LETTER – Councilmember Campbell’s short-term rental proposal falls short
Published - 07/27/20 - 10:30 AM | 1712 views | 3 3 comments | 26 26 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Editor:

In your July 24 issue of Beach & Bay Press, Councilmember Campbell’s proposal regarding short-term vacation rentals was outlined. While it has some positive points and I applaud any effort to regulate this illegal business activity, her proposal falls short and would legitimize mini-hotels in the very district that she was elected to represent.  

On the surface, the attraction is that rentals would be reduced from about 16,000 to 3,750, excluding Mission Beach, which would have an additional 1,086. I can’t guess at what was discussed with Expedia, but her proposal appears naive, at best. Expedia is going to do what is best for its business.

Given that some form of regulation is likely coming with a new administration, wouldn’t it be smart to give up some of the less lucrative properties and focus on those that bring in the most money? Perhaps I don’t fully understand how the proposal would work, but wouldn’t that be those along the coast? The very communities that Councilmember Campbell is representing?

There may be more to the discussions that have been made public, but having a large number of home rentals in these communities seems at first glance to not be in our best interest, especially in single-family neighborhoods. What is she doing to protect our neighborhoods?

Rick Morrissey

San Diego
Comments
(3)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
John L. Floyd
|
July 29, 2020
Reserving apartments, condos and homes for short-term use removes them from availability to the local population and causes the artificial inflation of the value of area real estate. This has recently become very easy for landlords due to the internet and automated reservation systems like Airbnb, and the result is the loss of thousands of previously-affordable apartments, condos and houses.

Government must provide REPLACEMENTS for the units that have been removed either by subsidizing renters so they are able to continue finding area housing at a reasonable rate, or by preventing the removal of long-term units in the first place. That is the primary constitutional requirement of government - to provide for the health and safety of ALL of its citizens, NOT TO ENSURE HEALTHY CORPORATE PROFITS AT THE EXPENSE OF MARGINALIZED, LESS-AFFLUENT CITIZENS.

Hotels are specifically designated by communities for these types of short-term accommodations. By allowing long-term housing to be made available as short-term, the community itself is thwarting its own health and vitality. Homeless numbers rise when housing costs become too high due to this unnatural and unfair cost increase... AND OFTEN THE SHORT-TERM TENANTS HAVE A SENSE OF IRRESPONSIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ON THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES. Hotels are designed to prevent this type of mistreatment of the community.

The massive loss of affordable housing units that has taken place over the past two decades is astounding. What is worse is the lack of positive action taken by government to address this most serious issue. It seems almost as if every politician either has a vested interest in their own rental units, or they are invested in corporations that practice this ongoing removal of local area housing for short-term rental profits. Their oaths of office are long-forgotten or never understood.
Larry French
|
July 28, 2020
As a person who has purchased homes in beautiful places and made them available to responsible people as an option for their vacation for 20 years i find the restriction approach on vacation rentals to be naive... what is important is not the number available properties (that smacks of the hotel industry cartel pushing its influence). the problem is the lack of management and this has been promoted by expedia and airBNB. they are the culprits here and have promote the unmanged rental of property to people the owners never meet or talk to. In the past every vacation rental had a management company that check eeryone in and was available 7/24 for the renter. if there were issues and violations they would get on it. as long as strict rules of occupancy, behavior, parking and use limits are in place and appropriate fines are places and owners and managers then this works well. when it becomes an automatic, no vetting, no management online only service than it goes bad. Force management on the registered permitted tax paying owners and it will be a good thing for everyone. except maybe the hotel industry...
John L. Floyd
|
July 29, 2020
Reserving apartments, condos and homes for short-term use removes them from availability to the local population and causes the artificial inflation of the value of area real estate. Government must provide for these units that have been removed either by subsidizing renters so they are able to continue finding housing at a reasonable rate, or by preventing the removal of long-term units in the first place. That is the primary constitutional requirement of government - to provide for the health and safety of its citizens, NOT TO ENSURE HEALTHY CORPORATE PROFITS AT THE EXPENSE OF MARGINALIZED, LESS-AFFLUENT CITIZENS.

Hotels are specifically designated by communities for these types of short-term accommodations. By allowing long-term housing to be made available as short-term, the community itself is thwarting its own health and vitality. Homeless numbers rise when housing costs become too high due to this unnatural and unfair cost increase... AND OFTEN THE SHORT-TERM TENANTS HAVE A SENSE OF IRRESPONSIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ON THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES. Hotels are designed to prevent this type of mistreatment of the community.
Comments are back! Simply post the comment (it'll complain about you failing the human test) then simply click on the captcha and then click "Post Comment" again. Comments are also welcome on our Facebook page.
Trending