Letter: Understanding the 2 VHR initiatives
To the community,
I attended the VHR community forum on June 9, organized by the SLT Republican Women. The topic of this forum was the future of vacation home rentals (VHR) in our community. Both sides were well represented.
Bruce Grego
Peggy Bourland lead the Neighbors for Neighbors group, whose initiative has been approved by the city clerk and El Dorado County elections as having sufficient signatures for election, and which provides elimination in three years of all VHRs in residential areas in our city with some limited exceptions for home occupied owners.
The Sustainable Community Alliance is the sponsor of a second VHR initiative with Mark Salmon leading this group. This second initiative seeks to basically accept current city ordinances permitting VHRs in residential areas with additional requirements of advisory committees to address problems and problems of enforcement connected with VHRs.
Additionally, besides the two groups, made up of three speakers each, there were six other speakers that provided additional information concerning this issue. This was a two-hour discussion and was well attended by the public.
As expected, there are divisions between the two groups as to the facts and the impacts of having VHRs in our community. Neighbors for Neighbors felt that housing for middle and lower income groups have been substantially reduced due to the 1,400 VHRs in our community; Sustainable Community Alliance disagreed and claimed that VHRs have no measurable effect upon housing. Sustainable Community Alliance felt that the reduction of VHRs will have seriously economic consequences upon TOT collection and the income of people that work to support this industry. Neighbors for Neighbors claimed that the impacts would not be substantial effecting only 12 percent of TOT tax revenue for the city. Neighbors for Neighbors complained about poor enforcement and the fact that in all the years of enforcement no one’s VHR permits has been revoked. Sustainable Community Alliance agreed that the city was slow to react to these problems of noise and parking, but indicated that other groups that live in the residential areas, owners and renters have caused similar problems. Neighbors for Neighbors felt that local employers can’t find employees because of the lack of available housing and high rents. Sustainable Community Alliance felt that the reduction of VHRs will result in the loss of employment for those that support this industry. Both groups claimed that they have made compromises on this issue, but there was no agreement as to that issue either.
The character of the residential areas, the right to use one’s property, quiet possession, this enforcement of zoning, what is permitted in the residential zone, the economy, housing and more were discussed. I have not attempted in this letter to fully or with detail describe the approved and proposed initiatives or to fully describe the positions and arguments on both sides. My point in this letter is to identify the one clear area of agreement.
These opposing groups and even those that attended this forum, all agreed that our City Council has seriously failed to adequately address the VHR issue and this failure has resulted in the current conflict heading for a November vote with these opposing groups. This council’s failure to act, failure to seek balanced and fair compromise, failure to act timely, and failure to bring these groups together on the VHRs is why we now have strongly opposing groups ready to “go for broke” in the upcoming election in November.
Tom Davis, as business owner (not as a council member) was one of the six informational speakers at the forum. Wendy David, our mayor, attended for a period of time and left. It’s a sad state of affairs when our council has failed to engage the Citizens and Voters of this Community to obtain an amiable resolution of this controversy. In speaking to some of the people present at the forum, there is still a desire for compromise, but there is no one in authority to act upon this opportunity.
Bruce Grego, South Lake Tahoe
For the record, Mr. Grego, I arrived for this forum at 11:45 and stayed throughout the presentations and for much of the questions and answers. I departed at 1:50 as the forum wrapped up. Your article does not reflect the truth regarding the community interaction, the outreach, the meetings, the public comment, the Council discussion and deliberation that has taken place over the last three years regarding the VHR industry. Let’s be honest about why the initiatives are coming forward. The first is from a group that does not want VHRs in residential neighborhoods. The second is in response to the first; they do want VHRs in residential neighborhoods. The Council has worked diligently to work for an amiable resolution between these two polar groups in setting a moratorium and addressing enforcement. We all know that this is a difficult and divisive topic. Let’s be truthful and transparent at least, as we discuss it.
Wendy David, Mayor, City of South Lake Tahoe
Dear Kae:
I want to respond to Wendy David’s comments. But, first I made an error in my article above. The name of the group sponsoring the certified initiative is “Tahoe Neighbors Group” and not” Neighbors For Neighbors”.
We do not have a moratorium on VHRs. We have a cap or limit to the number of legal VHRs in our community. A moratorium would stop the issuance of any further permits. As the ordinance now provides, if a VHR permits ceases, a new permit could be issued to a new party.
Why did Mayor David change her mind and reject the proposed compromise that she brought, as a subcommittee member, to the Council from the VHR sub-committee? We had an opportunity to resolve this dispute. As a result of Mayor David’s changed position against this compromise, we have the conflicts we are facing today.
The Council delayed taking action for much too long a period. Spending $75,000.00 for a study no one is using, and conducting meetings over meetings with no conclusions. But at the same time, the City compounded the VHR problem by continuing to issue more and more VHR permits in our residential areas and continuing to this day to permit the construction mega homes in our residential areas. We now have 1400 VHRs in our residential areas and 450 VHRs in the Tourist Core areas.
Even the Sustainable Community Alliance declared at this forum, they felt they were compelled to bring an initiative because the Council failed to act.
The voters bring initiatives when they feel public officials are not listening or not acting in their best interest. I believe this is the case here.
Bruce Grego
I find it incredibly interesting Bruce’s critique of the city council and the mayor regarding VHR’s. As we all know this is not a new problem it has existed for decades. The difference is when Bruce was on the council nothing was done to address the issue. Bruce never took the lead on addressing the very complaint issues that local residents have had for years, but was just one of many council members and councils that kicked the can down the road to where we are now.
Say what you want about the city council, and for sure I have been critical if this council, but Bruce’s comment are nothing more then cheap theatre. Instead of this cheap theater, it would be great if Bruce laid out his recommendations to resolve this complicated issue. The community is waiting.
We cannot lay full blame for problems created by local businesses entirely upon our City Council. I agree that the City was slow to respond but I must say the late arriving regulations have been pretty effective in forcing VHRs to begin to self regulate problems created by their unsupervised businesses. This issue has been growing over the last few years and the VHR Industry has been reticent to directly address or propose anything to self regulate. The City has had to step in to address issues because VHR Management Company’s did nothing despite growing anger from local residents. Simply put, those running these unsupervised businesses plainly had the chief role of doing nothing to address these issues.
As for what was said, I was unable to attend and can only take the description presented. To say that VHRs have had little or no effect on the local rental market is laughable at best. As for VHRs representing only 12% of TOT, this seems low but I don’t have numbers to contradict this statement, which I presume was based on actual data as opposed to the contrary view. It is not surprising there was disagreement on both sides.
I know which view I trust and I know which I do not given the rhetoric as of late. We are soon to be subjected to a litany of fear mongering describing how the world will end if VHRs go away to which I say, you better bring facts and have numbers to support your views. Our town survived for many decades without VHRs in their current form and to say it will suddenly die for the lack of them flies in the face of reason.
I wish I could support a middle ground but given the distain expressed by local VHR Company’s toward local residents and the options available, I must strongly support the initiative presented by Peggy Bourland and the Neighbors for Neighbors Group. Our Tourist Core was defined for a reason and zoning laws exist for a reason. It is time to return our neighborhoods to the residents and bolster our aged motel industry. There will likely be a short term hit to TOT but it may lead to a strengthened motel Industry and help reinvigorate our main streets. We may see No Vacancy signs return to our local small businesses rather than police calls to local neighborhoods. All is not black in these changing times.
I find it incredibly interesting Carl Ribaudos critique of Citizen Bruce Gregos analysis of the VHR disaster. As a person who writes a second guessing column implying that he is sitting in the front row that should also come with solutions supplied instead of just spouting the views of those who pay him to do “studies”. Mr Ribaudo had his chance at leadership when the Chamber was moved into Nevada but housing was not on their agenda except for high dollar condos. The community is waiting for leadership on many issues not second guessing from pontificators who as of a few months ago wasn’t even registered to vote.
For the record Bruce was a city councilman I was not. Duane you ran the chamber where we’re you?? My point is simple Bruces criticism is nothing more than cheap grandstand as is yours. I have been on record in my columns on how to deal with the situation. I have worked for over a decade trying to get rid of TAU’S, a major contributing factor to the situation we are in. I have met with local organizations working on the issue, TRPA, consultants, city personnel and never once saw you or Bruce at any of the meetings. This community needs ideas and I would challenge you and Bruce to put your ideas out there otherwise nobody really cares.
This has gone from incredibly interesting to incredibly amusing. In answer to your question, either I or Tamara have been sitting ironically, “in the front row” at every City Council meeting for the past two years. And we have both run for office putting ourselves out there on the firing line to be able to be a part of the decision making. Neither of us ever saw you. Maybe that was because the meetings are held in California. As for my efforts at STPUD, I was able to get our sewer connection fees cut in half in an effort to encourage other agencies to reduce their building fees thereby lowering the base cost of building affordable housing. In addition, we at STPUD are poised to reduce or eliminate the fee for transfer of sewer units for affordable housing, saving thousands of dollars. I have, as a representative for of the California Chamber, been a part of the affordable housing task force sponsored by the Prosperity Center, serving on the Finance portion.I haven’t seen you there either. What I was really trying to say – when I pointed out your unnecessary attack of Bruce Grego for analyzing the difficult problem – is that the community’s tolerance for all the second guessing in writing or otherwise has worn thin. No one is smarter than all the rest of us. Not even you.
Duane
Nobody cares about you or me or Bruce or Tamara. Ideas and solutions are all that matter. Put yours out there.
Dear Kae: One of the solutions to this and other issues that face our City is for the Council to work together. Our Council does not work to find a consensus to solve problems. On the VHR issue, for example, it seems we have a two to two split. Many of our Council fail to interact with the voters, fail to express their view with the Press, and when presented with petitions, such as the loop road issue, either ignore the feeling of the voters or work against them. This Council has lost the trust of the People. The solution is as much process and it is proposals. Bruce Grego
Carl,
I must question your view that the VHR issue has existed for decades (I don’t recall seeing online apps to rent a home a decade or more ago). I must also question your stating that what we need are ideas while at the same time you provide none while also attacking others. Bruce wrote the original opinion piece and Wendy David respond to address her views that she felt were miss represented. Mr Wallace plainly demonstrated actual action to remedy issues. What ideas do you have to offer beyond the one statement of ending TAUs?
I will offer the following: The City should focus first on the basics, police fire and other essential services. Second, repair our roads (the number 1 local issue). Last, housing. All other issues should be moved to the back burner unless there are serious repercussions for not otherwise acting on them.
Subsidizing large private for profit events when we have pot holes that can swallow a car seems absurd. The Loop Road should be sent to the ballot and local residents given the chance to have their say given how controversial it has proven to be. The VHR issue has already left the building and will be in voter’s hands soon enough. SnowGlobe has their chance to improve in the coming year and has met their obligation to repair the field. Marijuana was approved by voters and is legal in Nevada too… what is the hold up to getting the license process finalized so those businesses can move forward or are we going to continue to pass the buck on making a decision?
There are many great ideas for dealing with housing out there (motel conversion, low cost housing projects, small home construction, etc..). We also need housing for college students, housing for seasonal and low wage workers, housing to address our growing homeless population. Every project will not be a grand slam multi-million dollar time share at Stateline if this town is going to progress and grow. Most City Planners would likely tell you that a City has to grow services across the board or suffer issues. Our City is no different and the focus has too long been in one area.
What are the City’s current priorities? This shouldn’t be an unknown but I certainly don’t know what their focus is these days. Certainly hiring a City Manager and a Lawyer are in there. Investigating each other seems a priority. But what else? Hopefully whomever gets elected may be able to convince the others to regroup and get their priorities straight. Considering Tamara Wallace’s active and continued presence at the City Council and her focus on getting back to basics, she will get my vote and full support. I will not vote for any incumbent given the current state of affairs.
What ideas do you have? Will you continue to reference back door deals or speak openly and publicly to what you support? I have laid bare my views and I am open to answer questions… Are you?
Scott Ramirez
The issue of vacation rentals have been going on for decades sorry if you weren’t around or don’t recall. But this can has been kicked down the road and it’s failure to be addressed is why we are where we are. Sorry, you don’t have the historical perspective to understand the context of the current situation.
The key to understanding how to fix a problem is to understand the symptoms from the problem. Just treating the symptoms gets us nowhere.
Oops Carl, wrong again. Scott Ramirez grew up here. He does have the historical perspective. But, he doesn’t reside in an ivory tower. I find him to be quite intelligent and he is not beholden to anyone or anything but the truth as he sees it. What he said was the truth. Even ten years ago the ability to exchange homes was not a normal practice. It happened but one had to go through an agency. The idea has caught fire in the past decade because people can go online and it is now common place. And our motels that are museums of the 1950s are not as attractive a product because they are yet older each year.
Carl:
One might think my living here full time for 38 years might give me a little perspective. My Great Grandfather had a home here. My Grandfather after him. My parents live in the Bijou area, maybe they can inform you of my perspective. I wasn’t born here but I did attend Bijou, South Tahoe Intermediate School and South Tahoe High School as well as LTCC before leaving for College and work (a ten year break). If you want to compare time living here I am very happy to compare my time with yours. I think my perspective speaks for itself.
I notice you continue to offer no new ideas and can only offer iallusions of back door negotiatiations that you claim to be a part of. Should we call the CIA and inquire as to your time here? I am an open book. Your story continues to be locked in the reference section. I don’t imagine it would be a good read.
I had asked for your views and your opinions but I guess that is asking too much. You can only offer that you know better and the rest of us are wrong. I believe Duane said it best, the bunch of us together are smarter than you alone.
Looking forward to your next evasion.
One can live here a long time and still lack a historical perspective. Sometimes people just don’t know how or what to look for to understand the situation they are currently in. Some people can live here 30 years and really only have 1 year of perspective thirty times. It happens.
Carl, are you some people?