THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2017
FRIDAY EXCHANGE
Reasonable regs
e have lived in Gearhart for
almost 24 years and feel so
lucky to call this little town our
home. However, over the years
vacation rentals have changed
from a low-impact, minimally
invasive activity to a major busi-
ness fueled by internet rental offer-
ings and aggressive marketing of
properties.
The regulations enacted by the
city in response to concerned cit-
izens have helped noticeably to
reduce the impact of vacation rent-
als on our predominantly residen-
tial community. They serve to keep
density at vacation rentals realis-
tic for the size of the home and the
surrounding property. The regula-
tions affecting safety, septic capac-
ity and street overflow are reason-
able for the rental properties and
the neighborhood.
Friends, please join me in vot-
ing “no” on Measure 4-188. Let’s
maintain the current city legisla-
tion that has already reduced the
impact of unregulated vacation
rentals. Let’s not give away the
town that we love.
NANCY TAGGARD
Gearhart
W
Protect our town
he proponents of Measure
4-188 are using financial fear
tactics to try to bully their way into
a win. They are stating that Gear-
hart “needs” unlimited vacation
rentals to survive. They are stat-
ing that our property values will go
down if we don’t allow unlimited
short-term rentals and that proper-
ties will sit on the market, driving
prices down further.
Realtors are reporting that since
the passing of the city ordinance
limiting short-term rentals that
people are buying property to live
here full time, and that property
values are continuing to rise. Full-
time residents contribute to the
fabric of our community. This is
what will support our future.
Proponents of Measure 4-188
are also claiming they want to pro-
tect jobs. Businesses are struggling
on the coast to find employees
because of the extreme shortage
of long-term rentals. A popular
restaurant in Manzanita recently
closed because it could not find
housing for its employees. In Can-
non Beach, employers are being
forced to buy housing for their
employees to rent. There are help
wanted signs everywhere you
look.
The out-of-town property own-
ers who are pushing this measure
do not seem to know or care about
our community or our residents’
needs, and as much as they claim
to be a part of our town, most of us
have not met them.
They forced the city into a
battle at the Land Use Board of
Appeals at quite some expense,
that then upheld our regulations.
Now they have forced a ballot
measure on the people of Gearhart
that is also costly and time-con-
suming, all to promote their busi-
ness interests.
Friends, please do not let big
business determine the future of
our community. Please vote “no”
on Measure 4-188.
DEBORAH ALBRECHT
Gearhart
T
Share access to all
had a friend who moved to
Gearhart recently send me a note
asking why I support the current
ballot measure on vacation rentals.
His request prompted me to voice
my opinion. As a born and raised
proud Gearhart boy, I am really
outraged by all of this.
I have had the opportunity to
meet and become friends with so
many great people vacationing in
Gearhart throughout my life. This
I feel was because they have been
able to rent homes in Gearhart. I
really personally have not seen or
heard of that many issues pertain-
ing to short-term rentals.
It seems interesting to me that
many of the people pushing for the
present city ordnance really are not
longtime Gearhart residents and
probably arrived here as a tourist
at first, but now really don’t want
others to enjoy what they found
here.
In my opinion, it’s all about
equal rights for all. It’s not fair that
the only rentals allowed are the 80
or so that applied a few months
ago. Many never know when they
may want or need to rent their
homes. So having to get a license
now and pay $600 a year till that
day comes seems unfair.
I feel this whole area is and
always has been a tourist-driven
area. Much of all the amenities
this area has to offer that we enjoy
daily would not be here if we did
not have tourism to support it.
You may be one of the resi-
dents who started coming here as
I
a tourist and renting. What if you
couldn’t have stayed here? Maybe
you would be living in Corval-
lis next to some rowdy college
students.
I just feel the current City
Council wants to put a wall up
around Gearhart. The mayor wants
more homes to be available for
low-income workers to live in, that
would be great but the only way
that is going to happen is for prop-
erty values to drop considerably,
which would not make the present
property owners happy at all.
I am all for regulations on how
vacation rentals are rented. Lim-
its on number of occupants, motor
vehicles, appearance of the house
and yard, along with other issues
that could become a problem. I
feel both the present ordinance
and the proposed ordinance cover
that area properly. Actually a drive
around Gearhart would reveal that
many homes that are occupied by
the owners would not meet these
regulations. As a matter of fact, I
believe there are more police calls
to permanent homes than short-
term rental homes. I really feel that
vacation rentals with both of these
ordinances will be controlled prop-
erly, just feel it is very unfair to
limit them to a select few.
In closing, I hope everyone
understands the beach belongs
to everyone and we should share
access to all. Please vote “yes” on
Measure 4-188.
JEFF TERHAR
Gearhart
Keep property rights
earhart’s small town govern-
ment is a never-ending source
of amused frustration to me. First
it was the ludicrous kerfuffle over
Gearhart Crossing. Now, it’s short-
term rentals.
I will be voting “yes” on Mea-
sure 4-188 because Gearhart’s
current vacation rental dwell-
ings ordinance is an ill-consid-
ered, authoritarian, anti-property
rights effort at governance. It aims
to fix a problem that, quite frankly,
doesn’t exist.
The reality is, there is literally
no enforcement of pretty much
anything on homeowners, long-
term rentals and second-home
owners in this community. There
are no septic inspections or res-
idency inspections. Off-street
parking issues are ignored unless
neighbors complain.
Full-time residents (and long-
term renters) are the friend/fam-
ily with a place at the beach, and
resultant periodic house overflow-
ing with visitors, off-street parking
jams and parties.
Gearhart’s second-home own-
ers frequently roll into town, espe-
cially on holidays, invite the whole
extended family, party hardy, set
off their fireworks at 3 a.m., then
leave. I bet every voter opposed
to Measure 4-188 has been guilty,
at one time or the other, of one or
more of these issues. Welcome to
the beach.
Every single problem that city
leaders are trying to lay at the feet
of short-term rentals is also gen-
erated by full-time home owners,
long-term rentals and second-home
ownership. At least with the short-
term rentals, the city gets some
extra income out of it.
The Gearhart City Council’s
dream of eventually eliminating
short-term rentals speaks directly
to the local mindset that is try-
ing to turn Gearhart into a private
members-only community.
Measure 4-188 is not perfect —
agreed. But vote “yes” to protect
your property rights while you still
have some. Then we can fix Mea-
sure 4-188.
BILL GRAFFIUS
Gearhart
G
Residents have rights
y wife, Donna, and I moved
to Gearhart from Port-
land just before the 2016 elec-
tion. We learned about Gearhart’s
short-term rental regulations while
house hunting last year. Our home
used to be a short-term rental. As
Gearhart’s new residents, none
of the city’s short-term rental law
sounded extreme to us, just com-
mon sense provisions for the health
and safety of the residents and the
renters, as well as to protect the
livability of the community.
The supporters of Measure
4-188 seem less interested in liv-
ability than in the potential prof-
its to be had by the possibility of
turning any house in Gearhart into
a motel. That passion for profit,
disguised as a defense of property
rights, ignores the rights of resi-
dents to live in the community that
they have invested in. While city
government is open to amending
the short-term rental code in the
future — the proper course to bal-
ance between residents and renters
— the opponents would throw out
all regulation of short-term rentals.
The “repeal and replace” mea-
sure also seems to be a direct
attack on the Gearhart city govern-
ment. The prohibition of any future
city council to act on short-term
rental regulations without a pub-
lic vote seems to be more of a slap
in the face to the city leaders than
anything else.
The Oregon Land Use Board
of Appeals has upheld Gearhart’s
right to regulate short-term rentals,
simply stating that any Oregon city
with a comprehensive plan has the
right to enact regulations to abide
by it. For me, that was the end of
the discussion. The city hadn’t
over-stepped its authority. The pro-
rental lobby played their only card,
the initiative petition that led to
Measure 4-188.
The passage of Measure 4-188
isn’t a threat, it is a sentence, to
a radically different Gearhart. By
design, Gearhart has chosen to
stay small, to preserve a close-
knit community where neighbors
remember each others’ names,
where they wave and say hello
when they see you. In Gearhart,
even the dogs know each other.
I urge my treasured new neigh-
bors to vote “no” on Measure
4-188. Residents have rights, too.
MICHAEL LLOYD
Gearhart
M
Contentious politics
he Daily Astorian’s Oct. 19
editorial “Gearhart should vote
‘no’ on repealing vacation rental
rules” says, among other things,
that Measure 4-188 is a “nuclear
option“ because it would require
a public vote of the people to
change the short-term rental rules
in Gearhart.
Since when is a public vote the
“nuclear option”? Last I checked
Russia, North Korea and China
don’t like to have their people
vote, either.
I don’t own a short-term rental
in Gearhart, so I don’t have a dog
in this fight — yet. I did own in
Gearhart once, and recently inves-
tigated purchasing a home there.
When I found out I couldn’t rent
it out occasionally, it no longer
made economic sense. My wife
and I have put on hold the idea of
having a family vacation home in
Gearhart.
This whole “not-in-my-back-
yard” thing is an extension of the
current national isolationist move-
ment sweeping the country. It
makes for contentious local poli-
tics: Please note the recent may-
oral recall efforts in Gearhart, and
the City Council’s running up a
$250,000 legal bill for Gearhart
T
taxpayers in the last five years.
If Measure 4-188 does not pass,
Gearhart residents won’t know
what hit them. Say goodbye to the
Sweet Shop, Pacific Way Café,
the corner store, the several small
retail shops, and the many local
residents they employ. If the cur-
rent rules remain in place it will
take years to repair the damage to
property values and the local econ-
omy it will cause.
It should be more worrisome
to the residents of Gearhart that it
appears their city leaders do not
possess the skills to lead the city,
nor the vision and talent it takes to
allow the community to grow and
thrive.
Like many, I will be eager to
hear the final vote on this import-
ant property rights matter.
PAT COONEY
Portland
Goose’s golden egg
he rise of the vacation rental
industry changed things. Our
residential properties were being
snatched up for short-term rentals.
In an effort to be fair and accom-
modate everyone already involved,
the city of Gearhart held years of
public meetings, and eventually
passed a very generous vacation
rental ordinance.
Now those running these busi-
nesses (those who had been violat-
ing our plan) could continue in the
residential zones, but a cap was put
on the future spread of this neigh-
borhood-destroying blight. This
leaves more than 80 short-term
rentals in our residential zones, and
Gearhart is a very small town.
But rather than be pleased with
this very generous compromise,
some want our whole town. Hence
our current election. Forget resi-
dential zones. They just make life-
style in those zones pleasant for
the actual residents. Just go for the
money and a wild west attitude,
masquerading as property rights. I
guess they have forgotten the story
of the goose that laid the golden
egg?
It is imperative, if you are a
Gearhart resident, that you take the
time to vote no on Measure 4-188.
We need a mandate. These folks
will be back. The more no votes
we have, the more power the city
has to resist their future onslaught.
Every vote really counts. We need
numbers.
Next Tuesday is the deadline. If
you enjoy living in Gearhart as it is
today, you need to vote “no” today.
CAROL LUCAS
Gearhart
T
Costly changes
ust a reminder in case you
have not yet voted: The current
short-term rental regulations are
not cast in stone. Under the current
regulations, any of the rules can
be modified by citizens requesting
changes, working through the city
planning commission and the city
council.
However, if you vote yes on
Measure 4-188, and the repeal and
replace initiative wins, changes
could only be approved by a gen-
eral election, which would cost the
city ‘s taxpayers $10,000.
A “no” vote = changes possible.
A “yes” vote = difficult and
costly to change.
KATHY SHANELEC
Gearhart
J
Choose to vote ‘no’
earhart is coming to another
crossroad which will affect its
direction for years. The big ques-
tion? Should one vote “yes” or
“no” on Measure 4-188?
The answer lies in what you
want for the future of your spe-
G
5A
cial town. If you are a full-time
resident, live in Gearhart for 183
days annually, and are not ille-
gally filing taxes from your vaca-
tion home, if you grew up in this
town, you understand how Gear-
hart has dramatically changed in
recent years.
We now have a brewpub, a strip
mall much like 82nd Street in east
Portland, and a highway speed-
ing problem that is rarely enforced.
The charm of yesteryear is rap-
idly becoming a thing of the past.
It does not have to. Choose to vote
“no” on Measure 4-188.
Those supporting a “yes” vote
profess rental restrictions will hurt
property values. Have they not
heard? Houses have been selling
like hotcakes, and there is a hous-
ing shortage. Short-term rental
owners are making tons of money,
and are quite happy to line their
pocketbooks with the cash coming
in from their “homes.”
They complain regulations do
not make economic sense. Who
are they kidding? These homes are
individual motels. They should
be taxed with regulations. Why?
They are using our town. Regu-
lations create safety restrictions
for those who rent the homes, e.g.
the number of people permitted to
stay in a home. They create guide-
lines for septic tank use, so our
healthy aquifer (our underground
water table) will not become con-
taminated. Regulations protect res-
idents who deserve reasonably
quiet neighborhoods, streets that
are not jammed with cars.
Don’t let Gearhart become a
town for visitors only. Don’t let the
wool be pulled over your eyes. The
minority who support a “yes” vote
are ruled by the almighty dollar.
Many “yes” supporters don’t live
here, and are either vacation rental
businesses, or those owning vaca-
tion rental properties.
Don’t let Gearhart’s uniqueness
become a thing of the past. Please
do your part to help Gearhart retain
the true, safe, small town atmo-
sphere we all cherish. Vote “no” on
Measure 4-188.
SUSAN EDY
Gearhart
Food bank changes
ver my nearly 50-year career
of leading not-for-profit orga-
nizations as CEO, and at times as a
member of the board of directors,
I am very familiar with the kind
of challenge that faced the board
of the South County Seaside Food
Bank.
Board members are charged
with both the personnel and fidu-
ciary oversight of the organization.
It is the responsibility of the board
members to be sure the mission of
the organization is carried out and
that members of the community
for whom the organization is estab-
lished are being properly served.
In every organization I have
served, there have been times
when difficult and challeng-
ing decisions have to be made to
ensure that these responsibilities
are being met. One of the signif-
icant challenges is working with
volunteers who are not employees,
and can at times begin to take the
organization away from that origi-
nal mission.
When and if decisions are made
to dismiss volunteers, and move
to reinstate the organization back
to its original mission, it is almost
impossible to provide details and
information that the public and the
press demand. This can become
the battle of “he said and she said,”
and can become an unending and
very damaging dialogue between
persons on the board and those
aggrieved by the process.
Ultimately, this is where I come
down on the controversy: I know
the people who are in leadership
of the board of directors. These
are leaders in our community who
have given generously of their
time and resources to bring the
food bank to the place it is today.
I have confidence in them, and
firmly believe that their decisions
over the past week were made with
careful thought and deliberation, and
I understand why they will not, and
are not going to participate in a pro-
cess of responding to allegations and
statements in the press that malign
their character and leadership.
Some of these board members
have reported to the police phys-
ical threats and malicious state-
ments regarding their character and
honesty. They are all “big people”
and will continue to serve in spite
of all of this.
Please, Seaside community, a
community that prides itself for
civility and measured response,
let’s step back, take a deep breath
and support our food bank as it
continues to serve our region, as
it has for many years, and will for
many years to come.
JAY A. BARBER
Mayor of Seaside
O