I personally have no problem with people renting out beach houses. There were complaints about noise and partying, mostly from the Sea Bluff condos (which is ironic because when I was in high school some of the most gnarly parties I had ever seen where held there. "The cops can't get through the gate." explained some coked out knucklehead in a fluro pink t-shirt with matching Oakley blade sunglasses).
The motels and hotels may complain but if you are a nice proper Midwest family where would you rather stay, in a cool 4 bedroom beach house right on Neptune or cram the whole family in one room of one of our ratty motels?
An argument against the rental ban is that it denies people access to the beach. I guess I follow that flimsy logic, sort of.
You would think an anti-social guy like me would support the ban but I've never had it out for tourist. I have nothing against tourist. In fact thank gawd for all those tourist bringing out their cute daughters back in the day (the local girls would have nothing to do with me).
Also, tourist eat out a lot thus supporting the local restaraunts that we all love. This is a good thing.
Somebody brought up the new hotel going in. Oh gee, you mean the $400 a night hotel?
I don't see a lot of families going for that.
I understand that the city council wants to avoid us becoming a full on rental/transient type of beach town but I just don't see that happening.
So here is how it breaks down as I see it:
Couples book hotel rooms.
Families get beach houses.
So I guess we can conclude that the Encinitas city council hates the American family. You know who else hates the American family? OSAMA BIN LADEN, that's who!
I support banning things.
City's proposed ban makes no sense. Neither do Patrick Murphy's comments, which are biased toward, guess whom? High priced rentals!
ReplyDeleteDirector of Planning, Building, Community Service, Murphy says:
[H]otel rooms often provide a better value than short-term vacation rentals, which "really aren't affordable," he said.
During the summer months, hotel rooms in Encinitas have a 30 percent vacancy rate, which jumps to 50 percent during the winter.
"The vacancy rate is fairly high," he said, "and that supports the issue that we're not denying coastal access."
Thanks for the great link, again, JP. I read that story and laughed, to avoid tears of pain at the ongoing misconceptions being foisted upon our sometimes gullible citizens.
I hope the Coastal Commissioners are intelligent enough to realize that less supply, increases demand of the limited market of affordable short term rentals. If only high end condos, motels, hotels, and pre-existing short term rentals are allowed, then competition will decrease. The few affordable rentals will inevitably up their prices, to market price. Also, the lower cost rooms will drift upward, as they already have.
The point is, the City should not be in the business to decrease the vacancies in hotels and motels, such as those owned by Charley Marvin, pal of City Attorneys & Council. He represented group of about 14 from Sea Bluff who made a big stink. Their own HMO would not take action to prevent rentals, instead City put ban on entire city for all future short term rentals.
City wants to encourage big development, not the little guy homeowner, who might want to rent out a room during racing season, or for a few weeks during summer vacation.
Get real, Council. People, don't buy into your spin, your obvious bias toward big development, and the moneyed, privileged few, at the expensive of those of us who comprise a more honest, generous, compassionate, less greedy community.
the ability to rent short term can be a negative but i can't buy into that in encinitas. income from short tern rentals does benefit the community. this income stream pays home-owners insurance, roof repairs and renovation on existing homes of moderate income families. in the future, with the re-tooling of social security the income from high season short term rental may be the money that allows you to continue living here until they spread your ashes at sea. the issue is not decided yet. the city couldn't push it past the coastal commission so they requested a delay and now have hired a sacramento lobbyist to help te-tool the amendment at coastal instead of bringing it back to our city. the city paid the lobbyist 15000 city tax dollars to work on this at coastal. again, anything that discourages residents from being forced out helps maintain community character. need to write coastal folks and tell them to include the community in the re-writing process. the planning commission voted against this amendment, preferring that the city enforce the existing 14 page noise and control ordinance and perhaps beef it up if necessary. the vote was 4-1 with the one vote being les bagg who was not only against the ordinance but against beefing up anything. he says there are sufficient rules already if the city wanted to enforce anything. so the vote was really 5-0 on the ban. it was the city council that disregarded the planning commission and passed the sucker anywhy. u see folks, what the city council really wants is the older parts of the community to get in dis-repair so that they might be declared blighted, then they can use the Redev.. word. don't let the city pick us off one by one, speak up.
ReplyDelete