Editorial: The Vacation Rental Blues
After 14 months of public participation and a set of recommendations by its own Planning Commission, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors elected to disregard all that and go its own way on regulating vacation rentals. The 4-1 vote, Susan Gorin dissenting, now sets the stage for yet another cycle of hand-wringing and confusion surrounding this very contentious issue. Will a “three strikes you’re out” complaint policy solve the problem? Not likely.
The so-called “sharing economy” looks a lot like ordinary commercial business to us, and we’ve gone on record before to say that such commercial activity has no place within residential neighborhoods. The whole intent of zoning is to restrict and limit uses so that issues of incompatibility are forestalled. By allowing the continued issuance of permits for vacation rentals in residential R1 zones, such incompatibility is inevitable, as is the conflict it engenders. Once permitted, revocation of such permits is no simple matter, even under the so-called “three-strikes complaint” approach which the supervisors have now directed county staff to develop. We must ask: what will constitute a valid complaint verified by whom? A whole new can of worms has, we’re afraid, been opened.
It seems to us that if bias has any place in this matter, it should be in favor of preserving residential integrity, not commercial uses in R1 zones. We live a rural valley, one that enjoys natural peace and quiet, which if broken is broken by the whinny of a horse or a barking dog. The disruption of a “party house” rented for the weekend is exactly that, an unwelcome disruption that changes the character of country life. And even if noise is not an issue, neighborhood integrity is. We prize the neighborly, small-town feeling of our valley. Only our first district supervisor appears to share those values.
Commercial uses should be restricted to commercial zones or zones appropriate to such use. Scarce law enforcement resources are better spent than chasing down noise and parking complaints by harried residents. If vacation rentals are ok in R1 zones, what about commercial auto repair, hair-cutting salons and garage grocery stores?
The supervisors have, unwittingly perhaps, undermined the entire concept of zoning, and we suggest they revisit this issue immediately and do the right thing, namely prohibit accepting applications for new vacation rentals in R1 zones.
3 thoughts on “Editorial: The Vacation Rental Blues”
Comments are closed.
I agree with the editorial that we don’t really have meaningful zoning when we allow AIRB&B, VRBO and others to rent out their homes in locations zoned R1. What’s next?
Thank you. R1 was originally meant to mean “Residential” – defined as a place where people RESIDE. Sonoma County decided not to rezone our neighborhoods, which would have required an open, democratic, hearing process. Instead they simply redefined what R1 means. So now life in Glen Ellen and elsewhere where residences are allowed to conduct only one type of business, that which brings loads of drunks into neighborhoods to raise hell, with no oversight – but paying lucrative TOT revenue into the county’s General Fund, is an utter misery. The greed of the BOS is destroying communities throughout the county. This must be stopped. Forcing people from their homes is a real tragedy – and an ethical breach of the public interest.
It’s just absurd to have short term vacation rentals in residential zoned areas. There is no good valid reason to allow it. Residents/families should not be subjected to constant strangers occupying vacation rentals in their neighborhood. Above all, it’s a safty issue for families with children.