Letters and commentaries - Big Bear Private Home Issues Home
|
Re: Your
letter of August 16 (which did not have a mailing address) Dear Mr.
Perry: What a
disappointment you are!!! Not only
did you send a letter that provides no return address, you failed to mention
that you are a paid consultant to the private home rental industry.
You appear to have deliberately misstated the issue, and also perverted
the facts to suit your agenda. You
have also failed to acknowledge your own role in what is now an extremely
volatile situation. 1)
The private home rental initiative is
not connected to the 2)
The initiative will not eliminate a homeowner’s right to rent out their home.
It will require a forum
for neighbors to be heard before a permit is granted. It
will provide the city with better tools to prevent abuse of our residential
neighborhoods. If you had done
your homework when you were city manager, you would know that many cities have
ordinances that are much more harsh than the one proposed.
Many cities prohibit transient home rentals altogether. 3)
Property values are already in jeopardy:
the number of listings in the multiple book have quadrupled in recent
months and prices are dropping -- all within the context of unfettered transient
home rentals!!! The initiative WILL
NOT ELIMINATE THE RENTAL OF SECOND HOMES. IT
WILL MAKE THEIR GUESTS RESPECT THE PEACE AND PRIVACY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS. A.
So
many people have purchased second homes with the promise someone else will make
their mortgage payments (why are they buying homes they can’t afford anyway?)
that we have created a false economy.
I am told that rental agencies, often associated with real estate
offices, tell buyers, “I would not even accept your home into my rental
program if I weren’t comfortable that I can rent it [79] days of the year.”
Now there are too many transient rentals.
The agents cannot fulfill their promises.
Homeowners are struggling to make their payments. B.
What
about the decrease in value many of us have seen because we have to disclose the
fact that our home is next door to a party house? C.
What
about the property values of our lodges? The
lodge owners are part of our city. Lodges
cannot even sell for replacement value because their income does not justify
that price. 4)
Of course transient home rentals provide over 50% of the beds
available!!! They have surpassed the
beds offered by the lodging industry because they are cheap and unregulated.
The initiative WILL NOT ELIMINATE 50% OF EVERY NIGHT’S AVAILABLE
BEDS. It WILL assure that
the homes offering the beds are safe and that their occupants will be respectful
of the neighbors. It will improve
the quality of homes offered. Surely
you remember recent comments at city counsel about weed-infested, run-down
transient rentals. Furthermore,
most lodges are NOT full on busy weekends, unless they are willing to forego
their minimum 2- or 3- day requirement. 5)
Our economy is already impacted by the caliber of people we market to.
We tell them, “come to Big Bear,”
“if you can’t afford to make your mortgage payments, we have a plan
to have someone else pay it,” “lodging
is cheap—rent a house for six people and we’ll turn our backs while you jam
it with as many people as you want.” These
people do NOT eat at our restaurants. They
cook at home. They do NOT buy at our
local shops. They do NOT visit our
local bars. They load up with booze
from the local supermarket and party the night away right at home — next door
to our homes— raucously. They
poison our animals. They throw their
cigarettes and trash into our yards. 6)
Retail, service businesses, recreation, construction are already
negatively affected—and there are plenty of rentals.
Contractors are required to perform warranty repairs on homes that have
been abused. I am told that many
retail businesses and restaurants are struggling.
Many businesses have closed. Recreation
will, of course, always depend on the quality of its service. 7)
It is not true that City Services
would be cut drastically. The
quality of rental homes would improve; with the demise of shoddy, unregulated,
unhealthy transient rentals and their incredibly cheap rates, visitors would be
attracted to our lodges, which offerings range from clean/healthy/comfortable to
luxurious. While I am
happy for the ‘nest egg’ you have built up in your home, what about the
‘nest egg’ lodge owners worked so hard for?
While the primary issue is NOT the inequality within the commercial
lodging industry (yes, transient homes are commercial lodging), it cannot
be ignored. Your group
wrongly focuses on the competition issue. The
issue is what is happening to our neighborhoods.
Lawful commercial lodging is zoned and regulated to protect guests and
neighbors. When commercial lodging
occurs in our residential neighborhoods, those protections disappear.
Your group says our visitors are diverse; they require diverse types of
lodging. That is certainly true.
Some want to save money, often by hosting more than the authorized number
of people. They want to party, and
do not want supervision. These
people will rent a transient home. The
more conservative guest will appreciate a lodge or motel.
Why do we get the rude people in our neighborhoods and the commercial
districts get the less problematic guest? While
we’re at it, why don’t we look at our overall economy?
Why don’t we market to the people that are more likely to spend money
and that will return if they have a good experience?
I am told that the ski areas spend millions each year on capital
improvements and advertising, only to hold their own in visitor numbers. I
was told last fall that the Resort Association was not even marketing to Your letter
contains generalities, but no substance. What
part of the initiative is a problem? It
is the result of the continuing refusal of the city to address the problem of
transient home rentals. Such refusal
was blatant when you were city manager, and it continues.
You told me over a year and a half ago in public forum that the council
realizes that there is a problem with transient rentals.
You promised that the city would have a workshop “in a few weeks.”
We didn’t have one. When
you were city manager Mr. McLean made an offer to meet to discuss the issues
prior to circulating the initiative petition.
You did not respond. Mr.
McLean and I met later with the city clerk and renewed the offer.
You did not respond. A few
weeks ago I told council the offer had been made twice.
Mayor Jahn’s response was, “I didn’t know we could talk to Mr.
McLean.” The city attorney told
him a meeting was permissible as long as the lawsuit was not discussed.
Still, no one responded. The
petition is our last resort to reclaim our neighborhoods.
It is NOT
“Mr. McLean’s petition.” It
is the “residents’ petition.”
In signing the petition, many remark, “it’s about time!!”
“let me tell you about the nightmare in my neighborhood”
“why wouldn’t the city do anything?”
If you or city council had another idea for bringing sanity back to our
neighborhoods, why didn’t you do something?
If you really want to “work together,”
why don’t we do something productive?
When various factions worked together after an initiative was presented
regarding sign regulation, we developed an acceptable ordinance.
The city does not have that same cooperative spirit today.
If city council refuses to even discuss the problem, what other choice do
the residents have? We cannot keep
living like this. If you have
any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely,
|