These are a summary of the discussion on Nextdoor that was deleted. I managed to resurrect it and am continuing the discussion there but most social media services are open to abuse and unscrupulous people use whatever methods they can to prevent others from expressing their views on them. It is because of that that I created this website and blog - as an alternative to censorship and to provide information to local folk who might be interested.
Because the discussion flowed back and forth I have tried to group points on a common topic regardless of when they occurred in the discussion.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST THE SHORT-TERM RENTING OF HOMES IN PALM SPRINGS
• ECONOMIC ROLE OF TOURISM
o Tourism is not the main driver of the PS economy
• VR OWNERSHIP AND RESIDENCY:
o Owners of STR homes:
• do not live in Palm Springs.
• are not neighbors. They are transient/have “no skin in the game”.
• are corporations.
• are greedy.
• THE VR “INDUSTRY”
o The short-term renting of homes in Palm Springs is rightly referred to as an “industry” as evidenced by the fact that a large national corporation both owns one of the local VR agencies and funded opposition to the new ordinance.
• HOTELS VERSUS SHORT TERM HOME RENTING
o Bedspace capacity:
• Hotel spaces are increasing and VR capacity isn’t needed / if VRs disappeared it wouldn’t matter.
• The new hotels got tax breaks so we need to drive business to them to get a return on our investment.
o Small hotels have suffered as a direct result of VRs. Ending VRs would boost occupancy of small hotels.
o The Desert Sun reported that many PS hotels are marginally sustainable with average occupancy rates of <60%.
o Homeowners who want to offset the cost of homeownership should only do so via long-term renting not short-term renting.
o If VRs were banned the City could save the cost of the new enforcement program it has just set up (~$1.7m).
• VR GUESTS’ BEHAVIOR
o They are people who otherwise would be kicked out of hotels
o They force neighbors to play policeman
o They make excessive noise
• IMPACT OF VRs:
o Reduce the value of surrounding homes
o VRs do not contribute to neighborhood economies or cultures
o The profit VR homeowners make leaves the city.
o Diminish the quality of life of neighbors.
o The presence of homes rented for less than 29 days reduces the connectedness in a community, and reduces the sense of community among neighbors.
o Diminish legal rights of residents who don’t rent out their homes.
o The short-term rental of a home is not allowed by planning designations of areas as residential. Homes in areas designated as Residential may not be used for commercial purposes. The rental by a homeowner for short-term stays is a commercial activity. Therefore such renting should not be allowed.
o Homes rented for less than 29 days are hotels.
o The most important perspective is that of the residents of a neighborhood, not STR home owners.
• THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW ORDINANCE GOVERNING VRs
o Home owners were adequately represented by VR agents and real estate agents as the interests of the agents are closely aligned with those of the owners.
o These people were told that if they didn’t accept the new ordinance VRs would be banned.
o The industry rejected the first ordinance, which was developed after extensive public consultation, so they are the ones who lack moderation or compromise.
-------------- [ END OF SUMMARY] -----------