Agenda Packet 9-23-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

other platforms about it (p.22). Input should be gathered regarding regulations and—as implied in cases above—they should be clear and enforceable. The author found (p.16) that outside of the Central Oregon and North Coast regions, Airbnb accounts for only 1% of the housing stock. However, plausible speculation would find Eugene to be an area of potential growth since the city is only an hour’s drive from the coast, and hiking and backpacking is not unknown in the Eugene area itself. Not to mention a couple of athletic events on the horizon. Perhaps surprisingly, STRs are more common in lower-income neighborhoods. In most cases the STR is an entire home, and only 13% are apartments (p.18). The author favors a general principle of shared regulation (p.28-29) for Oregon communities, and this seems to dovetail with that approach most successful in other cities. It spreads responsibility among community members, business people, policy makers and others, striving for a midway point between self-regulation and centralized regulation, not requiring either regulators or regulated to be angels. It is necessary to have clear definitions of STRs and the different types, with specific numbers such as days rented per calendar year (p.29-30). This not only makes the law exact but specifies when taxes can be collected. Aligning with many other sources, the author indicates an outright ban is unlikely to work, while incentives to moderate them can be suitable to all parties. Enforcement (p.35-36) must strike a balance between hands-on and hands-off. Again echoing the experience of other cities around the nation, she notes that fines and other recriminative measures against violators are generally not too effective. Even though she calls it “A typology for smaller jurisdictions,” the author’s table on p. 40-43 seems helpful for those crafting regulations in a community of any size. Options are listed in summary form allowing simultaneous comparison by a group, and each given a grade. Bend and Hood River are examples of communities that have developed clearly written policies and guidelines. Available at the city of Bend’s website is input gathered from citizens and interested parties showing a (not necessarily representative) sample of concerns collected by a task force that made recommendations to the City Council. Policies can be changeable: In 2016 Hood River modified its policy with an ordinance to limit STR listings to permanent residents of the city, as it had been found that at least a majority of the listings had been from owners who did not live in the city. The ordinance only applies to residential zones and has a seven-year (!) grandfather clause. Comically, two council members were renting out their own homes and one resigned his position. The impetus for the ordinance was a lack of affordable permanent housing, specifically for employees of local businesses. Hood River’s public hearings on the issue highlight a variety of voices, not all of whom agree that vacation rentals and the housing shortage are related. A commentary in Hood River’s local newspaper last year says the housing affordability problem has worsened, connecting it partly to SRTs continuing to increase as rules have again proven inadequate. The problem of rentals by “absentee” homeowners is a recurrent theme. The greater tendency for owners distant from the dwelling to rent it out may be magnified in the case of resort communities. News articles show a clash between purported economic benefits and quality of life for residents, from gradual changes in neighborhood character to noise, garbage and congestion issues. Coastal communities have had to visit and revisit the concerns legislatively. Both Seaside and Cannon Beach have taken legislative steps to limit STRs, Seaside by designating sections of town not allowing them, September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3