Opinion: Facts prove VHRs are not a problem
By Brad Schiller
An ongoing war is being waged against VHRs, fueled by a very small minority of residents and even a smaller number of onerous VHR renters. It is time to take stock of the facts and consider the role that VHRs play in the local economy.
VHR opponents
Those residents opposed to VHRs offer a litany of reasons for their opposition. The most common reason is noise: VHR renters allegedly come here to party and apparently do so all night. Residents also complain that VHR renters park too many cars, thereby depriving full-time residents of scarce parking space. Those same renters are blamed for traffic congestion, lengthening the time it takes full-time residents to get across town. Some opponents have also suggested in (opinion pieces) that the influx of VHR residents has increased area pollution. For these many reasons, opponents want to curtail and even ban VHRs in South Lake Tahoe.
Incidence of complaints
Given the intensity of the VHR opposition, the actual number of complaints is surprisingly small. In the last calendar quarter for which official (South Lake Tahoe) data is available (July-September) there were only 206 complaints initiated by neighbors. If each of those complaints referred to a different VHR, that would represent 11 percent of all permitted VHRs. That would be the worst-case scenario for VHRs. But that statistic paints an overly pessimistic view of VHR behavior. First, only 63 violations were issued based on those complaints, representing less than 3.5 percent of permitted VHRs. Second, the city itself initiated 45 complaints, resulting in 14 violations for unpermitted VHRs and a handful of other transgressions. So, the number of neighbor-initiated violations was less than 50 over a three-month period. That is way less than one per day for the entire city. And 88 percent of those violations occurred in the “mega” VHRs that are permitted to have 10 or more occupants.
Despite the low incidence of actual violations, the City Council toughened VHR regulations, effective Dec. 22, 2017. In the first two weeks of the toughened enforcement how much changed? Not much. There were only 58 complaints in the period Dec. 20-Jan. 1, a period that encompassed not only New Year’s but also SnowGlobe. Of those 58 complaints, only 23 were verified, of which 16 were for street parking. The three noise complaints (on New Year’s) accounted for 0.016 percent of all permitted VHRs.
Concentration of complaints
Even the absurdly low number of complaints overstates the true incidence of VHR problems. The reality is that a disproportionate percentage of these complaints come from only a handful of fierce VHR opponents. On Thanksgiving, for example, there were five citywide complaints. Four of them were lodged by the same individual. In my neighborhood, one resident has a large sign posted proclaiming that he will oppose all VHRs. He trolls outside his electrified fence looking for problems he can report. Enforcement officers almost always decide that the complaint was unjustified. City personnel are all too familiar with the half dozen residents who account for a large share of their responses.
Cost to the city
Despite the extremely low incidence of VHR disturbances, the city has not only tightened regulations on VHR owners but chosen to spend a lot more money on code enforcement. In November, the City Council approved hiring three more enforcement officers, bringing the potential total to five. One of them is intended to be full time. Think about the benefit/cost ratio here. A force of five enforcement officers, plus regular police, to identify and cite an average of less than one VHR violation per day. Who can possibly justify that kind of budget? Especially in a city where voters rejected higher taxes to pay for road improvements.
Then there is the value of VHRs. VHRs are popular everywhere because they offer comfortable and private quarters that hotels and motels can’t match. Contrary to what opponents allege, our VHRs are more attractive to families with children than to hard-core partiers. Partiers much prefer Opal, Peek, and partying with Arty over quiet neighborhoods. The families renting VHRs are a great source of income not only for the city, which collected over $3 million in TOT revenues in the last fiscal year, but also to the entire gamut of businesses in South Lake – from McDonald’s to Heavenly ski school. The visitors who stay in VHRs are a vital part of the local economy.
Unjust discrimination
Economics aside, one might also consider the equity issue wrapped up in the VHR debate. Why is it considered illegal for a VHR renter to park on a public street that is open to everyone else? Why is the noise from a VHR party or hot tub any more onerous than the same nuisance from a permanent renter or owner? Why is the traffic congestion caused by VHR renters any different from the congestion caused by other residents or visitors? Do VHR renters create more litter or pollution than other visitors or residents? And then there is the issue of now mandatory bear boxes for VHRs. Most VHRs have a sequence of short-term renters and must clean the home and dispose of the garbage before the next visitor arrives. In the 30 years that I have owned VHRs in the city, we have never used the city’s trash services. Yet, we have paid for that service every month. If we don’t leave trash out for the city to pick up, why require a bear box? Are other VHRs more prone to “bear raids” than neighboring residences? Or is this just another mechanism to discourage VHRs? It’s time for the city and the county to consider seriously the unjust discrimination they are imposing on people who own or rent VHRs in our community.
Brad Schiller is a professor of economics and longtime VHR owner in South Lake Tahoe.
Statistically, the problems are small. However, the same can be said about many things. The problems affect real people and therefore, cannot be measured statistically. The problems are real, not theoretical. The law should address the problems, regardless of their statistical value.
Thank you for your viewpoint. If our “leaders” simply had addressed the problems, we would not be where we are now with regard to restrictions. Now, voters are leading and the politicians will follow.
Mr Schiller,
What you neglect to include in your comments are how your VHR guests are a regular and recurring invasion of private neighborhoods that are not zoned for business activities. Further, VHRs are not subject to the same regulations that our local Hotels and Motels are required to meet including handicapped accessibility. To suggest your business should be allowed to invade neighborhoods you do not live in and compete with other local businesses on an unequal basis and that the local community should foot the bill to respond to your guests activities is self serving.
I purchased my primary residence in 1996 in a quiet area. The lot across the street was purchased and developed specifically to be a VHR. The house is oversized for our area and built to house as many people as possible to maximize the number of people that could be crammed in. During our recent New Year week we saw 7 cars and nearly 20 people arrive to stay across the street from my house. We immediately contacted the owner to warn them that one or another local resident would likely report them. We received several texts from the owner asking for updates on the status of their guests. My family is being asked to report on how guests for a local business are behaving and yet we are not receiving any income or benefit from this exchange. I am sure, as an Economics Professor, you can more properly describe this inequity in business terms… My own view is that this is a bunch of baloney.
You ask why is it different for a resident to park on the street and your guests to park on the street? The answer is simple, my neighbors only have overflow parking on the odd holiday when their family is visiting and their local taxes pay to maintain the streets. Your guest need overflow parking every weekend and holiday in neighborhoods that never asked for or were zoned for those activities.
You ask why our VHRs are required to have bear boxes while local homes are only required to install when being updated? Most local homes probably should already be required to have bear boxes (as both my own and my parent’s home does). Add to this, the number of short term visitors VHRs attracts include higher quantities of garbage that the same home would have if people were just living there and not up for a weekend of revelry. A co-worker shared how his neighboring VHR had a pile of garbage outside for several days and was surprised that the bears had not rummaged through it.
You ask if the number of complaints warrants the cost to the city in terms of additional police. I actually agree that the cost to our City and our local tax payers is absurd. VHRs should carry the full costs that they bring to our local community given they compete an unequal basis with existing businesses that run where they are zoned to operate. Why should we bear the costs for your business to operate where it is not zoned to operate? Your business takes away from our Motel and Hotel industries and likely costs our community both jobs and long term rental opportunities. These costs should fall back on your business.
You suggest this is unjust discrimination. I agree. Our homes have been unjustly subjected to business activities that are not zoned to take place. My neighborhood has been unjustly invaded. Our local hotels and motels have to unjustly compete with your business on an unequal basis. Our police have to unjustly spend their limited hours managing problems created by VHR activities. You are unjustly making money on the backs of our local community.
Sincerely,
Scott Ramirez
Resident of South Lake Tahoe, CA
I disagree with Mr. Brad Schiller. First of all, the number of incident complaints is a small percentage of the problem VHRs. It gets old calling every time the noise is too much or the parking overwhelms the local streets. I am sure the complaints called in are a minority of the problem. On New Year’s day it took us 6 phone calls to find the VHR manager in order to get the fireworks residual, which were set off at 0100, cleaned up off the street. We finally had to call the Sheriff. During snow storms the renters get stuck in the street and last year, because the renter was stuck in the center of the street, we couldn’t get out. The VHRs are a PIA. Coop
Tonight I had a Grey Hound Bus parked in front of my house (I am happy to provide pictures if there is a way to do so). It was unloading people and luggage for the group that are staying the weekend. The bus driver stated he was dropping off college kids who were staying the weekend and that he would return on Sunday to pick these same people up. Should I be glad that they are at least not filling the street with cars or should I be mad that my front driveway is now a pickup and drop off location for Grey Hound? I do not fault the Grey Hound driver, he was accomodating kids who likely had no means of getting from the Y transit station to their VHR with their luggage, late at night.
I look forward to the excuses as to how a house that is four blocks off any major roadway in a quiet neighborhood is somehow an appropriate place to drive a Grey Hound bus. The nearest Motel is a quarter mile away and yet here we are receiving bus service in front of our house.
I will be writing our City Counsel and asking them if this is what they expected from the VHR community. I will be asking for real numbers as to how our Motel and Hotel occupancy rates have been affected by the increase in VHR numbers. I will also ask if there are any regulations as to where a transit bus may or may not go and if I should expect regular visits from the Grey Hound Company on my street.
Maybe I should open a restaurant and start serving coffee to our new visitors… Oh, right…. I can’t do that here because I am not zoned to operate a restaurant in a residential neighborhood. I guess only the VHR owners can take advantage of these new rules. Local homeowners who live in their houses and pay taxes for upkeep are just out of luck these days.
Sincerely,
Scott Ramirez
Fed up home owner