Letter: Suggestions for VHR problem
To the community,
I recently heard about a fire in a VHR on the North Shore. The eight adults, eight children and two dogs were able to escape. The cause of the fire at the vacation rental is under investigation. Here is a prime example of the complaints fielded by officials about crowded VHRs.
The vacation home rental issue is not just a local issue. People in tourist areas nationwide are dealing with the same problems. The subject has been looked at from many angles, without a solid acceptable solution.
At the core of the issue is zoning. Zoning, in its basic form, attempts to separate residential property use from commercial property use. We are experiencing incompatible uses. Houses are generally built for families and not typically built to be used as a business. It would seem these are in violation of county zoning ordinance at the very least.
Everywhere folks are complaining about the intrusions to their privacy and quiet enjoyment of their property. This is a main principle in real estate ownership. Enforcement has fallen on our city resources, taxing the citizens to respond to these intrusions. Cities may recover some costs via the permit fees, but those recurring costs often exceed the fees paid upon application.
I have heard from VHR owners that enforcing rules large and small on the vacationers often results in bad reviews on social media and online reservations. This type of retaliation needs to be addressed by the online platforms publishing them. If it’s on the internet, it must be true! We don’t want to penalize owners that are trying to be compliant and good neighbors, but have the vacationers’ cavalier behavior put them in a no-win spot.
I think the VHRs should be self-policing through a vacation homeowners association. Generally, any person who owns or wants to buy a VHR must be a member of a VHOA and therefore must obey the governing documents including articles of incorporation, CC&Rs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) and bylaws. Most homeowner associations are incorporated and are subject to state statutes that govern non-profit corporations and homeowner associations. California has a large body of HOA law.
The community benefits of establishing this method because the local police are not having to answer to every small problem, and the city does not have to hire additional personnel and bear the expenses of salary, benefits and retirement.
VHRs are an industry and we do not want to suppress commerce, but we must also protect the rights and liberties of our residents. These VHRs are commercial enterprises and should have their own zoning designation, being zoned in a separate area, close to the destinations and tourist attractions to reduce traffic congestion and pollution as it is such a commonly cited goal in the Tahoe basin.
Jeffrey Spencer, Meyers
I guess the questions would be: do the proposed HOAs have enforcement authority that is adequate to fine, cite or arrest tenants in VHRs as a result of their bad behavior? Do we want to cede law enforcement to anyone other than our duly-sworn officers? I don’t believe that anyone other than law enforcement can adequately respond to crimes in progress. Further, the situation can become quickly out of control for those not properly prepared (i.e. – trained law enforcement officers).
Certainly, it would be difficult to demand that homeowners join an organization that their neighbors are not required to join. But, the idea has some merit in my humble opinion and should be investigated.
One issue I have however, is that it is not particularly helpful to imply that constant loud parties in the middle of the night next door to your residence are “small problems” that the police shouldn’t have to respond to. That is exactly why we have police, to keep the peace. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to demand that they do their job. It is also not unreasonable for those who benefit from VHRs to pay for the enforcement when needed.
I honestly believe the root problem with VHR issues stem from unsupervised property being rented out. Enforcement seems to fall on the resident neighbors whose job now is to count people entering private businesses, count the number of cars at private businesses and observe activities in private businesses (plainly these are not just neighbors). Residents are then required to report compliance issues to local police and hope that what they observe is still taking place when the police arrive to confirm compliance. The VHR Management Agent is not engaged in any activity to actually manage their property.
The only reasonable solution I can see is to require anyone who operates a VHR or their management agent to meet their guests at the property, review the rules, confirm compliance in terms of numbers of guests staying and number of cars and warn them that failure to comply will result in immediate eviction from the property and forfeiture of payment. The VHR owner or representative agent should then randomly visit their property and ensure compliance. If a neighboring resident should then file a complaint appropriate fines should apply once confirmed by the local police or enforcement officer.
My view is that the VHR operator should be the first to check for enforcement. Simply sitting in an office and handing keys over to someone who might not even be staying at the residence is a complete abdication of management responsibilities. Further, if an absent owner has hired a management agent and the home is found in violation of local rules the management agent should be fined and not the owner. These violations are due to failures to manage the property by the property manager and not necessarily the owner.
It seems obvious to me that requiring the management agent to at least confirm compliance upon arrival and confirm this in-person and onsite would mitigate many of these issues and reduce the need for local law enforcement. Who runs a business and doesn’t watch what goes on in their own property? VHR owners and management agents need to respect the residents surrounding their properties and not vilify them. A residents only job is to live in their home on their property and not to enforce VHR rules on businesses they never asked to have move next door.
VHR owners have two options: They can either deal with these issues or watch residents reach the breaking point and have their operations banned (the petition is already circulating). I suggest you choose carefully how you proceed. Vilifying the people who live next to your business is a seriously poor choice from any standpoint.
My two cents.
-Scott Ramirez