OPINION
4A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
Founded in 1873
DAVID F. PERO, Publisher & Editor
LAURA SELLERS, Managing Editor
BETTY SMITH, Advertising Manager
CARL EARL, Systems Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager
DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager
HEATHER RAMSDELL, Circulation Manager
OUR VIEW
Rentals issue
puts democracy
into action
R
egulations surrounding short-term rentals continue to
be a divisive issue on the North Coast.
This past week, the Gearhart City Council unani-
mously adopted an ordinance that contains new rules to reg-
ulate short-term rentals. The ordinance was several years in
the making with public hearings that illed meeting rooms
and divided the community. Even after the new ordinance
was adopted, a portion of the Gearhart community remains
divided and plans to push for an initiative that will supersede
the new rules.
Farther south, in Cannon Beach, the City Council hopes
to make its short-term rental regulations more “clear and
understandable” and is working on new code amendments
to streamline the process. Part of that proposed streamlining
would make short-term rental permits more similar to busi-
ness license applications instead of planning or zoning deci-
sions, a move that would shift review of permit applications
from the city’s Planning Commission to the City Council. It
would also shift appeals from the Land Use Board of Appeals
to Circuit Court.
The proposal has irked members of the Planning
Commission who are now at odds with the council on the
issue. At their August meeting, Planning Commissioner
Robin Risley put it bluntly, saying, “I think the whole com-
munity should be more involved in that decision and you are
eliminating one of the steps.”
Gearhart
In Gearhart, the new rules go into effect in 30 days, fol-
lowed by a one-time 60-day period in which property owners
may apply for short-term rental status. Applicants must pay a
$600 fee and show proof they have paid their taxes. No new
permits will be issued after the 60-day period. The new rules
include parking requirements and occupancy limits among
other restrictions, and the permits may only be transferred
by inheritance rather than being passed on with the sale of a
home.
The clear intent of the new rules is to reduce the number of
short-term rentals over time through attrition.
But those new rules have led a group of homeowners to
announce their intention to seek an election initiative that
would put an alternative proposal before voters and supersede
the council’s ordinance. The initiative would allow the trans-
fer of permits through home sales, would increase the num-
ber of permits allowed and calls for changes in the occupancy
and parking limitations.
Although initiative backers say the city hasn’t listened
to them, Mayor Dianne Widdop said after the meeting that
“everyone has had the opportunity to be heard.”
According to City Attorney Peter Watts if the group
does push for an initiative for the voters it is too late for
November’s election, but it could be on the ballot next year.
Cannon Beach
In Cannon Beach, the council will continue to reine its
proposed amendments with the hope of completing the task
by the end of the year.
The council will likely hold a work session next month to
discuss the potential changes and other proposals to the short-
term rental permitting process. Working out the differences
with the Planning Commission should be an obvious priority
during upcoming work sessions on short-term rentals.
In both cities, the issue has put elected oficials and resi-
dents in motion.
Speaking about a possible initiative after all the work
Gearhart oficials have put into the new rules, City
Administrator Chad Sweet hit the nail directly on the head
when he told Daily Astorian reporter R.J Marx that, “For me,
it’s all just part of the process. It’s democracy in action.”
He’s exactly right.
In Gearhart, the new rules are going into effect and the
homeowners who oppose the ordinance aren’t shut out of the
process, they still have the opportunity to seek the ballot ini-
tiative. If it gets that far, voters will have the inal say next
year.
In Cannon Beach, the short-term rental revisions are still in
the early stages and should entail both the City Council and
the Planning Commission working out the details together
and not be on opposing sides before any new changes are put
in place.
That too, is part of the democratic process.
GUEST COLUMN
Gearhart coalition responds
to short-term rental initiative
By the FRIENDS OF
GEARHART
For The Daily Astorian
pen letter to short-term rental
owners: On Wednesday eve-
ning, the Gearhart City Council unani-
mously passed an ordinance regulating
vacation rental dwellings. This ordi-
nance was a result of months of work
by the Planning Commission, several
public hearings that were so large they
were held in the irehouse and months
of work by the City Council with input
from the city manager, city planner
and city attorney. The ordinance as
adopted is fair to both residents who
do not rent their homes, and non-res-
idents, who are the majority of short-
term landlords.
Now the short-term landlords say
they have drafted an initiative that they
claim they are going to put on the bal-
lot for a vote by Gearhart voters. They
claim the initiative is a fair compro-
mise. A fair comparison of the initia-
tive to the ordinance adopted by the
City Council says otherwise.
O
Lodging taxes
First, the ordinance adopted by the
City Council makes it a condition of
obtaining a permit to rent your home
that you have paid your lodging taxes to
the city for the previous year. The pro-
posed short-term rental (STR) owner’s
initiative does not make that a condi-
tion. We are not sure why that would be
a problem for those proposing the initia-
tive, because we are sure they all have
paid their lodging taxes that are due.
Second, the ordinance adopted by
the City Council limits occupancy to
two people per bedroom. Children
under 2 years old are exempt. Sep-
tic systems for a home are designed
to accommodate two people per bed-
room. The proposed STR owner’s ini-
tiative limits occupancy to two people
per bedroom, plus two, with a maxi-
mum limit of 18 people, plus exempts
people under 18 years old. Therefore,
a three-bedroom home could accom-
modate eight adults and eight chil-
dren. Not a good prospect for the sep-
tic system.
Third, the ordinance adopted by
the City Council requires that there
be one parking space within the prop-
erty boundary line for each bedroom.
This new STR-owner initiative has
no parking requirements. The pro-
posers of the initiative make the argu-
ment that those homeowners who do
not rent can park as many cars as they
want on their property. But how often
do homeowners who do not rent have
eight adults and eight children occu-
pying their home seven days a week
for three months during any given
summer?
“In the old
days we would
say ‘See you
in court,’ but
today we say,
‘We will see
you at the
ballot box.’”
Friends of Gearhart
Fourth, the ordinance adopted
by the City Council requires a septic
tank inspection approved by the Clat-
sop County Health Department. The
ordinance further does not allow a
rental where there are cesspools. The
proposed initiative requires no such
inspection.
Making contact
Fifth, the ordinance by the City
Council requires that the home-
owner who is renting his home pro-
vide a name and telephone number
and a response person. The ordinance
further requires that the person be
available to respond physically
within 30 minutes, and in fact phys-
ically respond within 30 minutes if
requested. The new STR owner-pro-
posed initiative only requires that
a phone number be provided. That
phone number may be to a person in
Portland, Seattle or California.
Sixth, the initiative by the City
Council does not allow a permit to be
transferred if the property is sold. The
proposed initiative does not have that
restriction.
Seventh, the ordinance adopted
by the City Council has gen-
eral restrictions on the appearance
of the property to be rented. The
STR-owner initiative has no such
restrictions.
Eighth, the ordinance adopted by
the City Council requires a safety and
ire inspection. The proposed initia-
tive has no such requirement.
Ninth, the initiative adopted by the
City Council has penalties for vio-
lations of the ordinance. If a home-
owner who rents his home is in vio-
lation of the ordinance, his permit
may be revoked. The proposed STR-
owner initiative has no penalties for
violation whatsoever. That may be
because the ordinance has no restric-
tions that may be violated.
And then there is the poison pill
that has been written into the initia-
tive. The new STR-owner initiative
provides that if it is adopted, it may
be only amended in the future by the
voters, not by the City Council.
There is one thing that we agree
with those who are proposing the ini-
tiative: That the voters should have a
say in this matter. Therefore, if short-
term rental owners go forward with
their initiative, we will be providing
a counter initiative that will be placed
before the same voters.
The counter initiative will be
very simple. It will state as follows:
“A rental of less than 30 days is a
non-permitted use in R-1 and R-2
zoned neighborhoods. Any viola-
tion of this ordinance shall result in
a penalty of $500 per day.” In the
old days we would say “See you in
court,” but today we say, “We will
see you at the ballot box.
JEANNE MARK
WILSON MARK
PENNY SABOL
RICK SABOL
On behalf of the Friends of
Gearhart
Time for a political realignment
By DAVID BROOKS
New York Times News Service
here’s a good chance many of you
will be switching political parties
over the next 15 years. You may be a
corporate executive who’s voted rock-
solid Republican for decades, but you
may be a consistent Democrat by 2024.
You may be an Afri-
can-American com-
munity activist in
Cleveland, but don’t
be surprised if you
someday call the
Republican Party
home.
The fact is that political parties can
swap constituencies in unexpected and
dramatic ways. Over American history
there’s been a general pattern: a period
of party stability; then some new issue
comes to the fore that divides the coun-
try in new ways; old party coalitions
fall apart and new ones emerge.
African-Americans were once
Republican, but the Great Depres-
sion brought economics to the fore
and FDR lured them the other way.
New England professionals were
once Republican, too, but the rise
of Barry Goldwater-Ronald Reagan
Sun Belt conservatism turned them
Democratic.
We seem to be at one of those trans-
formational moments now.
T
Dying out
In the irst place, many of the exist-
ing partisan mentalities are dying
out. This is the last presidential elec-
tion in which two baby boomers will
be running against each other. In the
years ahead, politics will no longer be
deined by the hidden animosities of
the Vietnam era, by the sexual revo-
lution/culture war issues of the 1970s.
Future candidates will not be nos-
talgic for some white America of
ancient memory or the union-heavy
labor markets of the 1950s. They’re
not going to be ired up by the “para-
dise lost” hot buttons that excite the old
guys who watch Fox News.
Politics is catching up to social
reality. The crucial social divide today
is between those who feel the core
trends of the global, information-age
economy as tailwinds at their backs
and those who feel them as headwinds
in their face.
That is to say, the most import-
ant social divide today is between a
well-educated America that is marked
by economic openness, traditional fam-
ily structures, high social capital and
high trust in institutions, and a less-ed-
ucated America that is marked by eco-
nomic insecurity, anarchic family struc-
tures, fraying community bonds, and a
pervasive sense of betrayal and distrust.
These two groups live in entirely
different universes. Right now each
party has a foot in each universe, but
those coalitions won’t last.
The dispossessed
The Republican Party is now a coa-
lition of globalization-loving business
executives and globalization-hating
white workers. That’s untenable. At its
molten core, the Republican Party has
become the party of the dispossessed,
not the party of cosmopolitan business.
Now imagine a Republican Party
after Donald Trump, led by a younger
candidate without his bigotry and cul-
ture war tropes. That party will begin to
attract disaffected Sanders people who
detest the Trans-Paciic Partnership and
possibly some minority voters highly
suspicious of the political elite.
The Democratic Party is a coali-
tion of the upscale urban profession-
als who make up the ruling class and
less-afluent members of minorities
who feel betrayed by it. That’s unten-
able, too. At its molten core the Dem-
ocratic Party is the party of the coastal
professional class.
Polls suggest the Democrats will
win among college-educated voters.
Republicans will win among whites
without a college degree. The social,
mental and emotional gap between
those two groups is getting wider and
wider. That’s the future of American
politics. Republicans are town. Demo-
crats are gown. Could get ugly.