies, real estate sales, maintenance, etc.) as a result of the VHRs are scared to death that the pushback will be injurious to their livelihoods.
The wide end of the spectrum of possible actions are a ballot measure requiring the city to live up to their zoning laws which would no doubt come if the other end of the spectrum happened, which would be the city chose to do nothing. Its too late to just leave it alone and enforce the VHR rules. There are too many, they are everywhere and too many people are angry about them.
So ask yourself, are you prepared to ban VHRs like other towns and put over a 1000 homeowners and businesses in distress? Are you prepared to just let things be and further diminish full-time residents right to quiet enjoyment and shortage of long-term rentals?
Lets hope the city got this right or at least sorta right. If not, it will end up on a ballot from one side or another or both and then you count on our city being severely damaged both economically and spiritually. Keep your fingers crossed that this works.
First, the city only collects 2 million in tot from vacation rentals not 20 million. Second it is not 3400 dollars for an appeal hearing-way less. I think about 300 dollars.
Dryclean-
You have some good comments and ask some good questions….nice even handed analysis.
Your last paragraph is especially concerning, since in my view, the City could not get much lower on the
economically and spiritually damaged totem pole.
Ultimately, the city council needs to get more comfortable with the idea that the citizens can indeed get this on a ballot with probably not a good outcome for the city. After all, the non-resident owners that have all these problematic vacation rentals can’t vote.
tahoe local-
Are you saying that the LTN article has inaccurate information?????? esp regarding inflation of revenue and costs?
Very serious glitch if true.
The figures are accurate. The story does not state how much TOT is collected.
LTN staff
Why have zoning regulations if they will not be enforced? What aspect of zoning regulations will be ignored next?
Its easy to say “call law enforcement” and if you look at police and sheriff’s blotters, lots of people do. But one of the real issues is quality of life which is defined in the CA Civil Code. When there are constant new strangers in our neighborhoods, it changes everything from the way we raise our children (is it safe today for them to go out and play?) to going to bed each night wondering if the noise next door will calm down in a little while. You wait a while trying to sleep and hoping for quiet. Then, agitated, you get up and call police hoping they will come soon and that the partiers will pay attention. Either way you go to bed knowing that you may be kept awake for much of the night. No way to live–especially when you have to be at work by 8 in the morning. It ruins a neighborhood and your peaceful and safe enjoyment of your home.
Here’s a law that could be implemented, and would prevent further damage (though much is already done). Limit bedrooms in residential zoning to 4. That would at least limit the VHR’s to 12 capacity; which still is a good sized number.
This could be put to a vote by the citizens.
The excessive size of houses built solely to be VHR’s is what created the tipping point.
The VHR issue is not going away. Too much money to be made by the homemowner and too much disturbance for the full time neighbors.
I understand people come here for our beautiful scenery, skiing, the beaches, hiking and all the rest…
However we must take the good with the bad. Sometimes you get a rowdy group that is just here to party in Tahoe!
If talking with the loud crowd gets you nowhere, call SLTPD 542-6100.
I don’t want to hurt people running a business in a residential neighborhood but sometimes it creates a real problem for people that live here year ’round.
Thank you, Old Long Skiis
Admin-
Thanks for the clarification. I can see where tahoe local came to that confusing conclusion.
You wrote:
******
If someone wants to challenge a denied permit, it will cost $3,400 for a hearing before the Planning Commission.
and:
Agencies collect more than $20 million a year in revenue in the city limits off vacation home rentals.
*******
That is about $10,000/yr per VHR permit according to your numbers. Sounds high but not an area where I am familiar.
Obviously “agencies” includes Eldo co. taxes, STPUD fees, Tahoe refuse fees. City gets TOT taxes. (perhaps a few more I don’t know of).
However, LTN, highlighting an “agency revenue” of $20 million dollars is a bit misleading since a huge percentage of the collective fees apply to ANY house whether on a vacation rental program or not.
Is this not true?
A planning commission appeal fee of $3400 does indeed sound a bit grabby.
But common these days. I just heard from a neighbor that a permit to put in a partial paving stone driveway which encroaches on a county road now carries an $800 permit fee from Eldo county. Subject to correction, I think this permit used to be about $200.
Another reason where the city council got this wrong is allowing people to object from a distance of 300 feet. I believe this to be excessive. A diameter of 300 feet in a subdivision such as Al Tahoe would encompass anywhere from 50 to 100 homes that are up to 2 blocks away. These people would have the right to object to something that would not even effect them. And people will object,just because they can.
There are also so many unanswered questions.
Say people object and the city allows one VHR but not another? How can they differentiate?
Or is the 300 feet line from the property line or the edge of the building?
What is the criteria for a Denial?
What about the Snow Globe bit at the end? Rabble rabble rabble!!!! The outrage of people trying to spend money in town so we can live here and complain about it.
The TRPA strictly regulates the number of Tourist Accomodation Units (TAUs) around the lake. Recall that before the Edgewood could build their lakeside hotel, TAUs had to be eliminated (a motel torn down) from South Lake Tahoe and transfered to the Edgewood.
If the city now has over 1700 VHRs, and each VHR has a capacity of, for example, 10 guests, then the city has added 1,700 TAUs. How’s the TRPA OK with that when they won’t permit you or I to add a deck to our houses?
OLS, try calling SLTPD on a Saturday night at midnight. Noise disturbance calls get low priority. Calling SLTPD will not get the VHR to be quiet. I have tried to call the rental agencies at these times and they have their phones turned off.
There is one thing that everyone agrees on, ENFORCEMENT! Someone will have to enforce all these new rules, is it also not going to be enforced?
Local, Get the owner of the VHR home phone number and give them yours. I keep an eye out on the second homeowners properties and I will call them if there is too much noise or what I consider suspicous activity or maybe 20 cars on the street and a huge party goin’ on till sunrise. Call the owner of the house and SLTPD.
It’ worth a try. We gotta do something! OLS
Local, under the first portion of the law already passed the city is to be hiring 2 enforcement officers who are to work nights and weekends just to enforce the ordinance. And its about time they started the enforcement. The reason people are so mad is because there has been no enforcement even though there has always been money on the books to have an enforcement officer and that position has been left va=ant for years.
I beleive the 20 million number may be the total TOT collected by the city of which 10% is vacation home rentals or 2 million dollars. Though that 2 million dollars does respresent about *0 million in local econo ic activity.
Local, under the first portion of the law already passed the city is to be hiring 2 enforcement officers who are to work nights and weekends just to enforce the ordinance. And its about time they started the enforcement. The reason people are so mad is because there has been no enforcement even though there has always been money on the books to have an enforcement officer and that position has been left va=ant for years.
I beleive the 20 million number may be the total TOT collected by the city of which 10% is vacation home rentals or 2 million dollars. Though that 2 million dollars does respresent about 80 million in local economic activity.
City Resident re: TRPA, like the many towns who let this get beyond their zoning rules and are now scrambling, the TRPA has the same dilemma. They know its a beyond the original goals of limited TAUs to control growth. They too don’t know what to do about it. They declare VHRs as TAUs and they destroy the 1000’s of VHR owners and the associated businesses basin-wide. They do nothing and its only a matter of time before the revolt comes to their front door.
I’m thinking they are watching the city very closely and praying that it works. I’m also thinking that they are hoping the newer environmental appointees from CA don’t make this an issue. Could also be that the Sierra Club and the League are going to use this somewhere down the line as a bargaining chip.
The old guard won’t admit they erred. The TRPA really has no good defense if this rises to the surface.
Thanks city council.
A step in the right direction as far as I’m concerned.
Also thanks for having the courage to vote the way you did against a very determined real estate lobby that in my book is all about money with zero interest in the very real quality of life issues VHR cause in the neighborhoods.
My father taught me not to meet someone half way down the wrong road. First those who own VHRs almost to a property do not make more than their mortgage costs. Renting more than 10-20 weeks a year is a big deal but still not profitable. The management companies usually make a profit but bring professional management. Every person that spoke before the Council including each Realtor and VHR management company asked the same question all of us have asked. WHY NOT ENFORCE WHAT YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY PASSED? The reason shocked me. It is that the City enforcement officer goes home at 5pm on Friday! So instead of hiring a security firm to patrol heavily at night answering calls within minutes, they passed the most government intrusive ordinance they could come up with so that the threat of an initiative would not happen. Yes the fee for the planning commission appeal is $3,400. And to continue to the Council it climbs to almost TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. Now the City is involved in the personal business of every home seller and buyer within the boundaries. Now expensive salaries are added to an after the fact process that can and will often punish innocent new home buyers by disallowing their ability to supplement their vacation home with occasional rentals. Those homes pay for utilities, garbage, street repairs, school bonds, ball fields etc that those people use sparingly. After 42 years here I have had my share of noisy neighbors. Frankly the permanent rentals have been the most irritating. The vacation renters were at least not even there most of the year. The bottom line is that a large bureaucracy has been created that will punish the single moms, small businesses, and even those evil Realtors who have the audacity to want to make a living and sell those who come here the chance to visit or live here. And it will punish new home buyers. How will that really solve a Friday night bachelor party? Months later when the offending owner sells then an angry neighbor within 300 feet or the City Administrator can stop the new home buyer from having a chance to supplement their mortgage or even stop the sale so that the old offending owner stays the owner. Nevada should be sending a thank you note to the City. And the problem or TOT income may go into the County. Finally The Council is ordering a study. WHY? They have made their ordinance. It is said it will be a socio economic study. That is because a true economic study would show that in order to finance our Tourism town it takes tourists that make noise and have fun. Doesn’t that sound a little bit like the reasoning for the City paying Snow Globe to come here to let tourists have fun and make noise? Is there a problem? Yes. I have had to get out of bed put on my clothes and knock on a noisy house door at 2am. I have picked up garbage on a Monday Tuesday and Wednesday when the trucks don’t come till Thursday. But those of us who still live in America or thought we did would like the City to Butt out of our buying and selling our property. Punish the Noisy. Don’t ruin our economy by attacking selected portions of it and Leave the rest of us alone.
When you purchase a property with the intent to rent it out as a “Vacation Rental”, it is a business NOT a home. Business should be kept in business districts and not residential areas. There are plenty of accommodations available in South Shore. How upside down is it that residents have to live full time in hotel rooms while vacationers spend their weekends in residential neighborhoods?
What’s next? Neighborhood eateries in peoples “homes”? Massage parlors in “homes”? “Home” nightclubs?
Prices of residential property will probably go down a little but full time rentals for families should increase.
Good news for the community, bad news for out of town money that wants to exploit our area.
Duane has this right. I’m always making fun of people who claim government overreach, but this really is. I applaud the lawsuit in this case. Hopefully it stops or delays all this nonsense, especially the hideous fee for review.
This all boils down to “Where is the city going to get the money to hire 2 more officers” and the answer is easy. Follow in the steps of the TRPA and raise the fees for mitigation, litigation and extortion. All the fees, regulations and ordinance actually are meaningless because this is a zoning issue. Why is the city going after the garages that people are installing at their house for their car. They say the area is not zoned for them or they are not snow load rated. Solution is simple, call them a vacation parking spot or better yet ask the city to look the other way for zoning as they have done for vacation houses/Hotels in our neighborhood. This is going to end badly for everyone. I have talked with all sides including Realtors, Property managers, residents, vacation home owners, renters and city staff. They all had one reoccurring theme: Enforce the rules that are on the books as they stand right now. The council did just the opposite of what everyone was asking for. They have now created a quagmire of red tape that even they don’t understand. Duane said it best. dryclean is correct, this will all come down to zoning.
Tahoe Skibum, one problem with your logic. If the city lives up to its code, there will be no more VHRs (see Santa Barbara). In that case, we won’t need code enforcement except for those operating illegally.
This comes down to trying to not wipe out the 1000’s of VHR owners and associated businesses or doing nothing which will get it on the ballot and the outcome will be the same. The voters will require the city to live up to its code or force them to change the zoning codes. Both bad for our economy and residents and will certainly change our town forever.
Again, you better hope the city’s solution works. As I mentioned before, no one foresaw this. As George Clooney said in the movie, Oh Brother Wherefore Art Thou, ” Damn, we’re in a tight spot!”
If the realtors had bothered to provide proof of their claims, they might have had more people listen to them.
The website they put up had absolutely no facts on it. Bottom line, the realtors took the wrong approach, and they pissed off a bunch of people as a result.
I think bombastic teabagger Jim Morris should fly his private aircraft down to Arizona-pick up the Donald and have him explain to the powers that be just how unregulated capitalism-and chronic greed has made the USA #1-
USA USA USA
Realtors talk about how restricting or eliminating VHRs will decrease property values. It makes sense – supply and demand. It’s good if you own a home, but if you don’t, it raises the cost to buy one. And, many of these short-term rentals used to be available for locals to rent month-to month. Taking them off the market causes rents to rise. The city’s VHR policy is at odds with its goal to make housing more affordable for locals.
City Resident, we have no proof that VHR’s will be eliminated at all. There is certainly restriction, but to be honest, I’m betting it won’t change all that much.
Time will tell though, and if VHR permits do become scarce, it will have an impact on housing prices.
We will see wont we?
So, can a private citizen run a business in a residential neighborhood or not? All the City has to do is answer that question using their own law. Do zoning laws actually mean what they say or not? It is patently obvious that they have no intention of following their own laws. What is amazing is how fast law enforcement can respond to other attempts at running a buisness in a residential neighborhood. I’m afraid that Mr. Wallace’s comments lose any credibility when one considers the nuisance factor to residential neighborhoods when his point of view takes precedence. Duane, you can’t really expect us to put up with noise from temporary neighbors to support the town’s tourism. Make those who profit from the VHRs pay for enforcement, not the victims.
Ski Bumm, the money for the. Additional enforcement has already been taken care of on the law that was passed and enacted over. Days ago, that address occupancy, trash and fees.
This one that should pass at the nest meeting is designed to slowly get rid of the vacation rentals in the neighborhoods by attrition. There will be lawsuits about this one, just as there is a lawsuit about the fee increase by Mr. Morris.
I didn’t mean to imply that VHRs will be restricted or eliminated. My point was that converting residential homes into short-term rentals reduces the supply of residential and rental homes, which increases both purchase and rental costs. The city’s VHR policy makes housing less affordable for people who live here.
Mr. Wallace is right on the money. This is crazy I have been in Tahoe almost 20 years, been surrounded by VHRs the entire time, even lived in condos that were primarily filled with vacationers. I honestly don’t remember a single time I was disturbed by them, other that a few cars parked on the street, big whoop. Bottom line is they bring people into town. People that come up here for a week and significantly contribute to our economy, people that may not have come up otherwise. Tourism is our only industry yet the City continues to create barriers. The argument that these rentals are destroying our neighborhoods is ridiculous and being perpetuated by a very small minority of residents and the rest of us must pay the price. I can picture these grumpy old farts sitting on their porch with a shotgun waiting for the next round of vacationers. Maybe try greeting them with a smile, a little kindness goes a long way. Did the city say how much they plan to spend on this study? And honestly what kind of insight is an outside consultant going to bring to the city. Doesn’t the city employ qualified people? They use consultants to hire qualified people, they pay very well to attract qualified people, yet any time a decision is required we need to hire a consultant so they can deflect any opposition… “because that’s what the unbiased consultant said”. These salaries make me cringe but it’s worth checking out. http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/south-lake-tahoe/
So, “glad…”, since you are not bothered by vacation renters, no one else could be? Again, what are the zoning rules for? Can any citizen run a business out of their home in a residential neighborhood? A metal fabrication shop, a pet-sitting service or a pig farm? I think you get the idea. Glad you are here, welcome to the neighborhood, newbie. You might want to join the community and demand that zoning law is followed rather than simply claim that you haven’t been bothered and therefore, law doesn’t matter. Many of us locals HAVE been bothered. I don’t want taxpaying citizens to “pay the price”, I want the VHR owners (and the renters) to pay the price, because they are the ones who benefit.
Thank you dumbfounded. You speak the truth.
“glad Im not your neighbor”, I’d really like to believe you but I have problems with the VHR next to me on a frequent basis. Garbage, parking, and lack of respect for the neighborhood. Perhaps you have a vested interest in a VHR? And “dumbfounded”, we’re just scratching the surface. Why do I have a transient and apparently unaccountable business five feet off my property line?
Yes and we should ban all long term rentals wnile we are at it, Because believe it or not they are a business and are tax by the IRS as such. They have to file a schedule C form on their 1040s just as any other sole prop. business owner does. People keep saying it is a zoning issue and that it is illegal for them to be operating, yet not one of them has posted anything that shows that the zoning ord. says it is illegal. Please show that it is illegal by posting the potion of the ord. According to the TRPA it is allowed.
Of course they are illegal. Why do you think the Santa Barbara City Council just voted seven to nothing to ban them in residential neighborhoods? The reason each gave as to their vote is because they ARE illegal Why do you think a city has zoning? Reloman must have interest in a vacation rental
How is using a residence for residential purposes a violation of zoning? And comparing VHRs to pig farming or other industrial use is beyond ridiculous. The existing VHR requirements for permitting, tot collection and accountability ensures the tourists pay and the owners are accountable. It’s really hard to believe that your neighborhood is so severely impacted by these predatory VHRs. There is a Tahoe Keys rental literally directly across the street and never once has there been a problem. And yes as a resident and employee in South Lake Tahoe I do have an interest in VHRs as we all do. They play a huge part in our economy and help to drive tourism which our entire town is dependent on and I think the impact to your neighborhood is completely exaggerated. Doesn’t the current ordinance address parking and garbage? Maybe it doesn’t address respect, but that is two way street. We should hire a consultant to find a consultant to decide if we actually need a consultant. It’s just money, spend it.
sorry, you can’t legislate away jerks and anyone who thinks they can is beyond naive and should go live in china or russia with the other commies.
oh I know, let’s get the government to nerf the world for us so we can all live in a pretend fantasy land where everything is perfect! it’s called disneyland and it’s $150/day/person. if your neighbor is causing trouble, how about you man up and go knock on the door? or do you need the mayor to do it for you?
south lake tahoe’s economy is ENTIRELY dependent on tourism. the city is shooting themselves in the foot here, the sad thing is lots of people may lose real money on property values, not to mention all the side effects of reduced taxes.
have you looked at the reviews for the local hotels on yelp? 2 or 3 stars at best. if the hotels are so bad, no wonder people prefer to stay in homes. how about the hotels stop whining about the VHRs and do something about their crappy hotel rooms? reminds me of all the taxi companies complaining about uber. you can’t stop innovation can capitalism people. keep your heads buried in the sand some more see where that gets you.
locals directly benefit greatly from rentals:
– higher market demand for single family homes drives up property values,
– property taxes would be half what they are right now or worse,
– tot tax amounts to millions of dollars to the city.
what about people who let friends and family stay at the vacation home in tahoe? is there really a difference when someone is paying to stay there? sheesh.
if anything should be changed, maybe capacity limits should be reduced. i.e. no groups of 10 staying in 3 bedroom homes (more likely to have parties than a family of four with two kids).
Not addressed in the VHR debate: How investors turning residential houses into short-term rentals increases demand for home purchases and reduces the supply of month-to-month rentals, which (if you believe basic economics) increases both the cost to purchase and to rent a house. The city’s VHR policy makes housing less affordable for people who live here. It’s good if you own a home, bad if you don’t.
Tahoe Local, I do not own a VHR but if they were gone I would make more money, but everyone else who does not own a hotel/motel would make a heck of lot less. I was asking for you to state what part of the zoning law prohibits them and if any one can post it. Not just people saying it is illegal.
Santa Barbara made it illegal by changing their zoning laws. They had to otherwise they wouldn’t need a new law they would have just had to enforce current ord.
If we got rid of VHR we wouldn’t need the extra housing for locals because there would be 500 less locals who don’t have jobs and would have to leave the mountain. those 500 new rentals would be more than enough to drive down the price of rentals and purchases. Much less the 3000 vacant old VHR.
Reloman, Santa Barbara did not change their zoning laws. They gave direction to staff to adhere to the zoning laws already in existence. That zoning states that their neighborhoods zoned residential are just that, residential. When that city and many more started issuing VHR permits in residential neighborhoods they were going against their own zoning. Transient residence is defined as 30 days or less.
I believe that the city attorney and city manager gave a good explanation of this at the last city council meeting. Might want to check the video from the last city council meeting.
dryclean thanks, I was not able to attend that meeting as It was not important enough for me, but I will watch it. My feeling is that we may very well be shooting our local economy in the foot.
reloman, Santa Barbara did not change its zoning law. They are now enforcing the ones already on the books. You can have your own opinion but please do not invent your own facts.
I’m not for our City following what other Cities do. I don’t want the Council voting to be a nuclear free Zone like Santa Barbara or Berkley. I am for enforcing noise and nuisance laws and for making them pay for the cost of the enforcement. I’m not for punishing the new home buyer who has not committed any offence other than wanting to subsidize their mortgage by possibly renting it out. That is like going to car rental agency and having to go to a hearing because the last guy drove too fast. It would seem that if there weren’t any vacation rentals that permanent rentals might go down as the supply might be higher. The real world experience on that is Aspen. The second home owners especially the larger nicer homes leave them empty. The employees in that town drive for two hours past empty homes to go to work. The reason we will definitely see a reduction in VHRs is all ready happening. THEY DON’T BUY HERE. I can give the names of Realtors who have this month has potential buyers ask for only Nevada homes to look at and people have actually cancelled escrows. For those in our town who are rich like in Aspen that is a good thing. For our grocery store clerks, our maids, gardening companies, furniture stores, restaurants, bike rentals, retail stores, clothing outlets, and a hundred others it is not so good news. In the mean time the City is building a new “ball field” to put snow globe on. I wonder where the Snow Globers will stay in the future. Sorry for being so vociferous about this. But it was such an easy fix. Raise the fees some on VHRS and hire security firms who work at night. Fine the heck out of the noisy bad actors and get them quiet that night. Use the police for only the dangerous situations and have the security company able to respond to the calls immediately.. Fine the owners who it is clear always rent to violators. Don’t punish the new buyer by denying them a permit months later. Pass rules that stop the over crowding and over parking. don’t charge up to $10,000 to be able to appeal to the Council.
Tahoe Local you still have not supplied the portion of the zoning Ord. that states VHR are illegal. Most cities Zoning Ord. are not exactly the same. Some may allow horses for example in certain areas. You may also have a opinion but you seem to be stating that VHR are illegal as fact but are unwilling to show where in the law it is illegal. .
The problem with VHRs is they displace long term residents and degrade the community. We need families living here to grow our sense of community. It is hard to believe that only investors are looking for real estate. My neighbor of 7 years has been evicted so the owner can turn it into a VHR. So, now we will have more strangers within our neighborhood. The other existing rental was occupied last night and very loud and obnoxious. The realtors’ commission breath is so bad I can smell it now. If they were truly concerned with our community they would look to sell to working families instead of relying on the turn over of VHRs.
Reloman, equating long term rentals to VHR’ s is apples and oranges. Long term rentals are people who live and work in the community, they are our neighbors. These are people who contribute to our community.
People who stay in VHR’s not none of those, they are strangers, who are traveling, vacationing, enjoying our area.
That’s a big difference. I watched the meeting live, all this is going to do is give people notice if a new VHR application has been applied for a house and raise the fee for more enforcement. Not a lot is going to change, and hopefully we’ll have better enforcement of the VHRs, which the management companies have not done a good job.
So where do travelers stay? In an area zoned for transients.
bigfishy is correct, not a lot is going to change unless the new enforcement officers actually do their jobs and residents that are adversely effectd phone to report the problem. 542-6100