Short Term Rentals Survive Bishop City Council Review– City’s Emphasis Should be on More Permanent Housing
Short Term Rentals were not viewed well back in 2017 when East Side government entities were dealing with what was a relatively new phenomenon. The fear was STRs would suck up available housing for potential residents. That has not been the case in Bishop, giving the City Council a rare opportunity to take no immediate action.
The question before the Council last week was a moratorium on new applications, but as Bishop Assistant Planner Ana Budnyk explained there had been no new applicants in the last 90 days and of the 15 active licenses, only eight had reported and paid Transient Occupancy Tax in the last few months. As she pointed out to the Council, the City’s strategic plan puts a high priority on new housing, not monitoring STRs.
Following public comment, the Council agreed. As Chair Jim Ellis said, “with less than a half of one percent (of the city’s housing stock) impacted, the issue should be on enforcement.” No one wanted to see Bishop’s Planning Department staff prowling the streets for unlicensed renegades. The conclusion was local residents should report those renegades but all the existing STR ordinance needed were a few tweaks.
Four current STR licensees agreed, they would not consider taking on long-term tenants. One speaker described his brief experience as a conventional landlord as “hell.”
Two women explained their rentals allowed them to own their homes. Both worked out of their houses and told the Council the income from STRs allowed them to purchase those homes and “live creatively.”
The final motion was simple: leave the ordinance as is but come up with a plan, or amendments, for enforcement.
“The conclusion was local residents should report those renegades”, referring to a person who rents out his home without obtaining government permission, possibly depriving government of its cut. This loaded language encouraging citizens to report on each other for the “renegade” crime of renting one’s home without state permission has apparently oozed out of Pravda and now appears in an American news outlet.
OMG – Stop being so dramatic.
I assume the City Council brought this issue up based on complaints from residents because it’s not desirable to have businesses run out of their neighborhoods…residents already complain about things like this (duh).
The concern is not that government doesn’t get its insignificant revenue, it’s that we have a limited about of land for housing in the Eastern Sierra and outside corporations are taking it out of the housing stock to capitalize on our recreation assets.
BTW – hotels also pay TOT because the provision of basic civic services we enjoy (water, sewer, streets, police, fire protection) cost money. So it’s not like our City Council gets a monetary benefit here (oh, ok…they get like $500/mo).
Would you prefer instead that the nefarious City Council government used taxpayer money to hire enforcement staff?
Which one are you concerned is more Gestaspo?
For all you people loving and pushing the Owens Valley tourist-trade and income,this is the spin-off and outcome of that liking…
Sure, the business owners are comfortable in their homes they’ve lived in for years,but the middle-class –lower’middle class people that are their workers making them their money,THEY are the ones either not able to find housing,if buying needing a big down-payment and high interest rate, IF they qualify,or a rental,which is very hard to find, and if there is one,the going rate of about $1,500.00 a month for a two or small three bedroom…or one bedroom places, aBout $900.00 a month in any town in the Owens Valley…