CARBO STUPOR

There was a press release this week announcing the mutual “parting of ways” between Inyo Supervisors and former Inyo Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Nate Greenberg. He had served as CAO since September, 2022. 

I guess he had outlived his usefulness to the Board once he had shepherded through raises for everybody.

You’d think that would’ve made him quite popular with the troops. Alas, the generals were apparently less sanguine. 

Even though I don’t recall his bosses voicing any opposition along the way to Greenberg’s largesse.

As Nate was fond of saying in budget meetings, “I’m not going to balance the budget on the backs of our employees.” 

Well, duh. Not when the well-fed county government is already slumped in a carbohydrate stupor atop the helpless taxpayers.

Klusmire told me this morning that the County Museum Director post he left in 2021 now pays 50% more than it did when he retired. 

This is fairly representative of the wage spiral within county government.

By comparison, according to the CPI (Consumer Price Index), $1 dollar in 2021 is worth about $1.19 today. 

I checked the Sheet’s rate cards and see my rates have risen 14% over the past four years. 

But if Supervisors think they can jettison Greenberg and not be held accountable for their spendthrift ways, they are sadly mistaken. 

What may have also sealed Nate’s fate was … obsession with spreadsheets at the expense of services. 

At one meeting prior to his departure, he lamented that he hadn’t been able to address the County’s EMS issue because he’d been consumed with creation and approval of the budget for the previous two months.

Which strikes one as particularly tone deaf. 

Woe is me, I’m working soooo hard it’s affecting my work/life balance. 

Note to staff: When the inevitable recession hits, you’re gonna have to do more than merely look busy. 

Mono County Planning Commission approved changes in STR (nightly rental) policy at its meeting Tuesday. 

Community Development Director Wendy Sugimura was refreshingly candid – but I’m not sure the economic rationale is sound. 

She said the purpose of policy changes is to prioritize residential use, prevent the commodification of housing and prevent loss of residential housing to a business model. 

Her argument was that to reduce “commodification” of housing, we need to limit the number of transient rental permits. She said this will lower sale and rental prices and make housing more affordable to local residents.

“STRs are not a property right or entitlement,” she said. 

All noble sentiments, but I’m still not sure how that makes a local resident more competitive when bidding against Southern California (or the rest of the world, for that matter). 

Regardless of whether the unit is permitted for STR or not. 

My personal belief is that larger market forces will dictate what happens next. 

By larger forces, I think the combined weight of taxes and insurance and the like will continue to vex even the cleverest of planners – it won’t be a question of whether a local or a non-local will buy a place so much as if anyone can buy a place. And the costs of the “STR model” will become so high as to ultimately depress tourism demand. 

Jacking the TOT rate last year will not help. 

Maybe a local or two will buy a place … if they work remotely.