The U.S. Supreme Court will be ruling on a case, in the coming months, concerning “cruel and unusual punishment”. The community of Grants Pass, Oregon, has been punishing homeless people for sleeping in public places. Violations come with fines and potential criminal penalties.
Yes, this editorial series will be discussing Short-Term Rentals (STRs; vacation rentals) and potential new regulations as discussed by the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners at their Tuesday, May 14, work session. But there might be a relationship to homelessness, that the BOCC did not touch on during their discussion on Tuesday.
From a story by Jesse Coronado and Tarek Anthony in the DailyEmerald.com, May 13, 2024:
On April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court heard what is expected to be a landmark ruling regarding whether fining, ticketing or jailing someone for sleeping outside when they have no other place to go is “cruel and unusual punishment,” and therefore unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.
The case, ‘City of Grants Pass v. Johnson’, stems from a long-running legal battle in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city approximately 140 miles south of Eugene. The case dates back to 2018 when the city was sued by homeless advocates for issuing tickets to people sleeping outside, even though the city only had one shelter, the Gospel Rescue Mission.
One of the leading arguments against Grants Pass in the Supreme Court case has been its potential infringement of the Eighth Amendment, which states “excessive bail should not be imposed, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
In 2013, Grants Pass began to issue fines — sometimes up to $300 — to people sleeping outside. The cost of the fine would then double if it went unpaid. The city also threatened to arrest individuals for trespassing after their second offense. In arguments before the Supreme Court, attorneys for Grants Pass argued that punishing people for outdoor sleeping was necessary to maintaining public health and safety…
Whether the Supreme Court upholds the right of governments to lock up homeless people for the crime of sleeping… or upholds the Eighth Amendment… their decision will have very little impact on the actual problem of homelessness.
Homelessness continues to rise, nationally, although I don’t believe Archuleta County has any data documenting our local situation in our rural community. But everyone knows we have a serious housing crisis.
The problem itself is relatively simple to state, locally. A significant percentage of the 10,000 dwelling units in Archuleta County — maybe 40%? — are used to accommodate tourists or second-home owners, while very little housing that’s affordable for workers and low-income families has been built over the past two decades.
The problem is simple. The solutions are very complex.
The new rules discussed by the Archuleta BOCC on Tuesday will — like the Supreme Court decision in the Eighth Amendment case — have very little impact on our current housing crisis.
But they are interesting proposals in their own right.
The concerns about STRs most often shared and discussed here in Pagosa Springs, are typically shared and discussed by people who live comfortably in houses. Those concerns involve neighborhood noise levels, traffic and road impacts, parking issues, and the sometimes-dramatic change in a neighborhood’s character when many or most of the houses have become commercial motels instead of homes for full-time residents.
Whether the new regulations, presented to the BOCC by Community Development Director Pam Flowers on Tuesday, will address those concerns, will one of the topics in this editorial series.
There have been two County-authorized teams looking at updating the County vacation rental regulations, which have been in a minor but constant state of flux over the past decade. One team is the staff at the County Community Development Department. The other team — which has been inactive for about the past year — is the Vacation Rental Task Force assembled by former County Manager Derek Woodman. (I’ve written about that task force previously… for example, here.)
We’ll be looking at some of the key changes proposed on May 14.
You can download the full document as presented to the BOCC, here. The black text would remain unchanged. The blue text are recommendations suggested by the Community Development Department; the red text reflects recommendations provided by the Task Force back in March 2023. (Apparently, the commissioners have not been in a hurry to address the problems posed by STRs.)
The discussion began with an objection from Commissioner Veronica Medina.
The current County Land Use Regulations, Section 3.2.7, states:
Vacation Rentals are land uses that have potential for causing adverse impacts on others because of such factors as proximity to other homes, method of operation, scale or intensity of activity, or parking and traffic generated. Because of these characteristics, Vacation Rental Permits require review and evaluation so that Vacation Rentals may be located and operated with proper respect for their effects on surrounding neighbors, properties, and Archuleta County at large.
Commissioner Medina wondered if that is truly the way STR applications are considered?
“When we approve a vacation rental, don’t we base it on the inspection, and that the home is within the regulations? Are we looking at all the other items that are listed here?”
Director Pam Flowers noted that the regulations are based on the items mentioned in 3.2.7.
Commissioner Medina thought the language had a negative spin, and said she would forward some suggestions to Ms. Flowers.
One issue addressed by the proposed changes is a lack of clarity about who is actually operating the STR and who has authority to make decisions. Some STRs are operated by the actual property owner, but many are run by property managers — and in some cases, the required “emergency contact” is a third party. The proposed rules try to ensure that the Community Development Department has the names and contact info for all three parties.
One issue not addressed by the update (as far as I can tell) is the provision of those same names and contacts on a public website — or, for that matter, the addresses of properly licensed vacation rentals. Many communities in Colorado now provide that information on their websites, so that neighbors can confirm that a nearby home is actually licensed and properly supervised.
Will Archuleta County be providing public information in the near future?