Letters to the Editor
NIMBYism and the Let Mammoth Decide folks
Dear Editor,
If the facts are against you, argue public policy. If the public policy is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and public policy are against you, abuse the other side’s motives and character.
A group of citizens has put before the voters an initiative that will require Mammoth’s town council to seek voter approval before changing the laws regarding nightly rentals of homes in residential neighborhoods.
Proponents of such rentals argue that the town would reap financial benefits and additional TOT (bed tax), if single family homes became legal nightly rentals.
Opponents of nightly rentals in residential neighborhoods have argued that legalization will adversely impact homeowners’ quality of life and will adversely impact hotel businesses that already struggle to stay afloat economically.
Passions have devolved for a few into vitriolic and juvenile name calling: “Your ideas (opposing nightly rentals in residential neighborhoods) are the epitome of NIMBYism. YOU GOT YOURS!”
The term NIMBY – “not in my backyard” – has long been used as a pejorative to cast citizens who oppose change as selfish individuals who care only about themselves. The homeowners in the Trails have been called NIMBYs for opposing the recycle facility in the industrial park. The homeowners adjacent to the bell-shaped parcel have been called NIMBYs for wanting to keep the parcel as open space. The Snowcreek HOAs opposed a trail through their meadow—NIMBYism.
Other NIMBY conflicts include the location of the ice rink, the location of affordable housing, and the ski back trail to the village. The “Let Mammoth Decide” (LMD) folks are now being called NIMBYs for opposing single family rentals in residential neighborhoods.
For example, one attack on the LMD folks begins with: “We are a destination resort town that relies on tourism dollars.”—(True statement) “NOT a senior citizen retirement old folk Leisure World Home.”—(Condescending, but a true statement) “Sorry we are fresh out of Depends adult diapers!!!”—(This statement implies the folks behind the “Let Mammoth Decide” initiative are senior citizens in need of diapers.)
Name calling relies on people’s emotional involvement rather than their reason and logic. Calling the LMD folks NIMBYs is probably not the best label the anti-initiative folks might want to sling at their neighbors. A NIMBY is someone who is looking out for their quality of life rather than expecting a neighbor or a town council to defend their values and property rights. And there is something American about standing up for one’s community, standing with fellow citizens who want to preserve their quality of life.
Another example of recent name calling came with the use of “Rocket Surgeons” to demean the LMD folks. When did surgeons begin to work on rockets? A mixed metaphor is a combination of images that don’t fit well together. To wit: The town council’s “Let Mammoth Decide” debate tumbled through the meeting, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a tumble dryer.
Name calling is also often implied. Mayor Raimondo argued that the people who signed the petition were misled into signing it. His statement implies that the folks collecting signatures were duplicitous and the people signing the petition were too stupid to know what they were signing.
After implying the LMD folks and their supporters are stupid, the argument shifts to the economic value of neighborhood rentals. “Just imagine the trickle down effect putting another 500 beds on the tax rolls would have!” (The effect: With the addition of 500 beds (homes) to the rental pool, approximately one home out of three in residential neighborhoods would become a transient rental property.)
The economic pot of gold (sarcasm intended) is additional TOT revenues for the town and an income source for homeowners. Secondarily, the trickle down effect of home rentals would cascade into more customers for local businesses. Unfortunately, everything that glitters is not gold. If the town’s annual average occupancy remains at 36 percent then the existing rental properties, hotels and condo rentals, will lose customers to single family rentals.
But the real elephant in the room is the town council’s recent actions to incentivize new development (build it and they will come) by cutting developers’ fees by approximately 63 percent and affordable housing fees by 70 percent. In addition to these incentives, developers have proposed that the town council consider giving them “TOT concessions,” which means the TOT collected by new development over the next five or ten years will stay with that hotel to incentivize its development and bottom line.
It has been suggested that by allowing nightly rental in single family neighborhoods, the town council will be in a better position to incentivize new development with TOT concessions. Conspiracy theory? Perhaps, we’ll see.
A digression! In a recent letter to the local media, the author (Paul Rudder) invokes the Founding Fathers twice to give weight to his argument to let the town council debate, deliberate, and decide. For the record, the Founding Fathers created three branches of government because they didn’t trust government. They believed politicians could be corrupted and the electorate could be duped. If the Founding Fathers had wanted an efficient government they would have established a monarchy.
Whatever the outcome of the “Let Mammoth Decide” initiative, most of us will still be standing in line at Vons the week after the election with our NIMBY neighbors who also want the best for themselves and our community.
Kirk Stapp
Mammoth Lakes
