HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-17 Public Comment - P. House - Short Term Rentals1
Clerk Temp
From:bozemancottage@gmail.com on behalf of Bozeman Cottage
<info@bozemancottage.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:44 PM
To:Agenda
Subject:June 22 City Commission comments
Categories:Public Comment
June 22, 2017
Dear Commissioners,
I am guessing that, like me, you are tired of the Short Term Rental issue, so I’m going to offer a very
simple way forward that ensures Bozeman’s neighborhoods stay as intact as they are now, doesn’t
consume a lot of resources, and gives us time as a community to get a better handle on this issue. This
can all be done without exposing the city to legal action from either side and we can move on to other
important issues.
I urge you not to adopt a complex set of highly controversial and currently unnecessary rules requiring
expensive enforcement at this point, but mainly aim at getting STRs registered and stop their growth by
capping at current levels.
Proposed Solution:
- Cap the number of STRs at the current number we have now. With so few STRs, is it really worth
worrying about where they are? Future ones can be more restricted and those details can be worked out
later.
- Process registrations that are received, everyone is vetted through the new permit system.
- Run the program and enforce then re-evaluate. At that point if additional STRs are not wanted then
leave the number of STRs unchanged. If more are wanted then randomly select the desired number
from a pool of simple applications, or use a different selection system, to be decided later.
In More Detail:
2
- Allowing current STRs the opportunity to apply for permit does have precedent around the
country (Berkeley, Ashville, NC, and Seattle to name a few), and actually here in Bozeman there are
other examples – consider all the tri-plexes in R1 by the university that were allowed resulting in some
property owners enjoying rights today that are no longer an option due to zoning changes. Current
zoning provides that STRs are a conditional use in R1 and R2, and current operators legally deserve the
option to apply for what is in essence the new CUP for short term rentals.
The pertinent questions for the city on what to do with existing STRs are:
1) how long has the city known that STRs were in operation? Answer: 20 years.
2) how many STRs has the city shut down without a complaint filed by a neighbor? Answer:
none.
3) what is the city’s opinion of the CUP process for STRs? Answer: inappropriate.
So the willful and knowing non-enforcement of the self-admitted inappropriate zoning code
with respect to STRs effectively allowed a small number to come into existence in R1 and R2
where they are currently proposed to be banned. The owners of those STRs simply did
something that was allowed to occur and was available to anyone who wished to embark in that
activity as a conditional use. Realize, we are not talking about meth labs here, they are at worst
just as innocuous as long term residences, so barring significant impacts, forcing them to shut
down is unnecessarily antagonistic in addition to being wholly inconsistent with advice given
out by the planning department for nearly two decades.
- A Cap is the only sure avenue to control oversaturation of STRs, yet doesn’t onerously and
unjustifiably shut down “good actors” in light of a lack of significant harms from existing STRs. Over
time a cap left in place will eventually whittle down the number of STRs since they don’t run with the
land. Since permits cannot be bought and sold they won’t turn into a commodity like liqueur licenses.
A cap is an essential part of this proposal.
- Registration of existing STRs will only effectively occur with an assurance of being allowed to
apply for a permit, i.e., people won’t come forward just to be shut down - they will need a guarantee
in writing from the city. Seattle guaranteed 10 years of operation and they have 12% of their rental
units in short term mode, Bozeman has only 1.4% (150 STRs and 10,640 rental units according to
census) so I would propose that, at a minimum, existing “good actor” STRs be given the opportunity to
apply for the permit to operate as long as they maintain good standing. If the city wishes to be less
restrictive and allow more than the good actors to apply for a permit, then that’s an option too, and
would result in greater participation and permit revenue. Also, the more STRs that are allowed to apply
for the permit, the fewer unintentional consequences of over-reaching regulation.
o High participation rates are needed to generate sufficient revenue to run the program,
so registration needs to be encouraged as was voiced at the May 22 meeting. After all,
that was the main focus of the original intent.?
- Economic benefit of STRs estimated at over $16M/yr using a calculator provided by the Short
Term Rental Advocacy Center, http://stradvocacy.org. I see this as paying for 1/6th of the new school
bond. I plugged in the following figures:
3
o ave # of visitors per STR = 4
o ave # of nights/yr STR is rented = 180
o ave daily spend/visitor = 150 (lodging, meals, activities, car rental, etc.)
o est # of STRs in community = 150
I know the city is not responsible for providing income options for residents, but at the same
time the income and revenue generate should not be disregarded. Net revenue to homeowners is
not high enough after expenses to attract investor-owners, but it is substantial enough to make a
big difference to homeowners’ bottom line.
- The benefits of STRs are not just economic. To go back to a world without flexible housing is
akin to going back to dentistry without Novocain. STRs are places to stay not just for visitors but also
for temporary residents, people here to nurse their college student after knee surgery, people coming
home to spread the ashes of former Bozeman residents of our historic neighborhoods, people coming to
start businesses, do research, complete medical rotations, etc. Even the current interim city manager is
staying in a short term rental this summer, a rental house that would be forced to cease operations
under the proposed regulations. STRs are useful and compatible with all neighborhoods while
simultaneously making connections with people from all over the country and the world. Peace and
quality of life is created by interactions, not by walling off our neighborhoods to outsiders. When we
travel, we become outsiders, too. In the last month I’ve hosted people coming here to start a new, large
outdoor sporting goods store on W Main, and another family coming to take over a local custom fly rod
business – both of them were full of praise for not having to try and do that from a hotel room.
- Zoning-specific STR rules are problematic due to a plethora of double standards on the ground in
various neighborhoods. Comparing the R2 northeast neighborhood streets like Ida, Plum, Wallace, and
Broadway to R3 streets such as N Tracy, N Black, N Bozeman makes one wonder if there is a map
error and these zones are actually reversed by mistake. This would wreak havoc with the fairness of the
permit as proposed.
Current proposal inflicts impacts on R3. By not limiting the number of STRs in R3 and
denser zoning districts, and simultaneously banning many if not most STRs from R1 and R2, a
huge influx of STRs is aimed at R3. Nobody seems to disagree that too many STRs carry
negative impacts to neighborhood character, so why is this exact thing being proposed
“Short-term rentals provide tangible benefits to providers, residents, travelers, businesses, and the local
community. As such, it is important to ensure that communities develop smart regulations for
governing short-term rentals that establish safeguards for both providers and travelers, alleviate
neighborhood concerns, and offer a framework that promotes compliance.” Short Term Rental
Advocacy Center
4
Sincerely,
Paul House
Bozeman Cottage Vacation Rentals