HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-17 Public Comment - D. Campbell - Short Term RentalsFrom: Deanna Campbell [d.campbell999@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 4:08 PM
To: Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; I‐Ho Pomeroy; Jeff Krauss
Subject: Response to Monday Meeting and Recommendations for Action
To the Mayor and Commissioners,
Thank you, Ms. Pomeroy, for your insightful questions and defense of property rights. Thank you, Ms
Andrus, for recommending that we all step back and take another run at this. Thank you, Mr. Krauss for
your first amendment. Had it been earlier and everyone less tired and confused, I think it might have
passed. Thank you Mayor Carson and Mr. Mehl for your input.
My sleep on Monday night was greatly disturbed by the prospect of the obliteration of my lifelong
retirement plan being dismissed as a case of “collateral damage” by a ham handed city regulation.
I propose that you can arrive at a solution without such abuse. Recommendations follow my
observations from Monday’s meeting.
One of you wrote off the financial hardship these regulations will impose on some as simply a case of
people purchasing homes they “couldn’t afford”. This is an insult to the age old and respected
profession of investing in real estate and maximizing the income it can return. It is no more irresponsible
than investing in a capricious stock market which I have always considered nothing less than gambling. I
stand in favor of good solid real estate investment as a financial tool. Bozeman will not be considered a
good place to live if its residents cannot depend on city government to protect prudent real estate
investment.
Mayor Taylor stated that it “can’t be a Taking if it was never a right”. I think that is faulty reasoning as
STRs are regulated and thereby recognized in state law as reasonable and lawful use of property. To
deny it could be construed as a Regulatory Taking.
Some of you talked about maintaining the “character of neighborhoods.” I am all in favor of beautiful
neighborhoods. That is why I purchased my triplex on South Grand and spent the last 20 years
improving it…winning a city beautification award in the process for improving a commercial property.
Now, you are taking action to limit my use of this beautiful property and maximize my real estate
investment. I did not make the investment in order for people to walk by and admire it. I made it and
nursed it along for all these years as my retirement nest egg. Depriving me the option of a part time
Type 2 STR will be the nullifying of my long term retirement plan. There are others in this position.
Type 1 STRs are not an option that I would ever pursue. As a single woman, I would never co‐habitat
with a stranger. It is contrary to common sense and safety precaution and might even be against my
religion! I am quite sure I am not alone in this. It is wrong to limit any property owner to Type 1 only.
Mayor Carson and others described “traditional neighborhoods” in a fashion completely foreign to me. I
have lived in my triplex for 19 years. It is designated in an R1 zone even though as I have already stated,
I am one of two triplexes and two or three duplexes…one is hard to determine…on this block. And as I
have learned in this process an STR at the end of the block. There are no lemonade stands on the
corner…there are no kids…the neighborhood is too expensive for young families. No one ever returned
my fence jumping pet. Someone called animal control. I am flanked by transient university students.
After all these years, I know the name of one neighbor to the south and the landlord to the north. We
speak two or three times every five or ten years. This is sufficient for all of us.
We police our neighborhood in an individual and private manner. I clean up after the several parties in
the neighborhood during opening week of MSU, homecoming and graduation. If noise gets out of hand I
call the police. Records will show maybe four or five calls over the years. My front patio furniture went
missing one summer…I am pretty sure it graced the living room of a near‐by student. There is nothing as
idyllic as described to you by the residents on a few blocks of South Third who make up the majority of
nay‐sayers in this regulatory matter. Traditional is … as traditional is. It varies from block to block. Yet
your regulations attempt to see all neighborhoods as some imaginary hold over from the fifties.
Over the years I have had friends and family stay in my home while I was away. My travels took me out
of town and country off and on for two to three months a year. I notified the tenants in the other two
units that guests would be coming and going. My son was always available to call for any repairs or
maintenance. It is my home with my personal possessions in it. There are always plenty of instructions
left for guests to insure they are safe and comfortable. There has never been a complaint from any
neighbor in almost 20 years. It was the grateful and heartwarming thank you notes I received that
confirmed my satisfaction with the plan use STRs as a way to supplement my retirement income. My
plan is hardly irresponsible as characterized by one of you.
Another confusion that I think the commission expressed was that of characterizing the Type 1 and Type
2 STRs as part of some international attempt to take over neighborhoods in desirable destination
communities. Type 1 and 2 STRs are owner occupied homes engaged in a part time activity that is
recognized by the state as a reasonable use of property. This part time activity employs local people for
management, cleaning and maintenance. The fact that the management utilizes an international
platform for advertising does not make the owner an international business person any more than
eating a hamburger makes one a rancher.
I know it was late and we were all tired. But I would also submit that you were confused to conflate the
management service providers such Cottage Vacation Rentals as one and the same as property owners.
One of you said all you heard was what a good business it was therefore it should be regulated. Yes,
these management firms are full time businesses and if you wish to regulate them it would be a
separate matter.
My recommendation is that the City toss this plan out. Begin again with a different end in mind. Rather
than the intent to enact draconian regulations to control a grossly generalized perception of a future
problem and address some nebulous international threat, I would suggest a more user friendly solution
that utilizes existing state laws and local ordinances with a very simple overlay of city licensing.
I believe that your fears are primarily based on the prospect of Type 3 STRs taking over our
neighborhoods. Type 3 full time STRs with out of town owners, perhaps even international concerns is a
completely different animal than Type 1 and Type 2 owner occupied properties rented on an occasional
basis. Why fire a canon intended for large game at a friendly bunny?
I suggest that you completely eliminate Type 1 as a designation. Being present with a stranger tenant is
a decision that only the home owner can make. The city has no place to make that a condition of doing
business. Aside from the safety factor, and the “Yhew” factor, it creates a parking problem as the
owner’s space would not be free for the guest.
Type 2 STRs should be legal in all zones. Any home owner should be free to realize the income potential
of their investment on a part time basis. These activities could be minimally regulated for health and
safety and remain subject to local noise and nuisance ordinances.
Just for information purposes it is noteworthy that close oversight of a property by an absent owner is
entirely possible through an app on a smart phone. It gives instant notification of noise, smoke and
water! Noise can be curtailed before it ever escalates to a law enforcement matter. By nature of the fact
that STRs are short, any trash problem is promptly addressed in making ready for the next guest.
Reviews from guests are gold and owners strive for all five stars. The residents on Third Street voiced
many fears but had few if any, actual incidents to report.
In summary I recommend the following:
1. That you eliminate the Type 1 designation altogether as lacking common sense and safety and
infringing on the personal space of property owners. Further, dual occupancy complicates the parking
issue by requiring two spaces in place of one.
2. Allow Type 2 STRs in all zones and keep the regulations simple and low cost. Remember, these are
simply owners wishig to engage in a low impact occasional rental of their personal homes which are
otherwise occupied by them for the majority of the year. Not to allow it leaves homes unoccupied for
these times that owners may travel. This is a greater fire hazard to the neighborhood.
3. I would take issue with any set back requirements placed on homes in older districts as suggested
by Mayor Taylor. Not all of us own homes on half city blocks. There is an assumption that STR guests are
noisy and disruptive. I would say they would have to raise a lot of rukus to out do the students living all
around me.
4. I do not think Type 2 STRs warrant a full CUP. I have just undergone the CUP process for the
expansion of the unit I occupy in my triplex. It was expensive, time consuming, exhausting and quite
labor intensive for me and the city. How could you ever hope to process the 350 or so possible CUP
applications with present City resources? Each one will eat up several hours of staff and commissioners
meeting time costing many of hours of staff time.
5. There should be no grandfathering or caps on Type 2 STRs. No resident owner should be
disenfranchised in that manner. Remember these are occasional low impact rentals. I think that it has
been adequately demonstrated that STR properties are kept up and managed more closely than long
term rentals or even owner occupied residences.
6. The bulk of the regulatory action should be directed at Type 3 STRs where you have out‐of‐ town
owners or even international concerns whose entire business is hospitality. It is possible such activity
could pose a threat to the flavor of a community. They could cause the hollowing out that you fear.
Perhaps caps on this kind of commercial activity are warranted. That is a very different issue from Type 2
resident owners doing a part time activity which by your own research has been shown to be an asset to
the Bozeman community as a whole. (Section 1, Legislative findings, page 2 of draft proposal Ordinance
1974.)Thank you for the time you have devoted to this hot topic. I pray that you end up getting it right.
Sincerely,
Deanna Campbell
1015 South Grand
Bozeman, Montana