The following statement by Dr Jen Campbell was just received from her Campaign for City Council:
“I was disappointed that the City Council had to rescind its recently passed ordinance that was the first progress our neighborhoods have seen regarding illegal hotels.
The bipartisan 8-1 vote of the Council was to protect our citizens from the billion-dollar online rental businesses who would have ran a massive disinformation campaign to deceive the citizens of San Diego. The only member who did not understand this was my opponent, Lorie Zapf.
Short-term vacation rentals are decimating our housing stock and fundamentally changing our neighborhoods from residences to business districts, negatively impacting our quality of life. The city administration takes its orders from the Mayor, who refuses to uphold our residential zoning laws.
The City must protect our communities from being overrun by individual and corporate investors using our housing stock for commercial purposes.
Other cities have been able to pass ordinances to mitigate the damage from these short-term rentals, and on City Council, I look forward to being a leader on this issue, something District 2 desperately needs.”
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you, Jen Campbell.
This is an abiguous message. She is disappointed that the council had to rescind the ordnance (that the citizens want) yet she is critical of Lorie Zapf for voting against the recision. Our history has many courageous leaders (including many from OB) who chose to fight rather than surrender. Our city council is not amongst them. I’m not convinced that Ms. Campbell is either.
Like another comment pointed out, Zapf was the sole council member who voted to uphold the ordinance. That said, I will vote for whoever makes restricting short term rentals (STVRs) their highest priority. Having no restrictions on STVRs underlies a dozen other problems plaguing San Diego, and SD locals need to organize and rally against it. For starters councilman Scott Sherman’s father owns 30 or more rental properties in OB, and so it’s no surprise he championed the referendum. This is a hige conflict of interest, for which he will personally gain while SD locals lose.
Furthermore consider what will happen if in the upcoming election the prop on rent control passes. And meanwhile SD still has no ordinace on STVRs. The investment groups who own apartments in OB and elsewhere in SD can skirt rent control by evicting tenants and converting their property to a vacation rental. The bottom line is that even without STVR restrictions, even good-intentioned policies will ultimately do more harm than good. For another example of this consider the hotel tax that Faulkner is supporting to pay for several improvements to the city. What do you think tourists are going to do when they see hotel prices rise? They are going to turn to Airbnb, creating even more demand for STVRs. If something doesnt change fast, SD locals are screwed.