STR debate
The debate about short-term rentals in Monterey County comes down to this: will we treat housing as shelter or a commodity?
The Board of Supervisors took action to protect our local housing stock from corporate and out-of-town investors by banning them from operating short-term rentals, a sensible restriction. Unfortunately, the Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance sued the County for those restrictions, claiming they unfairly singled out corporations and out-of-state persons, forcing the Supervisors to choose between letting the tide of investor greed continue to scoop up housing, or adopt a more stringent short-term rental ordinance that bans STRs in residentially zoned areas, regardless of ownership status. The Supervisors chose the latter, because it was the only way to protect local housing stock.
To be clear, we are not saying the majority of vacation rentals in unincorporated Monterey County are currently owned by corporations. What this provision sought to do is further stem the purchasing of properties in Monterey County as investments for anything other than homes for residents. The concern of a majority of the Supervisors is that powerful forces are aligning under false pretenses to further commodify housing stock. The story has gotten muddled in the news and social media. What’s important to understand is that the Board was placed in a difficult position by the lawsuit and chose the broader ban because it did not want to see an unlimited number of single-family homes in the unincorporated county to be aggregated, monetized, and treated as an investment class by out-of-area and corporate interests.
The County engaged in more than 10 years of public input, debate, and negotiation. What emerged from that long process was a delicate compromise that allows limited short-term rentals while drawing a clear line to protect housing for people who actually live and work here. The lawsuit filed by Vacation Rental Alliance completely disregards the years of public input and debate and forced the current, broader ban. The Board of Supervisors had to make a choice, and they made the right choice; treat housing as shelter, not as a commodity.
— Mary Adams, Jane Parker, former county supervisors
The power of love
Cheryl Harbour’s Valentine’s Day article on ways to speak love was a trip down memory lane. For those who remember World War II, mention of “Casablanca” was particularly reminiscent. Thanks to the Golden State Theatre’s recent, live-orchestral accompanied production of Dirty Dancing, our ears are still ringing with Jennifer Gray’s love line.
Gary Chapman’s book “Five Languages of Love” has resided on our bookshelf for decades. It is highly recommended.
Valentine’s Day is the only widely celebrated day dedicated to an emotion. Love is a powerful force. It permeates all things. It has a life of its own.
Cheryl suggests that long-married may express love by saying “you complete my sentences.” Perhaps the well-seasoned married may keep the fire burning by studying together. The Smithsonian’s course on the history of Valentine’s Day offers that opportunity.
Thanks Cheryl. All hope to feel love every day. Many see it in the eyes of their puppy dogs.
— George Brehmer, Carmel
Golf and celebrities
The Herald’s John Devine rued the current status of the AT&T Pro-Am in his recent column. Despite the frequent allusions to the fact that this and last year’s event were very successful, I have to wonder.
It seems that with continued evolving corporatization of the Pro-Am, which has allowed this PGA Tour event to now reach Signature Event status, its milieu has been altered to remove many of the very essences and traditions on which the tournament was originally founded and intended.
To name just a few, there are hardly any celebrities, but an abundance of those likely minimally interesting individuals willing to pay an alleged extraordinary entrance fee. Even with only 80 pros, there should still be ample room to accommodate at least some of the celebrities, which many of the golf fans used to pay to see. Perhaps the price tag was too high for even many of them to afford. Who really wants to see captains of industry hobnobbing and ambling along with their pro for two days? The traditional Clambake is cooked. Why no spectators for the practice rounds? These were often the most enjoyable to follow. Too much work and expense to allow that to happen? One thing has survived however, the volunteers still have to purchase their uniforms! Another cost-saving measure.
So, John, it seems at this time and given the PGA Tour’s financial climate, there is only a scant likelihood that the celebs will be back or that the event will return to its roots. Too bad.
— Bob Cushing, Carmel
