Letters to the Editor
Do the math
Dear Town Council:
Regarding possible relocation of the ice rink to Mammoth Creek Park West:
1. When one does the math it is hard to believe that the City would recommend relocating the ice rink because it wants to avoid the $3,000 per month lease cost to the school district. The amount of time just to “break-even” on the $1.3 million relocation costs, not including the roof structure, is a whopping 433 months! Surely you can find a better investment for $1.3 million than moving a perfectly good ice rink a couple of blocks away with a much better ROI.
2. Why are you even considering relocating a noisy (think people screaming/yelling, pucks hitting plexiglass shields, & a 14-propellor driven ice chiller cycling on & off, day & night) recreational/commercial project to such close proximity to a residential area, not to mention the light pollution, the extra traffic, etc? Surely an Environmental Impact Report will point this out as not feasible or recommended, let alone the litigation from surrounding HOAs.
3. Relocating the ice rink to Mammoth Creek Park West will surely devalue the surrounding properties. I’ve heard estimates of at least $100,000 per condominium unit and just the talk of this possible location has already forced prices downward. Why would the City want to harm its citizens financially, or its property tax base?
4. Why hasn’t Shady Rest Community Park been considered a feasible site? The recreation committee task force completely ignored it in their recently released alternative site study. If there are impediments, get creative. If it’s snow removal, plow the road. You already have 3 baseball fields, a soccer field, and a football field there. You found space for all of those other sports; why not find one more for the ice rink? Given the canopy of forest trees and stars. It would be a real gem of a location, and I’ll bet a welcome, one-of-a-kind, drawing-card venue.
I hope the City Council members will understand the point-of-view from surrounding home/condo owners of Mammoth Creek Park West and why the ice rink is not desirable there.
Please build a roof on the existing ice rink and work on other projects that this City needs.
Steve & Maria Ball
La Vista Blanc Condominiums
The money’s there
Dear Editor:
Mammoth Town Council members have commented that collection and enforcement of TOT (room tax) on nightly rentals cannot be adequately undertaken by the current revenue stream generated by the zoning designations. This is contrary to my experience as the Program Manager for the TOT Revenue Collection & Enforcement Program from September 2011 until February 2013.
The Program’s objective was to establish a sustainable TOT Enforcement Program that included code compliance, tax assessments, and audits in order to increase General Fund revenue by preventing illegal rentals/zoning violations, collecting past due TOT, and educating the public to ensure future compliance.
During my tenure, the Program had 1.85 full-time equivalent employees which included one full-time INTERN and three staff members who had to fit it in with their other duties. Back then, there was political will that supported the Program and it was a critical charge – to increase the General Fund and collect revenue owed to the Town. The annual cost of the Program at that time was $251,620. Throughout fiscal year 2012-13, the Program collected over $660,000 in increased TOT revenue. A large chunk of this money came from a home in a legal zone which had been rented (without remitting) for years.
The one staff member whose sole responsibility was TOT enforcement and I both left employment with the Town in the third quarter of that fiscal year. With our departure, the program lost much of its momentum. I believe had the Town Council supported these efforts through the remainder of the fiscal year, the final number of additional revenue would have been much closer to $1,000,000.
Additional revenue attributed to enforcement should be included in the annual budget due to the fact that there will always be legal and illegal remitters. Some legal remitters disappear into the black market. Properties change ownership. Circumstances shift. There will always be a need for enforcement of both legal remitters who are paying inaccurately and illegal remitters who owe taxes on their profits. There will always be an educational component in teaching new owners what our laws are. There will always be revenue generated from the TOT Enforcement & Revenue Collection Program if it is done right.
If the current Town Council were willing to make TOT collection and enforcement a priority and fund three full time positions, dedicated exclusively to the program, I have no doubt that the program would not only pay for the staff required to do the work, it would also bring in desperately needed additional revenue.
TOT enforcement and revenue collection are arguably the most important Town functions, yet this Council has dragged its feet in funding and supporting this vital program. It is inconceivable to me that while they have not funded this critical program effectively, they are arguing the need to increase the rental base.
Karen Sibert
Mammoth Lakes
Editor’s note: According to Mammoth Mayor Michael Raimondo, the TOT enforcement program currently has four full-time equivalent staff, double the staffing of Sibert’s tenure.
South Lake Tahoe and Measure Z
Dear Editor,
There has been heated debate in the community with respect to Measure Z. South Lake Tahoe has been used by the “Yes” side as an example of what not to do [in regard to community planning and nightly rentals].
We are writing this letter as both property managers and full time residents of South Lake Tahoe. We recently attended the Measure Z forum hosted by the mammoth Lakes Board of Realtors here in Mammoth, where a lot of misinformation was given about South Lake Tahoe.
South Lake Tahoe did not allow vacation rentals “willy nilly.” Rather, South Lake Tahoe did the smart thing and the right thing in taking a multibillion dollar industry and choosing to let it fuel our economy while regulating it appropriately.
The issue with vacation homes is not about location or number. The issue lies within responsible management and enforcement. A well-managed vacation rental is about teaching guests to be good neighbors. It is about educating them on household waste and the potential hazards of living with wildlife. It is about enforcing strict parking and occupancy policies and holding guests accountable for not abiding by the rules. Enforcement preserves quality of life for residents while simultaneously engaging visitors who support our local businesses and feed our economy.
South Lake Tahoe is not in a housing crisis. There is and always has been a price tag attached to living in one of the most beautiful places in the world. It is misleading to say that an increased number of vacation rental homes will negatively effect an already stagnant real estate market in Mammoth. That certainly isn’t the case in Lake Tahoe. The market will not suddenly be overrun with unaffordable homes or prevent current residents from finding quality housing. No one is knocking down our doors with eviction notices in order to jump on the short term rental bandwagon.
Please consider what happens next should you cast a “yes” vote. Take an honest look at what is behind measure Z. Measure Z can essentially sever the outlets that are the community’s life blood. Measure Z is the gateway to much more restrictive ordinances that ultimately impact local business in a detrimental manner. The focus needs to be on enforcement, not restriction. South Lake Tahoe does this with the aid of one part time employee who has been able to collect $150,000 in back-taxes, while Mammoth has 4 full-time people. Allow them, and the town council to perform the necessary functions, work to hammer out a strong process for collecting TOT, and bring greater wealth into Mammoth Lakes.
Staci Patton & Ashley Colvin
Vacasa Rentals
Mammoth & South Lake Tahoe
Count to way more than three
Dear Editor:
If the Town Council had been enforcing our laws against illegal rentals, issuing fines, protecting our quality of life and properly collecting Transient Occupancy Tax in the legal resort zones, I might have confidence in their future leadership on the nightly rental issue.
Instead, our politicians are leaving hundreds of thousands dollars in uncollected taxes in the resort zones on the table, while asking their constituents to let them cherry pick which residential neighborhoods to ‘drop in’ nightly rentals.
Mammoth Lakes is a resort community, a “Village in the Trees.” Our community has been purposefully planned with residential, resort, commercial and industrial zones. Some have argued in favor of turning our residential neighborhoods into resort zones for many, many years.
Such a huge change is too important to be left to as few as three Town Council members. We are a democracy, of, by and for the people. Vote YES on Z to protect our right to vote on this critical issue.
Sharon Raven Clark
Mammoth Lakes
A Road to Compliance
Dear Editor,
Town Council for many years “kicked the can down the road” with respect to nightly rental of single family homes in our community. Regardless of prior indecision, I feel it important to thank my fellow councilmembers, staff and community for all the input, data collection and fact-finding over recent months.
Through the public process, our community has produced an outstanding Quality of Life Ordinance. This ordinance, recently adopted by the current town council, possesses the teeth and substance through which the town can now truly enforce legal nightly rentals. Our next step should be to provide a specific road to compliance for a limited number of single-family properties to which we can apply the new ordinance.
Currently we have only 9 licensed properties of this type, which is inadequate for a resort community. I propose a three-year pilot program putting this tough ordinance to work with a strict “three-strikes-you’re-out” regulation. This would provide a path for those property owners and guests wanting to rent homes on a nightly basis. This proposal would offer 200 limited new T.O.T (Transient Occupancy Tax) licenses for single family homes with a maximum of 90 rentable nights per year. I will urge my colleagues to earmark newfound revenues to pay down our debt, increase public safety and other much-needed amenities.
I have ZERO interest in allowing nightly rentals in neighborhoods that are simply not appropriate for such activity or are prohibited by active Homeowners Association’s, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s). I will, however, support the creation of certain rental zones within the community, but ONLY where homes are currently sitting vacant the majority of the year or currently being rented illegally.
These homes would serve to meet the demand for a product in which illegally activity has already been taking place for years or has become an uncontrolled nuisance. Illegally rented or vacant homes are NOT providing community benefit, they are NOT supporting our local workforce and ARE hindering our essential community services.
If you or others you know have been on the fence with respect to supporting government by way of referendum, PLEASE think twice on what you want Mammoth Lakes to look like as a community in the next 5-10 years. This is our community, one where we all want to live, work, play and prosper. Instead of being divided by a problem, let’s work together on a solution. Please “VOTE NO” on October 6th.
Michael J. Raimondo
Mayor, Town of Mammoth Lakes
Preserve quality of life
Dear Mammoth Community,
PLEASE VOTE YES ON Z. Why? I moved to Mammoth 13 years ago to raise a family, live in a safe environment, and raise my kids in a town that we can enjoy as a family.
We chose Mammoth Lakes for several reasons. We were able to find a job that made Mammoth affordable and gave us the flexibility to enjoy the town we love. We enjoy the busy times and the quiet times unlike other resort towns. And most important, by comparison of some other resort communities, Mammoth’s General Plan protects the town by having zoning to separate neighborhoods and resort living.
Our goal has always been to invest in Mammoth. We plan on being here for the long haul. We have lived the resort, tourist lifestyle for 13 years as we live on-site at our place of work. As we all know, our town needs our tourists, the busy times and the income that allows Mammoth to flourish and maintain what we all love. T.O.T (room tax) is essential.
What is also essential is the separation by zoning that allows those of us who serve our visitors to escape when needed. Over the last 5-6 years, these boundaries have become gray. If you live in Mammoth full time, there is no denying it. The quality of life ordinances are important, but enforcement is also crucial. The backing of our T.O.T team for many councils to come will be the only way to ensure quality of life as we know it. I have served on the T.O.T Enforcement Committee since it began as a concerned lodging member and even more, a concerned community member. Although we have made huge strides with an ever changing group of people, this work is always challenging. We have generally been supported by council and the community to try to gain some control over illegal rentals and zoning; we are finally fully staffed with some amazing individuals who are getting us back on track. We hope that council will have a comprehensive plan for enforcement in the near future, but without the tools (software, a team with a credit card to be able to perform a sting operation of some kind, etc.), these very talented individuals cannot fully do their job. The community hotline has gone quiet, the hours of operation are not consistent with our busy times (off holidays and weekends), and the continued message from council to “attack this issue as a priority” must be done with a heavier stick; our penalties are simply not strong enough.
I have been arguing the issue of expansion of nightly rentals for over seven years. Some community members have been involved even longer. It is the right of a community to have a voice. Not because of this council personally, but because this issue has been on the table far too long with fear that just three future council members could decide the fate of our community and our neighborhoods. We should and need to have a voice – expansion [of nightly rentals] would be a HUGE change for Mammoth.
Mammoth Lakes is so fortunate to have zoning restrictions to protect our neighborhoods. As a parent and community member, knowing your neighbor (whether full time or the occasional weekend) brings peace to the street you live on. Peace when your kids are out simply playing in your own yard. It is similar to a condo complex with or without an onsite manager; it makes a difference between “coming home” and “spending a weekend in Mammoth.” It is the experience.
As a member of the lodging community for more than 13 years, we have a long way to go before our occupancy levels are high enough to consider adding inventory outside our current zoning restrictions.
Further, our existing inventory includes existing homes in the legal-to-rent zones. We have this product.
In addition, there is inventory that has already been approved by planning, some of which are being completed now; all are legal and add to this inventory.
Inventory is not the issue.
One could argue that by expanding rentals T.O.T will increase and we can solve the town’s money problems.
While yes, we may see a spike in T.O.T and perhaps some may come forward and become compliant; what I know of enforcement is that most will not. Most who have been caught by current enforcement simply rent again outside their zone or don’t pay tax. We need to increase enforcement and increase fines, not add to the list of what we must watch. Fines must be extreme and the D.A. must get involved in those cases where offenders are putting their websites back on the internet once their cases settle.
Once occupancy numbers are up throughout town, then we can discuss adding inventory.
Based on research in other communities, a couple thing will happen if Z does not pass. Council will make some immediate changes in an attempt to gain a dollar out of this upcoming holiday season. The small inventory we currently have of condos, homes or apartments that supply monthly rentals will shift quickly to nightly rentals which will push many of our seasonal workers out of town. Neighborhoods will shift to nightly rentals and push families out of town. Home pricing will increase in June and in Crowley. Those who rent long term will be forced to relocate to surrounding communities due to lack of inventory. Mammoth will not be the same. Businesses that rely on seasonal employees will suffer. We will not be able to offer the same “experience.”
To quote a good friend and business owner in town; if we all went into business to become rich, we would have stayed in L.A. We moved here because we can work hard for 6-7 months a year, then we get our community back to enjoy the things we love about Mammoth.
Many have been lucky enough to invest in what they thought would be a neighborhood. They have the right to decide if they want to hand off a piece of their rights to their neighbor.
I encourage you to use your voice and VOTE YES ON Z. I encourage you to get involved in protecting your neighborhoods and your investment.
A YES vote does not protect you from nightly rentals, but it will give you the power to be involved in the process moving forward.
If you have questions or concerns, please see www.letmammothdecide.org.
Cheryl Witherill
Mammoth Lakes
Consider Big Bear
Dear Editor:
I believe that a Yes vote on Measure Z creates too much rigidity and does not allow our town to adapt to future visitor demands. What are those demands going to be? I’m not sure, and neither are you. Our town needs to be able to adopt a [nightly rental] program and then have the flexibility to make changes to suit the needs of our town and visitors. The mayor of Big Bear sent information about how they handle the issue of SFRs (TPHRs) in their town. Here are some highlights.
They have no residential only areas – all homes/condos/etc. are open to nightly rentals. Only 11.9% participate in the program to rent nightly.
Within 9 months of adopting their enforcement program (to address noise, trash, parking, trespass, overcrowding, etc), call complaints went from 79% valid complaint calls to 23%. It has since dropped to 14% valid complaint calls over the last 7 years.
Town revenues have been positively impacted. Prior to the program 33.9% of the units were not inspected and approved for use and were not reporting TOT (room tax). Currently only 5.4% are not inspected and approved. Says the Mayor: “This has resulted in a direct positive impact to increased TOT fees collected, improved financial viability of our local TPHR (Transient Private Home Rental) industry through the significant reduction in unfair competition posed by unregistered TPHR units not paying TOT and increased repeat TPHR visitation due to the improved quality of our TPHR units and maintenance of the integrity of our residential neighborhoods directly associated with our TPHR enforcement program.”
When he was asked what the rationale for legal inclusion/exclusion of homes was…his response was “Approximately 2/3 of the dwelling units within the City of Big Bear Lake are second homes. Civic leaders recognized that second homeowners would utilize these dwelling units as an additional source of income in significant numbers and adopted our first TPHR registration ordinance in 1990, just 10 years after the incorporation of the City. Recognizing that TPHR occupancies are a benefit to both the tourist and our local economy, but also, recognizing the need to address negative impacts to our residential neighborhoods relating to excessive noise, overcrowding, over parking and other issues associated with registered and unregistered TPHR units, the City Council adopted our TPHR enforcement ordinance in November of 2007. The enforcement provisions contained within this enforcement ordinance have proven to be effective in preserving the integrity of and quality of life within our residential neighborhoods.”
His additional comment “I would only add that I do not get many complaint calls directly at this time nor during the almost 5 years that I have been on the Council. I have received a call or two in the past when there has been a persistent abuser (usually a rental company from off the hill) but these have usually been quickly resolved by the code enforcement staff and/or the Sheriff’s department. Our staff scours the internet to look for ads placed for unregistered units, and they are very successful in tracking these folks down and either shutting them down or getting them to apply and register. Our hotline number is 24 hrs (using a local alarm company phone service) and our code staff is called out at any time to handle a problem. Most of the issues occur on the weekend and usually involve excess noise, more people or cars than the unit is permitted for, etc.).
With the money they get from the fees and inspections on permitted rentals, they are able to staff two 24/7 compliance officers to handle complaints and all associated costs of running the program. They have a 3 strikes you’re out rule They have a spreadsheet with the permitted homes and the telephone numbers of their response agent. They work closely with their local law enforcement. It is a very detailed program.
Now, would a program like this work for our town? I think we could adopt many similar components and find a way to balance it with keeping some areas still strictly residential. No one has said they want to open the whole town up to nightly rentals but from looking at Big Bear’s program, it hardly seems the doomsday that the Yes on Z group would lead you to believe.
The problem is, we will never have a chance to modify or adapt if this measure passes. And that could be disastrous if the rest of the world does adapt and we’re left behind.
Visitors are looking to connect more with the area and/or the people they are visiting instead of being herded to the tourist district and put in a room in a hallway next to their fellow cattle that they only see on their way to get ice. Maybe, instead of complaining about and ignoring the people spending time and money in our town, we could introduce ourselves to them and let them know they can ask us for recommendations on where to eat and what to see. And hopefully they’ll leave and tell all their friends what a wonderful and friendly and accommodating community we are! Even better, maybe we’ll make a new friend or two. Vote NO on Z if you agree.
Jill Grahek
Mammoth Lakes
Resort Community in equal parts
Dear Editor:
During the lead-up to the Measure Z Special Election on October 6, there has been a lot of campaign rhetoric about whether Mammoth Lakes is a resort first or a community first. Fact is, Mammoth (like many other communities worldwide), is a RESORT COMMUNITY. Both words are on par and neither supersedes the other. While this may appear to be simply semantics, it gets to the root of our culture here in Mammoth and is vitally important to our long-term success.
Resort communities worldwide enjoy many luxuries and amenities that would otherwise never exist in such places. In Mammoth, we are blessed with many assorted bars and restaurants, a state-of-the-art bowling alley, an expanding airport, a world-class mountain, beautiful parks, hundreds of miles of spectacular trails, etc. These amenities greatly improve our quality of life as residents and are often what attracted us to move here in the first place. They are also the same draw for millions of visitors annually.
Without these guests, our town of 8,200 people in the middle of nowhere would never be able to support its current infrastructure. The flipside of being able to live beyond our local means is that we must share our town with those who choose to visit. They are not just going to send a check up every month. That’s not how the game works. I travel to many of our peer resort communities on an annual basis and it is very apparent when you’ve stepped foot in a place that has truly embraced its identity as a resort community. Currently, I have some concerns about whether or not our community has really done so.
We spend a lot of time talking about improving customer service and the positive impact that will have on the long-term success of our community. The first and most important step to providing a great customer service experience is truly welcoming our visitors and treating them as a cherished guest rather than a dispensable nuisance who clogs up our grocery store, forces us to wait a minute to take a left turn on main street during the holidays, or “ruins the character of our neighborhoods” by choosing to rent a home when vacationing in Mammoth.
This council seeks to balance the needs and wants of our local residents and visitors. Vacation rentals are clearly in demand, here and in competing resorts. Currently, we offer only 9 licensed single-family homes (20 total properties if you include Stonegate and other “like product”). By contrast, Jackson Hole, which has one of the most restrictive home rental ordinances in ski country, offers 250 licensed vacation homes for nightly rental. Park City, a town that is often referred to as having “balanced zoning”, offers 2547 licensed vacation homes. Our past failures to address this growing demand with reasonable options has unintentionally fueled a tremendous and problematic underground expansion of illegal rentals that we can no longer simply hope will go away through broad prohibition.
I believe there’s a way for us to satisfy and capitalize on this powerful visitor trend without sacrificing the integrity of those neighborhoods where most locals live. I also believe it’s my duty as an elected representative of ALL the residents and stakeholders of Mammoth Lakes to put forward some proposed elements of a nightly-rental pilot program that we might begin to discuss and perhaps even implement should the voters grant us the ability to do so. Here are some of the key components as I see them:
• Offer a limited number of residential rental business licenses to qualified property owners in zones where they are not otherwise prohibited by valid CC&Rs, initial pilot program not to exceed 10% of our overall home stock.
• Establish a maximum number of rental nights.
• Mandate compliance with all standards as established in the newly adopted TOML Quality of Life Ordinance.
• Earmark a portion of program revenues for increased funding of workforce housing, municipal police and code compliance.
• Craft and provide specific and clear legal language that can be adopted by neighborhood HOAs wishing to “opt in/out” of pilot program;
• Begin a community dialogue about the merits of distinguishing “home sharing/room rentals” from entire dwelling unit rentals in our code and our program.
A yes vote on Z hamstrings us from engaging in the rigorous planning work that we need to do as a town. A no vote gives this and future town councils the latitude and the responsibility to develop and tweak regulation and enforcement of home rentals for the benefit of all—without the need for further costly, time-consuming and divisive elections.
Regardless of how the vote goes on Oct. 6, we will have work to do on this issue and many others. Undoubtedly, we will achieve a more desirable outcome if we work together rather than cut each other down.
Colin Fernie
Mammoth Lakes Councilmember
