The Views of Councilwoman Campbell’s Chief of Staff on Short-Term Vacation Rental ‘Compromise’

It’s been said that the main person behind the recent “compromise” on short-term vacation rentals being offered by Councilwoman Jen Campbell was her chief of staff, Venus Molina.

And via a recent San Diego Community Newspaper Group virtual interview with Molina, we can catch a glimpse into her thinking on one of the most controversial initiatives that has come out of Campbell’s office since her election in 2018.

First, Molina said Campbell’s office was not surprised at all by the adverse reaction to the proposal. They knew people “felt very strongly about the issue,” and they also knew “they wanted us to wait until after the election.” But other people, Molina claims, wanted Campbell’s office “to step up and take this issue on, …”

They did meet with “folks who came into our office over the last year,” she said. They met with Save San Diego Neighborhoods and the OB Town Council – despite claims to the contrary from those groups. OBceans they did meet with were actually surprised by the “compromise” when it was released, as they hadn’t known about it. The OB Planning Board publicly refused to endorse it. About OB, Molina said, “they don’t want them.”

Plus, obviously, Campbell’s office met with Expedia, worth $13 billion, and the union Unite HERE, the union of hotel workers, involved in the compromise. She also said, “The only people not willing to compromise are those belonging to Save San Diego Neighborhoods.” But it’s all good as “we have the union and two of the largest STR platforms on board, and the City Attorney is drafting a new ordinance trying to make everything very legal and equitable.”

How did it all come down? Molina explained that Expedia was (already?) working on a memorandum of understanding (MOU), when Campbell’s office decided “to hear from our constituents” in “another round of meetings.” This was all news to other beach residents in Pacific Beach and Mission Beach.

This statement reveals something important. ‘Expedia was working on their MOU.’ This sounds like the initiative came from one of the largest, international rental platforms in the world. Plus, it’s never been tried before anywhere else. The short-term vacation rental industry was and still is driving this project – and not Campbell’s constituents. The union and her members, although have their issues and they are important, they are not Campbell’s constituents. Yet, Campbell, we’re told, is a “coalition builder,” – just not a coalition builder among her own constituents.

But, why the rush? Why didn’t Campbell’s office wait until after the November election – she was asked (or until after the COVID-19 crisis – which she wasn’t asked.)

In Molina’s view, if they waited until after the election, there would be 5 new councilmembers, and because this is a very complex issue, the new councilmembers would “have to start over being educated on this …” This is a bad thing? The current members “understand the issues.” Okay. Do they understand the vehement opposition in a good chunk of Campbell’s District 2?

“We want to get this done now versus waiting for the new council, which would be another year. People want to see this now,” Molina said. Another vague reference to “people.” Which people? The Union members? The STVR industry? Definitely not her people, her constituents.

People have to remember this is a compromise, Molina said and will have to “give and take.” Molina is confident, however, about the proposal, as she said, “the largest parties are at the table,” – which reveals again, no sense or understanding that Campbell’s resident constituents are actually her “largest party” and they’re not at the table.

No sense of any issue with the initiative/ “compromise” being pushed during the pandemic raised either by the news group or Molina. This has been a constant complaint for the last 5 months or so, that the government is bulldozing things through a governmental process without public input because of the threats from the disease. No public input and insufficient transparency. Why not wait until next year?

So, why isn’t the current law against STVRs in residential neighborhoods being enforced, according to Molina? It’s not realistic right now, she said. “If we could do that, we would have,” is her incredulous response. Many know that City Attorney Mara Elliott declared STVRs illegal in residential neighborhoods years ago, but because of the strong-mayor government, it’s been up to Mayor Falconer to do so, to enforce the municipal code. Yet, he hasn’t – for political, partisan reasons perhaps?

Then, there’s the fear – the fear of being sued. Molina’s view: “You’ve seen the platforms come after the City and force the City to have a referendum and to rescind their last policy (on STR reform). So they’ll sue the City, and it will keep this issue in the courts forever. San Diego is one of the top STR markets. The STR industry would fight for this market.”

Molina also continued the narrative that has very shaky grounds; “you can’t take away from people something they’ve been doing for years, taking away their income.” If the city all of a sudden shuts the STVRs down “we would most likely get sued by the platforms and they would probably win. That’s what our attorneys have said it us.” This is an amazing claim. Who are these attorneys? Isn’t the City Attorney your attorney, Campbell?

This is not how the law works. Sure there are statutes of limitations, but if there’s an illegal money operation – and it continues – then sure as hell, law enforcement can break it up, even if they’ve been “doing for years” and even if its’ “taking away their income.” Like a serial bank robber; he or she has been doing it for years and it’s how they live – it’s their income. They can’t be busted and forced to give up the income they’ve stolen?

What about the loss of valuable housing stock – a key way STVRs damage communities -? The Campbell mantra was revealed again by Molina. The new law would actually increase housing stock by releasing 70 percent of the current, estimated 16,000 STVRs in San Diego, “back into the market for rental and for sale,” and “we would have more housing for permanent residents.” Oh, yes, and “reducing it by 70%, that’s a huge win.” Plus, Molina revealed, there’s some anxiety that the platforms may even change their mind – so we’ve got to rush this thing through before the $13 Billion Expedia just decides to say adios to the “compromise”, oh my.

Lastly, there’s been claims that Campbell – who once opposed STVRs during the election campaign – now has reversed her position. Molina’s simple answer? Campbell didn’t understand back then, when she was naive Molina implied, “why the municipal code could not be enforced.” Also, Campbell didn’t understand how the council could be sued by all these righteous rental platforms, presumably.

There you have it. The so-called compromise isn’t a compromise between the real parties to the issue. The whole proposal is being driven by the short-term vacation rental industry and Campbell’s District 2 constituents have been left out of the process. This is not a good thing. But, apparently Venus Molina – and Campbell – are oblivious to this fact. That’s also not a good thing. Not for the residents of District 2 – nor for Campbell’s future.