Archive for Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Rentals spark passion
Vacation home policy moves forward; potential final reading July 3
Advertisement
Lance Corso, left, and his daughter Kendra, right, ride the chairlift to the top of the Howler Alpine Slide on Howelsen Hill in Steamboat Springs on Tuesday afternoon. The Corsos are in town on vacation from Cheyenne, Wyo. The Steamboat Springs City Council voted, 7-0, Tuesday night to approve a first reading of its revised vacation home rental ordinance. A potential final reading is scheduled for July 3.
Steamboat Springs — Numerous members of the public spoke passionately Tuesday night about how to regulate vacation home rentals in Steamboat Springs.
The Steamboat Springs City Council voted 7-0 to approve a first reading of its revised vacation home rental ordinance, moving the process forward to a potentially final reading July 3. But it may take longer than that to finalize the ordinance, which is at the center of revived debate about a tourism-related industry that, for years, has fueled clashes between homeowners and property managers. Vacation home rentals are homes in residential neighborhoods that are rented to short-term vacationers and sometimes used for private functions.
Councilman Towny Anderson said Tuesday that the revised vacation home rental ordinance, intended to clarify regulations set in 2001, potentially allows duplexes to operate as "small hotels without the building permits and code enforcements."
"I heard comments tonight that we're putting homes out of business," Anderson said. "But how do you put a home out of business?"
The answer, voiced by at least eight vacation home renters in Centennial Hall, is by over-regulating the home rental industry.
Michael Powers told the City Council that for his three-story vacation home on Ski Trail Lane, the revised ordinance would require 10 parking spots - a regulation Powers described as "a wrecking ball to a fly swatter approach."
Suzanne Spiro of Colorado Mountain Rentals asked the City Council to remove several regulations, such as parking requirements and occupancy caps, from the ordinance. At one point, Spiro criticized council members for "your own admission that you have no idea how to run our business."
Shortly after that comment, City Councilman Ken Brenner reminded speakers to maintain decorum and limit their remarks to the three-minute time limit. City Council President Susan Dellinger constantly reminded speakers to avoid repetitive arguments and stick to the ordinance itself, which city attorney Tony Lettunich and planning director Tom Leeson will revise before July 3.
"I think that no matter what, this will be a very difficult ordinance to enforce - period," Leeson said. "But I think the language is clearer."
Longtime Steamboat resident Rick Bettger, who owns a vacation rental in Old Town, said he is tiring of the entire debate.
"This is the thirteenth time I've come to City Council on this item since 2001," Bettger said. "I feel like a whipped dog."
Also Tuesday, the City Council changed a policy in its newly approved inclusionary zoning and linkage ordinance, which regulates how the city provides affordable housing. The council voted, 5-2, to allow developers to pay the city a fee instead of providing required affordable housing - a policy known as "fee-in-lieu" - only in specific sections of zoning districts at the base of Steamboat Ski Area. Throughout the rest of the city, fee-in-lieu payments are now prohibited.
Council members Paul Strong and Loui Antonucci voted against the new fee-in-lieu policy, which changes a City Council vote earlier this month to allow fee-in-lieu payments for projects in all of Steamboat.
- To reach Mike Lawrence, call 871-4203
or e-mail mlawrence@steamboatpilot.com
Comments
Beancounter (Alan Geye) says...
Rentals Spark Passion:
I wish to express my support for our City Council in voting 7-0 in support of the proposed new ordinance. It represents a line in the sand that underscores the higher priority of maintining our existing zoning regulations and not allowing their dilution for the benefit of limited business interests.
I believe the comment by Councilman Anderson summarizes it best, the City "can not put a home out of business." The underlying message, businesses essentially are not allowed in residential neighborhoods under curent zoning regulations; that was never the intent of the original VHR ordinance. The folks complaining about over regulation of the "industry" seem to overlook they do have options: place their businesses in areas that are zoned for industry, not in my or your neighborhood, or follow the proposed neighborhood friendly regulations which are designed to secure all Stemaboat residential neighborhoods.
June 20, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trollunderthebridge (anonymous) says...
Interestingly enough here is what Councilman Brenner stated publicly at City Council with regard both Vacation Home Rentals and your possible new neighbor. "we need to do this to stop people buying homes that they cannot afford and offsetting the cost using rental income".
June 20, 2007 at 11:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SangriaMama (anonymous) says...
When you hear a City Councilman ask "how can we put a house out of business?" it says to me that they don't understand the issue. Did they forget that the City is already in a business partnership with the vacation rental homes? The city derives a substantial amount of income from VHR's through lodging and sales tax. There is a commercial aspect to the business of renting a home - no denying it. These homes are expensive to maintain, they have to be cleaned, hot tub must be serviced, marketing & advertising is involved, and owners want to see it all accounted for. That just just touches on how many are employed in the peripheral services of renting a house. For these reasons it is like a business.
The end use is residential - people come and stay in the house. Cars come and go. Lights go on. People have a good time, and they contribute serious hard dollars to our economy.
The new restrictions, which are taking us in the direction of a maximum occupancy of 10 guests, and 4 bedrooms will jeopardize a significant portion of the existing vacation home rentals. Approximately 40% of VHR's will face restrictions that could affect their income, and in these times of unprecedented increases in real estate costs, these VHR's will struggle to meet their operating costs. Some owners will be forced to sell and Steamboat will be the loser as the high paying guests that book VHR's will go elsewhere.
City Council needs to be responsible in protecting the rights of VHR owners who have relied upon the current set of regulations to make serious financial investments. When the city removes the right to rent the larger homes it will take away significant propety rights.
The poor way that revisions to the code are being handled, the public comments by Councilmen that their motive is to stop people "buying homes that they cannot afford and offsetting the cost using rental income", and the fact that the affected parties are the ones with the largest homes with the deepest pockets and most to lose has CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT stamped all over it. Is this how you wish your public officials to waste your money?
June 21, 2007 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JustAsking (anonymous) says...
"we need to do this to stop people buying homes that they cannot afford and offsetting the cost using rental income" (Ken Brenner)
By what rational would any responsible offical make a judgement, let alone a statement, of this type?
Does anyone else think the MICRO management meddling of this City Council seem TOTALLY out of control?
June 21, 2007 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thecondoguy1 (anonymous) says...
not on this issue, justasking, maybe we would have a stable, sane, honest economy if people owned homes they could afford, instead of trying to get a round peg in a square hole, meaning making a sfr into a hotel. there are plenty businesses that are in the vr business without converting sfr to vhr, "oh" vhr is not a zoning class?
June 22, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thecondoguy1 (anonymous) says...
all good points, especially the "make a mess" part, can't argue with that now can I..................
June 24, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JustAsking (anonymous) says...
Condo,
Come on. I know you get it. ANYTIME the City Council, no matter how well intended, gets involved in private enterprise they MAKE A MESS.
I seriously doubt that the owners of the vhr properties have significant financial worries. Rather they are smart business people who are using this method to pay less federal income tax as they realize, as we all surely do, that government spending is wasteful and totally out of control.
The private sector, not socialist government meddling, will provide the balance. Supply and demand works. Politicians only screw things up by putting a thumb on the scale.
As for the "complaints", it has already been pointed out that there are plenty of laws already in place to deal with noise, parking, etc.
WE DON'T NEED MORE MICRO MANAGEMENT BY THIS CITY COUNCIL!
June 23, 2007 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.