The arguments and positions of Dunsmuir Community First just don’t stand up to scrutiny. Here they are, point by point.

1) Locals Displaced

Dunsmuir Community First makes the claim that vacation rental properties are the cause of the increase in rental rates for long term rentals. It stands to reason that as housing prices increase, rental prices will increase. And we all know that housing prices have increased pretty dramatically over the last several years.

They’re also quick to point out that regulations in the City of Mt. Shasta limit vacation rental properties to commercial zones only. If vacation rental properties are truly to blame for increased rents, then Mt. Shasta’s regulation would indicate little to no increase in property values there. So lets take a look at the numbers.

The median price of a single family residential property in Dunsmuir was 142% higher in 2007 than in 2000 ($83,000 to $201,000), while over the same time period the median price of a single family residential property in Mt. Shasta increased by 162% ($154,000 to $403,000). For the record, that means that Mt. Shasta’s prices increased more than Dunsmuir’s. The numbers don’t lie. In fact, Dunsmuir’s median home price actually declined from 2006 to 2007, while Mt. Shasta’s continued to increase.

While this may seem to be an anomaly, it really isn’t. Any time property regulations increase, availability of rental housing decreases. Check with any city that has rent control. If you want less of something (anything), tax and regulate it.

Dunsmuir Community First is quite clear in their support of long-term renters. With the statistics pointing to regulation as a cause of increasing long-term rent, why then would they support regulation? Like the bulk of their argument, it just doesn’t make sense.

2) “Fast Food Neighbors” Part A

In one of the more inane accusations by Dunsmuir Community First, she they call the people who choose to rent a vacation rental property “fast food neighbors”. Apparently, a “fast food neighbor” doesn’t really give a hoot about the quality of the neighborhood. Here’s a quote from the web-site, a re-printing of a letter-to-the-editor originally published in the local newspaper: “The planning commission has blocked large chain stores and restaurants from Dunsmuir based on their desire to keep the old time feeling in this town, help small businesses and support tourism. Why are they so quick to hand us transient, fast food neighbors and destroy Dunsmuir’s human history of families, friendships, churches and social organizations.”

Wow, it’s hard to know where to start on this one. So we should eliminate having vacation renters in neighborhoods to support tourism and small businesses? The “human history of families, friendships” is strengthened by not allowing vacationers to stay in our neighborhoods? We don’t get it. If Dunsmuir has such a friendly history, then why not show it by welcoming outsiders into our neighborhoods, perhaps say hello and maybe even invite these folks to attend a church service. To suggest that vacationers have no interest in the quality of the neighborhood seems just plain naive. Many vacation renters return to the same house time after time. Surely, if they didn’t care for the neighborhood, they wouldn’t return.

“Fast Food Neighbors” Part B

Here’s another point raised in the letter: “Since there are no limits as to how many houses may operate as unregulated hotels, permanent residents may someday find themselves in an isolated minority (sic). An internet search for “vacation rental ban” reveals how many tourist friendly communities have chosen to ban or regulate vacation rental activity to protect their overwhelmed residents.

You’d think Dunsmuir were ready to crumble! This suggests that somehow Dunsmuir residents are being overwhelmed by vacation renters. DCF just doesn’t elaborate on how we’re being overwhelmed. Lets assume for a moment that 50% of the houses in town were suddenly converted to vacation rentals. Does this mean that they’d all be full of vacationers? It’s as if the only thing keeping thousands of tourists from visiting Dunsmuir is that there simply aren’t enough vacation rental properties! Basic economic principles indicate that an oversupply of vacation rental properties would simply drive vacation rental rates so low that no-one could afford to own one. Of course a lack of understanding of basic economic principles doesn’t prevent someone from having her opinion published in the local newspaper!

3) A Vacation Rental is the Same as a Hotel

What about the idea that vacation rentals operate as unregulated hotels? This is really the crux of the argument in favor of regulation – calling a vacation rental property a hotel. I haven’t seen any vacation rentals with a front desk, a lobby and a sign. In fact, a vacation rental property isn’t like a hotel at all. It’s really no more a business than any property rented to long term tenants. Granted, the renters don’t normally stay more than a few days, but surely you’ve had short term guests stay in your home. Does that make it a hotel? What if those short term guests paid you back by taking you to dinner? Hmmm, blurs the line doesn’t it?

DCF further claims that “Any homeowner can walk into City Hall, buy a $25.00 business license, request a Hotel Registration Certificate and begin using their house as a hotel.” Huh. Interesting, but a outright lie real misrepresentation. A vacation rental owner isn’t required to request a “hotel registration certificate” (we don’t even know if such a thing exists). The city does require a business license and requires collection of TOT (transient occupation tax). Although we don’t feel that the city should be in competition with merchants by collecting this tax (after all, the $10 per night tax someone pays may very well have been used for coffee at a local establishment), this tax alone certainly doesn’t redefine a house as a hotel.