SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

Shilpa Bhimani, Dana Point

The fact that approval of the short-term rental ordinance has been tabled twice is deeply concerning. The city shouldn’t enforce prohibitions of short-term rentals without seeking approval from the Coastal Commission. They also need to act very carefully when considering encroaching on a resident’s property rights.

One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is to promote public access. Prohibiting short-term rentals would act as a significant barrier to access. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that multiple hotels in Dana Point have been shut down in recent years. By prohibiting short-term rentals, you move to a model where at most one person could rent a property every 30 days, so at most 12 tenants per year.

With the current ordinance, a different person could rent a property every two days, so 182 different tenants per year. More realistically, the average tenant stays for one week and occupancy rates are normally at 65 percent. So the average vacation rental homeowner has 34 tenants per year. When limited to 30-day stays, it’s very hard for it to pencil out, forcing owners into 12-month leases with a single tenant. If you assume there are 200 short-term rentals in the city, in a given year you could have around 6,800 unique guests across the city. When short-term rentals are prohibited, the number of unique tenants could drop as low as 200. This obviously has a dramatic impact on coastal access. This issue is further exacerbated by the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue and millions in lost revenue for our local businesses.
Prohibiting short-term rentals creates an environment where walking distance access to the beach is only available to the rich who can afford to buy or rent there long-term. This goes directly against the Coastal Act, whereby its primary purposes are to promote public access.

To submit a Letter to the Editor, send us an email at letters@danapointtimes.com.

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAY
Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (1)

  • Shilpa,

    Your property rights on your residence are residential–they are not commercial or business rights in nature . To change your residence into a business location is the true encroachment on the neighbors property rights. You have it backwards!

    Ann

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>