Near the start of the Pagosa Springs Town Council work session on vacation rentals, last week, Council member Shari Pierce had questioned the Town government’s right to control how a homeowner uses their private property. In raising that question, Ms. Pierce was seemingly questioning the contents of the Town’s 400-page Land Use and Development Code, which describes in considerable detail the myriad ways that our municipal government controls the uses of privately-owned property. She was also, seemingly, questioning the Town’s right to establish a zoning map, to clearly define what types of uses are allowed in which neighborhoods.
Ms. Pierce also questioned whether the types of dwellings now being used as vacation rentals were different from the dwellings that would normally be used by full-time residents. I’ve heard that argument made, over and over, at government meetings, for the past three years. But when I survey the vacation rentals located within a half mile of my own house, all of those dwellings were occupied by full-time residents just a few years back. Some have recently been remodeled somewhat, to help them function better as mini-motels, but the bones are those of a residential home.
What was once a residential home.
The discussion among the Council members, with input from the public, lasted about an hour and a half. During that discussion, an interesting distinction seemed to slowly make itself apparent.
That the way we treat vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods might be different from how we treat them in commercially-zoned neighborhoods.
But before the Council (apparently) arrived at that conclusion, they had to first consider, at some length, density controls. What percentage of our housing should the Town government allow to be converted to mini-motels, before they’ve completely destroyed the “refreshingly authentic” character of Pagosa Springs?
Here is Council member Nicole Pitcher, who is currently building a vacation rental downtown.
“Imagine that it’s 30 years from now, and say that 70% of our downtown homes have been converted into short-term rentals. Would we regret not taking any action [to prevent that outcome]?”
Mayor Don Volger responded:
“Right now… what was the percentage [of downtown homes] that have become short-term rentals?… 15%?
“So what we might do is just discuss this a little further and say, ‘Okay, when we reach — and I’m just pulling this number out of the air — we we reach 50%, we’re going to take some action. We’re going to look at density restrictions; we’re going to look at other issues; because we don’t want any more than 50% of our housing stock to be just short-term rentals.”
I mentioned earlier in this editorial series that nearby Durango has put a cap on vacation rentals, in residential districts, at about 4%. The limit in Salida, Colorado, another tourist-driven town, is 3.5%. The limit in another Colorado tourist town, Manitou Springs, is 2%. The limit in New Mexico’s most popular tourist destination — Santa Fe — is 2.7%.
Did any mouths drop open when Mayor Volger suggested 50% was a reasonable limit? I believe mine did.
Council member Maddie Bergon thought a decision should be made sooner rather than later, “so that the people who are currently operating short-term rentals can be comfortable with the fact that they can continue to operate.”
I’m all in favor of people being comfortable. But speaking for myself, I’m much more concerned about local employees living in cars and vans or out in the national forest, being comfortable.
I’m much more concerned with the comfort of full-time residents, watching what were once quiet, friendly neighborhoods, being turned into motel districts.
Unfortunately for people like me, these same issues have been kicked around at local government meetings for the past four or five years, without any commitment to preserve the diverse, small-town character of our community — while the very limited stock of affordable residential homes in Pagosa has almost completely disappeared onto the black hole of second-home and vacation-rental ownership.
At the conclusion of the work session, we heard Council member Mat deGraaf note that he’s “seen these same conversations come back around” — the same conversations (and lack of action) he experienced five years ago, when he first joined the Council.
“And for my part, I want to find solutions to some of these problems, so that hopefully, if I’m re-elected, I don’t see these same problems come around a third time.”
We then heard Council member Shari Pierce express what appeared to be a reversal of the position she had laid out at the start of the Thursday meeting.
“Mat, to your point, yes. I totally agree… that we definitely want to watch out for the character of the community and our residents here. For sure. And so, yes, if ‘density’ is where it’s at, then let’s look at that, in residential areas and see what we can do to maintain the character of our community, in whatever ways we can.
“So, thanks, guys.”
It’s a rare occurrence, to see an elected leader reverse their stance on a controversial issue between the start and finish of a public discussion. I think I can count the number of times I’ve seen it happen on the fingers of one hand. But I believe we can take Ms. Pierce at her word — that she definitely wants to watch out for the character of our community. For sure.
Which ‘community’ would that be? The ‘community’ of investors who continue to buy up residential homes and convert them into motels? The ‘community’ of tourists who visit happily for a week or two at a time?
I believe Ms. Pierce, at the conclusion of this heart-felt discussion, was referring to the ‘community’ that elected her to office; the ‘community’ of folks who live here full-time, and who are struggling in ways that the vacation rental investors and tourists can barely imagine.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.