By Gary Wonacott
On December 14th 2023, the California Coastal Commission Commissioners met in Santa Cruz to assess their policy of supporting short term rentals to achieve low-cost access to the coast. The policy review is needed in light of housing affordability, availability and homelessness across the State.
The twelve commissioners listened to expert testimony from multiple speakers on housing from the California Department of Housing and Community Development and from a speaker at the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. The short term rentals perspective was given by Dr. David Wachsmuth, Professor and Research Chair at McGill University.
Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than thirty percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities. Clearly, affordable housing depends on rent and income. In San Diego, thirty percent of the population has monthly incomes of $3300 or less, while the medium apartment price is about $3,400, including utilities. It is clear that even with two incomes, small changes in rents can push people into homelessness.
Beginning in 2000, the number of short term rentals (STRs) in Mission Beach increased by about a factor of 3 at the same time that long term rents increased by about 2.7 times. Dr. Wachsmuth showed that these rapid rent increases propagate affecting all socio-economic classes, but more so those at the bottom of the income scale, in many cases leading to homelessness. Generally, the cost of homelessness has been left out of short term rental cost benefit analyses, but when included in the Los Angeles analysis, short term rentals result in a large negative to the City.
The key recommendations by Dr. Wachsmuth to the Commissioners are to:
- ban all whole home short term rentals, while continuing to support home sharing.
- as a minimum, the Commission support rather than resist communities attempting to limit or ban short term rentals.
- statewide legislation be supported to implement the aforementioned long term housing recovery actions.
The Commissioners, one at a time, expressed enthusiastic support for the short term rental recommendations, recognizing that this would not solve the homeless problem, but it would definitely help reverse the latest trends. One commissioner referred to the proposed solution as low hanging fruit.
Dr Wachsmuth used the Los Angeles STR analysis to support his recommendations. There are many parallels between Los Angeles and San Diego, meaning it is possible to extrapolate the LA analysis to San Diego. For example, the studies concentrated on three Los Angeles communities, Venice, Hollywood, and downtown, where there are the greatest concentrations of STRs. Similarly, the three communities in San Diego with relatively comparable concentrations are Mission Beach, Hillcrest and downtown.
According to the Wachsmuth report, there are 3,300 STR listings active in Los Angeles (more than 8,000 in San Diego). In 2022, 43.1 percent of the active listings were multi-listings. In addition, the STRs in Los Angeles have taken about 2,500 homes off of the market. Mission Beach alone has lost about about 1,620 housing units, and 2,500 to 3,000 residents. The Los Angeles STR studies were very detailed yielding the following results:
- STRs have raised rents $810 per year for the average renter household in Los Angeles.’
- Cumulatively, these households have paid $3,440 more on rent since 2015.
- STRs are responsible for more than 5,000 extra people experiencing homelessness each night in Los Angeles.
- It would cost $1.3 billion to build enough supportive housing to accommodate them, and then $163 million each year to operate the housing.
The key point is that the $1.3B is far larger than the Transient Occupancy Tax the City of Los Angeles is collecting. In the Los Angeles report, it concludes, “by any reasonable metric, the negative economic impacts of STRs on Los Angeles outweigh the positive ones. STRs have made long-term housing scarcer and more expensive, have exacerbated homelessness, have generated financial windfalls for a small number of commercial operators, but higher costs for most Los Angelenos and for the City of Los Angeles…”
While it is true that STRs provide accommodations at the beach to visitors in all socio-economic classes during the summer months, it is also true that on average these STRs are occupied only 55 percent of the time in the nine winter months according to AirDNA. This waste of housing can be eliminated, bringing back many residents, while at the same time positively influencing the homelessness trends. It is strongly urged that the City Council begin a comprehensive short term rentals cost benefit analysis.
Gary Wonacott is a Mission Beach resident and former president of the Mission Beach Town Council.
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe we’ll finally see some demand-side policies to ease housing pressure.
Thanks
This try to say a high end beach vacation destination is causing 1000s of homeless is idiotic!
Short term rentals make it very difficult for long term renters – who may be pillars of their community – to find anywhere to live. Anyway, affordable or not.
Mission Beach doesn’t even have an elementary school anymore, and Ocean Beach Elementary is shrinking.
If this trend continues, just imagine where Ocean Beach will be in ten years.
Wealthy people, people who bought their homes when they were somewhat affordable, short-term-renters, and people living on the streets.
Would you rather have a “pillar” or a thriving economy with new businesses and remodeling refurbishing our community? That’s what tourism provides.
David Wachsmuth, an Associate Professor at McGill University has studied the impact of STRs on communities like LA in depth. One of the primary reason investors gravitate to STRs in beach communities is because they know there will be a rapid increase in housing rents and prices. However, these price increases don’t stop at the beach communities boundary; they propagate across all socio-economic groups pushing those near the bottom to a point they can no longer keep up. Check out this publication for actual theory backed up with data.
https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf
Tourism provides jobs at the lowest end of the income scale, most times without any health benefits. During the pandemic, those working in tourism were the first homeless. Dr. Wachsmuth showed that the cost of housing the homeless caused by the presence of STRs was orders of magnitude greater than the revenue collected by the City from TOT.
JWviews are contradicted by a recent article.
In an article in the LATimes in the last two weeks discusses the drop in certain home prices in Palm Springs. Some of these drops are substantial. As you know Palm Springs has an excellent enforcement policy on STVR and has instituted a limit per neighborhood on the number of STVR in each neighborhood. This regulation preserves the neighborhood but still allows for rentals. The limit eliminates speculation by investors who care nothing about the neighborhood or quality of life, only big bucks, and whose actions drive up prices/rents/ etc. for people who want to live there.
Maybe if we had a similar policy or policies, maybe the affordability in San Diego would be better.
So I have based my thoughts on an actual analysis, not on speculation.
Any response should have a basis, not theory.
City of SD cut off 70% of potential STVRs at the outset.
Even before the “supervision” component was in force.
It amazes me that people think a high end beach vacation destination is responsible for 1000s of homeless!!!
I don’t think we should be surprised. I am fairly sure that this was one of the first times that a more comprehensive analysis that includes the effect of short term rentals was used to obtain results. If you search the following key words, you can find the detailed example: David Wachsmuth, McGill, short term rentals, and Los Angeles.
Here’s why it doesn’t really amaze you. The views you express are false due to the fact you don’t sincerely hold them yourself.
San Diego’s law didn’t cut off any STRs! That was a lie, but don’t feel bad, many people bought it. Anyways they gave a license to everyone who wanted one and have even more to hand out. They issued licenses to RVs, illegal units, and people that didn’t even apply for them!
There were 451 whole home Airbnbs in Ocean Beach before the ordinance and there are 538 now.
I obtained the list of current STVRs in the city. I haven’t finished analyzing the information but one thing did jump out at me. When I sorted the list by zip code I got 815 hits for 92107. But, I only got 169 hits for 92106. That seems odd to me. I’ve put in another PRR for a list of all applicants including those rejected.
The list is 8,393 line long. There is probably some duplication, but that much?
I’m sure I have seen it, but email it to me.
I just sent it.
The Point Loma Zip code probably did not contain as many rentals. The rental protection laws are easier on STRs, and if a tenant moves, a new STR is ready. It is an indication of rental units converted to STRs, but the ADUs popping up in 92106 may change those numbers.
The ordinance prohibits using ADUs as STVRs. Of course, who will monitor this. The city’s site says to report problems to GetItDone. The city said it would hire its own enforcement using the fees from the STVRs. No matter what they do, the ordinance is too complicated and enforcement will never happen.
Was out of town for a while and haven’t followed SD’s specific response to STVRs too closely, but the saga of Measure T in the Tahoe area is an interesting case study that would seem to provide sort of legally-defensible precedent. There is really no point in SD trying to pass something so restrictive that it will get squashed on contact in court. Just a waste of time, money, and energy.
The second half of this article is a decent write-up on Measure T and the subsequent lawsuit over it:
https://www.sierrasun.com/news/law-review-court-of-appeal-rules-on-south-lake-tahoe-vacation-rental-voter-initiative-measure-t/
The article you linked showed the court supported the harshest portion of the law:
“The court of appeal declared constitutional the City’s prohibition of STRs in residential zoned areas.”
It was just them trying to make a carve-out for residents to allow them to circumvent this harsh law that was ruled against. So the takeaway would be that an all out ban, the harshest thing possible, has precedent but to make sure any carve-outs do not violate due process.
December 14 meeting of the California Coastal Commission
Analysis report for assessment of economic impact of short term rentals
https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf
Gary W – in future, please don’t leave a huge train of a link but insert it into the link function. Or at least place it at the very end of the comment. That may work as well.
It is interesting, the idea of doing away with STRs to reduce the City’s costs to care for the homeless. But then, probably the most likely way that individual and families are going to increase wealth is through equity in their homes. Many will rely on this equity for much of their retirement. And yet there are many in San Diego with low incomes who spend more than fifty percent on their housing costs who are the ones most vulnerable to homelessness. So, the City, taxpayers, must shell out large amounts of money for the homeless, some due to the presence of short term rentals. The question is whether the public is OK with the State/City tampering with their wealth Can they carve out the STR effect?
Don’t you just love the theory that $4000 a weekend ocean view houses will be rented for low income and homeless occupancy? Or that a family that converted a garage will allow transients. Clearly the higher education system is high alright.
Well that is better than I am an idiot. I suspect that you grasp the concept, but have reservations. What will happen to home values in Mission Beach and other coastal communities if short term rentals are banned. Well, obviously those who have been operating STRs will take a temporary hit if they convert to long term (30 days or greater) or sell the properties. In fact, virtually everyone in the beach communities will see their home values decrease, but if the ban is done correctly, over a few years, then most will only be impacted minimally. During this period, those still operating their STR will have their rates fixed. I am confident that there will still be many people who want to live near the beach and will snatch up whatever is offered.
So Gary if there is “minimal” impact over time what’s the big discussion about? Your right about demand (high prices) for beach rentals, especially with telecommuting. But the comparison to affordable housing just is apples & oranges..
What good are increased home values if they’re on the premise of removing it from the housing market? And why should anyone else care except those specific owner hosts that likely don’t even live here? It doesn’t benefit anyone else. I certainly don’t expect anyone else to care about my property values.
I don’t think either the professor nor the CCC Commissioners would expect the banning of whole home STRs to eliminate homelessness, but, I am fairly sure that if they were banned over say 3 years, there would be a positive impact. There would be a permanent adjustment to home values, rent values. Keep in mind, in Mission Beach along, banning whole home STRs would bring back about 1600 long term rentals, or 2,500 to 3,000 residents.
This was posted on Truthdig and talks about what the corporate buy-up is doing to the rest of us. Good article:
Airbnb Drives Up Housing Costs for Everyone. Let’s Regulate It.
Corporate landlords are buying up homes and converting them into short-term rentals, but some cities are fighting back.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/airbnb-drives-up-housing-costs-for-everyone-lets-regulate-it/
__
Ban them entirely.
sealintheSelkirks
In March 2022, the CA Coastal Commission received a professional
document from Airbnb regarding San Diego’s City Council’s proposed regulations for STR’s located in San Diego’s Coastal Zone. This document is public information and can be viewed by Goggling the following:
California Coastal Commission W14f LCP-6-SAN-21 O046-2 (Short Term Rentals) March 2022 Correspondence 2
The document discusses several STR issues including high occupancy. Here is part of what the document says:
“San Diego is one of the Largest markets for Coastal tourism in California and plays an oversized role in the State’s coastal access opportunities. The San Diego coast is not only relatively accessible in quantity/area, it also has developed relatively robust infrastructure and amenities to facilitate broad coastal access. STR’s-particularly those in the SD Coastal Zone-are an important component of this access. Nearly 40% of San Diego’s STR listings fall within the SD Coastal Zone, and over 40% of vacation stays occurred in the SD Coastal Zone. These listings experience high occupancy-nearly 80% on average for the year and nearly 90% in the summer months . . . “ (this statement is located on page 12 of the 769 page document mentioned above).
AirBnB was founded in 2008, I think, so they have no corporate memory before that date. For example, before that date, there were only summer winter rentals in Mission Beach, and I am guessing in the other beach communities as well. During the 3 summer months, there were weekly rentals along the boardwalks, about 350 housing units in MB. During the winter months, the same housing units were rented out using 9 month leases. There was very high occupancy year round. According to AirDNA, the year round average occupancy for STRs is more like 63 percent, but definitly not 80 percent.
Gary, the people that founded it were just drooling corporate greedheads looking for their next fix. They figured out how to get around zoning laws and create hotels everywhere, and they didn’t have to pay for repairs or maids or anything else related to running a HOTEL. They just skim off the cream and have the other people deal with everything else. It’s a racket.
And they not only ‘didn’t have a corporate memory’ but I’m sure didn’t give a large pile of stinking fecal material for the neighborhoods they took over and wrecked. Like a drunk driver…until they are stopped, they’ll just keep doing it.
I lived in MB from 1961-1980 when I was forced out by skyrocketing rents and moved back to OB, so I know all about the 9 month lease crap so the zonies could start showing up in June after the college kids went home and us locals were tossed. It was already really bad in the early/mid 70s, and when a neighborhood closes its only elementary school you know it has been destroyed. Not that my 6th grade 1967 graduating class was all that big compared to the stuffed classrooms today, but we were all local kids that grew up there though some kids at the very N. Mission end had to go to Farnum Ele. which I understand is also gone. I went to both.
As I have repeatedly endorsed, ban them from any and all neighborhoods that aren’t zoned for commercial hotels. Let AirB&B go the way of Blockbuster video. It’s past time to undo this corporate ownership mass buy-outs crap by making it ‘unprofitable’ to own fake hotels, and bring back neighbors and neighborhoods and that hopefully will help drop the damn ridiculous rents. When people are paying half or more of their incomes for just rents, you know the ‘system’ is totally worthless and broken.
sealintheSelkirks
What about people who host guests in their home while they are present?
If it’s in someone’s primary residence, whether they’re home or not, STR use does not displace a long term rental.
True, but Seal was suggesting AirB&B shroud fade out of existence.
First, thanks much for your comments SealintheSelkirks. Yes, home sharing is OK.
So silly – blaming the terrible homelessness problem on multi-million dollar homes by the beach is just ludicrous. Reduce the red tape and costs associated with building more affordable housing units – that’s the solution. The effort by larger hotel chains to “eradicate” vacation rentals is astounding. Stop carrying their water.
Silly? Ludicrous? Do you bother to read any of the informational links that get posted about the corporate buy-outs of entire neighborhoods, or ‘developers’ bait & switch going on in San Diego etc etc in the last couple of years on the RAG?
There are many people that post intelligent, thought-out links that detail how and why this is happening, and all you have to say is stop the ‘red tape’ and ‘costs’ and people who want to get very very rich will of course suddenly drop their greed and their corporations will build affordable housing that won’t make them rich because…they find out what empathy and ethics feel like?
Really, dude? You need to catch up on some reading.
sealintheSelkirks
Your reading information that is completely biased and slanted. Says nothing about supply and demand of very desirable expensive property. Economics, telecommuting trends, tourism and its benefits. I still think no mstter what liberal wrote, to say that million dollar beach front properties are causing homeless problems is silly!!
Insults aside – I think your anger at vacation rentals is misplaced. If you want to stop large corps from buying properties – go for it. But taking the side of gigantic hotel chains to solve the problem is no solution – you’re just replacing one corporate overlord for another. I happen to agree with you about greedy developers, but to tell individual property owners how they should use their property is over the line.
And I’m sticking to my stance that regulating multi-million dollar homes by the ocean doesn’t solve homelessness. Raising the supply of affordable housing to meet the demand, would be a start in the right direction. The supposition of the article remains silly in the extreme.
No one is taking the side of ” gigantic hotel chains.” This is about housing stock.
“Reduce the red tape and costs associated with building more affordable housing units”
Any suggestion to actually pass said savings on?
The issue seems to be builder profitability, not cost. The builders are going to make as much as they can. Some people call it the downside of Capitalism. Regardless, if you think cutting the costs of the permitting process will help the homelessness issue, you should get back on your medication……
You understand that between 2,500 and 3,000 residents of Mission Beach living in about 1,450 housing units were displaced so that these properties could be used for short term rentals. You don’t think this caused a spike in rents of long term housing? And don’t you believe that investors who invested tens and maybe hundreds of millions of dollars in properties in Mission Beach did not expect a substantial return, resulting in both rent and property value increases. And do you not grasp the dynamic market interactions across the City, which result in rent increases in even the lowest socioeconomic markets. And when these rent increases occur in neighborhoods where families are already spending 50 to 55 percent of their wages on housing, what do you think happens? Or let’s say you are spending 50-55 percent of your monthly wages on housing and you get a letter from your landlord letting you know that he is raising your rent ten percent. What do you do?
When I moved here, rent was 25% of my
income. Now it’s close to 50%. This is over
the course of 15 years.
As a very elderly person, is it right that I
should have to leave my community due
to exorbitant rent?
Short term rental policies have skewed
supply and demand- no question about it.
Tessa
You’ve lived in one of the more desirable places on earth! Since you moved here there are over One Hundred million more people in the United States. There’s a bigger supply and demand issue here. It’s Not the fault of a 1000 STVRs in the Mission Beach area.
Nothing is usually completely at fault for a situation but the STVRs are very clearly part of the problem.
Typo oops Tessa 35 million more people not 100 million
Chris: I’m fine with ‘home sharing,’ the B&B model I think you mean? It doesn’t displace anyone and doesn’t increase desperation.
___
Jw: You must be reading too much corporate neoliberal Capitalist propaganda that is totally biased and EXTREMELY slanted towards the wealthiest who pour enormous amounts of money into creating it because they are definitely on the road to owning everything worth owning in this country. Even worse than the ‘Guilded Age’ of the 1890s.
Unfortunately, this is a worldwide phenomena.
I love the ‘implied greed’ you mention. How about 6 men in the US who now have/control more wealth than half the population/160 million people (last audit I read)? There really is something decidedly wrong with that picture.
And then add in control of all the mainstream media because of course due to the incredible consolidation, mergers, buyouts. and the results of years of buying politicians to change the regulations that were set up to stop monopolies. Oh pardon me, I meant to say ‘campaign contributions’ and ‘paid vacations’ and ‘gifts’ and ‘invites to parties and other fabulous gatherings to rub elbows’ that are perks to the political elite… like SCOTUS Clarence Thomas and his extremist insurrectionist wife for example. Radio, Tv, newspapers, magazines…how many radio stations are owned and operated by a single corporate entities with multiple ownership in the same market (or are subsidiaries) like ClearChannel which has over 850…there are only 50 states so it is heavily saturating the country with the ideology of the owners.
You think that a CEO/owner will let anything on the air that conflicts with profits and ideology?
I LIVED THROUGH WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO MB, dude. First hand. Which in 1961, was a dilapidated beach area populated by working class folk and below (with the occasional beach mansion a lawyer or doctor family owned scattered around but mostly in South Mission) who really liked where they lived. Many low income wage earner renters, people from restaurant, gas station, construction, college students, public school teachers, mechanics, plumbers, secretaries. We were neighborhoods, North Mission, Middle Mission (my stomping grounds and paper route), and South Mission.
___
Oh, and today Gary puts up how you are connected into the STV racket. NOW your viewpoint and justifications make perfect sense!
It’s like trying to convince MAGATS that Trump does NOT have their best interests in mind, and they never get it. Like Trump Supporters (the TS at the end of MAGA), they vociferously defend it anyway.
It is, after all, all about making more profit no matter how detrimental it is to society in general. And that, in a nutshell, is a horrible problem on this planet.
sealintheSelkirks
Seal:
Control is not ownership. I invite you to search the SEC Edgar database that shows exactly who owns all public shares. The mutual fund giants don’t own the money on deposit with them. They might control which stocks to buy but they do Not own that “wealth”.
As far as old MB, I’m afraid you’re not in Kansas anymore, 35M more people in the US, and our desirable community and you have to expect growth! Look at pictures of 100 years ago, compared to today! Your “dilapidated” little town has grown up.
Consider the local wealth and improvements that have happened here since 1961.
Seal, this was your best rant ever. I often get bored with your long, laborious rants, but not this one. I agree with it all, and of course I find stuff I agree with much more engaging than the other stuff.
The dilemna I have is that MAGATS folks seem to be in favor of unbridled capitalism (and unbridled anything tends to be nasty), and the CA dems seem to be bent on eliminating residential zoning and neighborhood qualities, what are we left with ?
It is a bit more than 1,000. Right now there are 1,082 Tier4, 189 Tier2, and an estimated 15 percent that are operating without a license. And these STRs are highly concentrated in an area less than 0.59 square miles. Besides AirBnB, there are groups like the shot term rental alliance of San Diego and Zillow pushing for higher rates. It’s not the fault of the STRs, but it is the fault of the owners. I guarantee that if you ban all of the STRs in Mission Beach, it would result in substantial rent reductions across SD.
Gary
I’m a member of the short term alliance, and you have a very wrong impression of what we do. Price, dollars, implied greed have nothing to do with our organization. We specialize in how to provide better services to the community and communicate regularly with members about regulations and requirements. To say that we’re involved in some type of price collusion is ridiculous.
In my opinion, this is what it comes down to. You have displaced 2,500 to 3,000 residents of Mission Beach so that you can short term rent out your unit at a rate of 3 to 5 times the rate of your next door neighbor who is long term renting his unit. Your neighbor is making money on his rental. He or she is benefitting from the equity growth of the value of his or her place and likely will build substantial wealth over time. So, this might be the reason why people point their fingers at you and claim what you are doing is greedy. And then there are the 2,500 to 3,000 residents you have displaced, who had beach access. Of course they can come back and stay in your place, but at a somewhat higher rate. I would say that the 15 percent surtax that the State is working on is way too small.
Gary
The market “equity growth” demand has caused the growth of 1082 STVR rentals.
As far a displacement goes; I can’t afford a mansion in LaJolla but am I entitled to one?! How many people have you displaced with your rental unit(s)? Have all the 1000s of rentals (long or short) by your definition displaced somebody? The 2000 or 3000 people have been replaced with 10,000 people now getting beach access!
The market “equity growth” demand has caused the growth of 1082 STRV rentals. That is the phase I was looking for to make my case. This is exactly the rationale for banning whole home shot term rentals in the coastal zone, according to the professor at McGill University that he stated in his presentation to the California Coastal Commission. Slowing down the “equity growth” performance at the coast propagates across all socioeconomic groups, thus reducing the pressure for those on the edge.
Equity growth (your words) really means market demand.
There’s no question our little community has grown and will continue to grow. The Coastal Commission is empowered to provide access for Everyone to our beaches. By having STVRs you are providing many more people with this luxury. People from all over the country use these STVRs for vacation destinations frequently and repeatedly. It’s sharing the wealth of our desirable little town, for people who can not afford to buy. 1082 condos is a small amount of displacement for the amount of joy and economic impact our town gets. (“Displacement” value of long term centers with shorter term renters is debatable)
More Govt intervention and 15% taxes is boarderline socialism over private property rights.
If you click on the link below, I think you should gain some insight into where the State and the California Coastal Commission ae going on STs.
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcal-span.org%2Fmeeting%2Fccc_20231214%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C03f2694240304f2f4b2d08dc04894d0b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638390234968167487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=B8cSKXL9r99soZbCg7239XUAn5gFAe3ivVL7WYmHitg%3D&reserved=0
This is from one of your email announcements. There are also comments about maximizing your STR income, while paying minimal wages to those who clean up the units (and don’t live in Mission Beach). You covered insurance at one of your webinars, because many of the STR owners have not informed their insurance companies how they are using the property. This puts their neighbors at risk.
“During this webinar, we cover the latest news affecting STRs in 2024 including the upcoming local election and latest developments for Prop 584. This is a can’t-miss event for anyone with a stake in San Diego’s short-term rentals.”
We have a large population in San Diego with an income of less than $40K and an equally alarming number who must pay more than half of this income for housing. Is it fair for a relatively small group of investors to make excess profits of f of housing while we are in this homeless crisis, and then leave about 45 percent of these homes vacant on average during the winter months? I would not have a problem with STRs as summer winter rentals, except in these times when the disparity between the haves and the have not is out of control.
I will give you credit for your ability to organize, as Blaine Smith did at the town council.
Gary, can you provide a quantitative definition of “excess profits” or even for adequate profits, that would apply to RE investors ?
Sure. Divide the STR daily rate, X, in the high season by 4, Y. Subtract Y from X. That is my definition of excess profits.
To all those who believe that individual homeowners have the right to use their residential homes as they see fit:
?Would you agree that homeowners in a residentially zoned neighborhood should be able to open a full service sit down restaurant, bar or coffeehouse in their home?
What is astounding to me is that we have since 2,000 lost 2,500 to 3,000 residents in Mission Beach to short term whole home rentals. Let’s say JW above only pushed out one couple from each of two units, or 4 people, this is no big deal. But multiple this number by 600 or 700 and you have severely impacted this community.
I feel this coming in OB.
Lots of out-of -towners wandering through the
neighborhood pulling wheeled luggage
and looking at their cellphones trying to find
the short-term spot they rented.
If the owner is on b sight and renting a spare bedroom, fine.
JW,
You say: “2000 or 3000 people have been replaced with 10,000 people now getting beach access!”
Do you mean 10,000 STR people now have public access to the beach on a daily basis?
Yeah, 10,000 tourists that have no emotional attachment or care for the place they have invaded. That bring multiple people in their multiple cars to one house to party that take up far too many of the extremely limited parking spaces of people that actually live in the neighborhood and go to work in the morning. Oh wait, that isn’t a problem because those people are disappearing due to rents jacking up beyond their income, and wages will NEVER be allowed to keep up.
That’s another down side of Capitalism, only the rich get wealthier on the backs of the workers which is why unions are so despised by the wealthy owners.
JW: Well then, they can just go ‘somewhere’ else, right? Not your problem, and as long as YOU make bundles of money life is fine, isn’t it?
This type of behavior is everywhere in the US:
Thousands of local renters get evicted. Is it a money-grabbing scheme for some?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q_X2lVdTBU
___
Eventually, MB and OB will look like Miami Beach or Waikiki with wall to wall giant buildings that can put 1o0,000 people on the same beach at the same time. And that’s good…for people like this JW character and his ilk. Quality of life don’t matter to people whose only value in life is money.
Just ask the Hawai’ians, JW. They can’t even afford to live on their ancestral islands because of people like you. And you don’t care. There’s a word describing that taught in psychology classes for those that have no empathy nor care for the consequences of what they do (or promote) so long as it directly benefits them. I’m sure you know what it is.
___
Tessa, yes you probably do feel it coming. I did, too, in the late 1970s in MB. We knew what was happening and there wasn’t anything we could do about it. Belmont Park was in the owner’s will to ‘be kept open in perpetuity for the children of San Diego’ and when Bahia-owner Evans died, his family spent enormous amounts of money on lawyers to break his will. They also fit the description of that word…
Enough. The greedy aren’t ever going to understand, they are mentally unable to look far enough ahead past their quarterly profits at what they are creating for the rest of us and our descendants. Just like the oil companies execs whose own scientists warned them back in the 60s of what was going to happen to the atmosphere, they continued to ignore the warnings because it was just bunch of commie scientists trying to take our business away. You sound like them. Unfortunately, our species does not seem to learn the lessons of history that has crashed 21 major civilizations in the last 9,000 years (according to anthropologists that study this). Big sigh.
sealintheSelkirks
JW, your days are limited according to the link that I sent you. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise, the State is now putting long term housing above STRs. It is just a matter of time.
Gary
I can’t seem to post Coastal comm “Guide to Public Access” 7th ed
You’ll see their priorities (not the zoning meeting you posted)
You’ve been on your soap box against STVRs for years, the City saw differently.
It’s also a little hypocritical to me that you owned a beach rental!!!
We will see!!