EDITORIAL: Keep the county's vacation rental ordinance

Apr. 29—The Clatsop County housing study in 2019 was striking in its simplicity.

There is sufficient supply of land and housing units to meet current and future needs, the report found. But too much of the supply serves the second home and vacation rental markets, leaving insufficient supply for year-round residents to purchase or rent.

This reality is at the core of our housing crisis. As the North Coast evolves into an attractive destination, more people want to visit, invest in property, wind down their careers while working remotely or retire in the region.

The financial rewards in real estate are to cater to this class, not to people who are just starting out or who are trying to build their careers or raise families.

This gap — between people who can easily afford to visit or live here, and people struggling with the cost of living — increasingly defines our political and public policy debates.

In our view, the county and cities should craft reasonable regulations and incentives to help close the gap, such as the recommendations in the housing study for more home-buying opportunities at affordable price points and more multifamily rental housing.

Ordinance

Our cities long ago realized the potential for vacation rentals to cause instability, particularly in residential neighborhoods, and adopted restrictions. Over the past several years, the county has sought to apply restrictions in unincorporated areas outside the cities.

Unfortunately, the county Board of Commissioners fumbled this task. Since 2018, they have turned a relatively straightforward policy question into an incoherent mess. Unable to find clarity, commissioners imposed a moratorium on new vacation rental permits in 2021 and extended the pause four times.

The silver lining to this protracted debate was it gave everyone interested an opportunity to weigh in over a series of town hall meetings and public hearings.

In defense of county commissioners, they did eventually arrive at reasonable regulations.

In April 2022, the Board of Commissioners approved new operating standards to help address nuisances such as noise, litter and parking and required vacation rental owners to post good-neighbor flyers that explain rules. The length of permits was shortened to two years, instead of five years.

Last June, commissioners voted unanimously to recognize vacation rentals as permitted uses in 16 zones — four commercial and 12 residential. The ordinance essentially tries to repair an earlier mistake, where the county issued permits even though vacation rentals were not recognized in the development code except in Arch Cape.

There are roughly 100 vacation rental permits in unincorporated areas outside of Arch Cape.

Now that these vacation rentals are recognized, the next step for county commissioners is to consider placing caps on the number of permits. In neighborhoods, especially along the coast, where vacation rentals already can alter the character of the community, we envision caps that would closely mirror the permits already issued.

County commissioners indicated last June that they would consider caps, and if they go back on their word, voters should hold them accountable at election time.

But we do not favor Measure 4-221 in the May election. The referendum would repeal the county's ordinance and throw the roughly 100 vacation rental permits — and an estimated $700,000 in lodging tax revenue — back into limbo.

Our view is not influenced by the vacation rental industry or property rights or lodging tax money. It's about fairness.

The referendum is mostly driven by homeowners in Cove Beach, a wealthy enclave at the southern tip of the county, and Surf Pines, a gated community near Gearhart. Residents from these communities, which include many second-home owners, remote workers and retirees, were fully heard by county commissioners at town hall meetings and public hearings.

After they did not prevail, they launched the referendum to blow up the process and are asking voters in Astoria, Warrenton, Gearhart, Seaside and Cannon Beach — who are not subject to the county ordinance — to help them get their way.

Over the years, many of the same residents in Cove Beach have tried to use the levers of the local water district and the county's comprehensive plan update to control growth. More recently, residents have tried to undermine county changes to the development code to expand access to child care.

Surf Pines is in an even more distinct category. The community has a homeowners association. Residents unhappy with the pace of regulation at the county on vacation rentals could try to convince their neighbors to take action.

Common cause

The campaign for the referendum has drawn support from housing advocates and Clatsop County Democrats. While this may be a well-meaning response to the spread of vacation rentals, we disagree with their contention that nurses, teachers, firefighters and others who are struggling to find housing share common cause with people fortunate enough to live in comfort by the beach.

For voters who have not been paying close attention as this issue played out at the Judge Guy Boyington Building over the past five years, we sympathize. We understand that people may read a few newspaper articles and consult the county voters' pamphlet, figure out which side is against vacation rentals, and vote to repeal the county's ordinance.

Just know what you are voting for.

You are not striking a meaningful blow against the vacation rental industry. You are not preserving the county's housing stock for more affordable or workforce projects.

You are helping a small cluster of people with money and means keep their beachfront neighborhoods a bit more exclusive, their gates a little higher.