The group ‘Let Mammoth Decide’ submitted the following letter to Sierra Wave Media:
At last week’s Council meeting, instead of adopting the Let Mammoth
Decide Initiative or scheduling an election, a decision was made to order another staff report studying the Initiative.
Mayor Pro Tem Raimondo questioned the very legitimacy of the Initiative and the
signature gathering process, arguing that the people who signed the petition were mislead into signing. This is a false and shameful accusation. The Initiative volunteers are comprised of over 40 Mammoth residents, including our town’s most well respected and honorable citizens. To besmirch their hard and honest work, as well as the intelligence of the voting public, is dishonorable.
In contrast, the trend towards city councils restricting nightly home rentals in California continues to grow, with the Manhattan Beach council voting unanimously to ban nightly rentals throughout the entire town.
This is another, in a long line of tourist-based cities that have recently decided to increase restrictions on nightly rentals, including Carlsbad, Palos Verdes, Laguna Beach, Aliso Viejo, Santa Monica, Sonoma and Jackson Hole. Even South Lake Tahoe, which legalized nightly rentals across the board years ago, and which some anti-Initiative folks have touted as a model for Mammoth, has recently attempted to put their nightly rental cat back in the bag.
To make our Council’s apparent opposition to the Initiative even more bizarre is the fact that Mammoth already has zones that allow nightly home rentals, with over 180 stand-alone homes that are legal to be rented on a nightly basis and dozens more under construction.
Additionally, inside of these nightly rental zones, there are entire neighborhoods that past councils allowed to prohibit nightly rentals (for example, Ranch Road, Greyhawk, etc.). If the anti-Initiative folks want the Council to maintain the power to expand nightly home rentals, they should look no further than these developments, where the Council can still expand nightly rentals even after the Initiative passes.
The Let Mammoth Decide Initiative simply says that for the three low-density residential zones, nightly rentals cannot be expanded unless the voters approve.
Instead of trying to figure out ways to de-legitimize the democratic process and the overwhelming number of Mammoth voters who signed the petition, the Town Council should listen to its voters. There are a lot of serious issues facing our town, so we hope the Council chooses to respect the will of the people and move on to the other issues we
elected them to tackle.
Let Mammoth Decide
Dear Town Council,
Let this matter go to a public vote.
I would encourage anyone who signed the petition to show up at a council meeting and confront the idea that their signature was not legitimate. Maureen
I have to agree with Jay Jay and others commenting here. We signed the petition and were not persuaded or coerced in any way to do so. The individuals who were offering the petition for perusal were among the most respected persons in our community. One is a retired local… Read more »
It is scary what Councilman Raimondo and his cohorts are doing. Step 1: Willfully misinterpret (lie about) the initiative. Step 2: Use this willful misinterpretation to undermine the legitimacy of the initiative. This is some anti-democratic Orwellian stuff we’re seeing out of the Mammoth government and its back rooms, and… Read more »
I signed that petition too! I knew exactly what I was signing. I live in an RMF 2 zone on Davison Rd. In 1993-2005 we did nightly rentals in our vacation home and paid all the town fees involved including a fee to inform all the surrounding neighbors what are… Read more »
There are always opening in the prison bakery for unethical / criminal politicians.
How many property owners who are 2nd homeowners or owners who are typically registered to vote in other counties – are aware of this effort/initiative? It is possible that the overwhelming majority in favor of this effort is not as overwhelming when all property owners are involved – not just… Read more »
There’s a reason why you are only supposed to be able to vote on local issues in the area in which you reside full-time…because the agendas and concerns of a 2nd homeowner (presumably) tend to differ from those of full-time residents, and the latter should naturally take priority.
Your logic is truly bemusing and sad. It doesn’t matter where one lives or resides – if you are a property owner you have equal rights regardless. If that is the rule of law that you subscribe to – it is truly a sad day for our community. I usually… Read more »
I signed that thing, I don’t feel misled. I’ll vote against it for sure but it’s not solely my decision. It’s OUR decision. I’m betting it won’t pass, I hope to hell it won’t pass. Who the heck wants a bunch of loud obnoxious, disrespectful yay-hoos who shoo our dogs… Read more »
It’s interesting how some current and former councilmembers are in favor of the democratic process when it gives them power, but are opposed to the democratic process when it takes their power away.
In the most objective manner, I would beg people to first consider the following; what makes staff” qualified to make further suggestions? There is no one on staff who is a subject matter expert. They have no legitimate experience. Has Staff ever properly completed an audit of the TOT as… Read more »