Editorial from Aug. 22, 2006

Perception is everything

By Danielle Seckler

   Once again, people in power need to be reminded that perception is everything! The case in point is the recent letter sent to all Big Bear Lake residents from Michael Perry. Bear Valley News has the letter below, for your information. The residents who received this, were mostly outraged. Nasty words flew through the air from disappointment on Perry’s letter to words speaking of prostitution. Telephones rang within the City’s limits, discussing that Perry was a turn coat, untruthful, scare mongering, and deceitful.

   The reasons for the perception of deceit were that from the beginning of the letter Perry’s case was to use his influence, as prior City Manager of Big Bear Lake, to sway voters of Big Bear Lake not to sign a petition to place on the ballot an initiative which would create an ordinance that would allow the neighboring residents to have a say so of having Private Home Rentals (PHR) near or next to them. Many residents spoke of how he made it seem that he was an ex-city employee concerned for his neighbors. However, Perry does not live in Big Bear Lake. Another issue cementing people’s opinion is that no where in the letter does it say that Perry has been hired as a consultant to prevent any changes to the current ordinance, which truly does favor the real estate industry in this valley and provides little voice or recourse for the residents.

   PHR are temporary renting of private property to lodgers that are less than 30 days in length of stay, commonly known as transient occupancy. Every second home owner currently gets their property inspected yearly so that it meets a minimum standard. This does not include the inspections from the Health and Safety department of the county for any spas. Though reputable property management companies make sure that spas are cleaned between different lodgers, there are some who do not. This will raise a health issue for the visitors. If serious enough, it could tar the image of Big Bear Lake as being a safe and healthy place to visit. This, could cause major liability to the home owner, not covered by the normal home owner’s insurance.

   For years now, residents of Big Bear Lake have been saying that while Perry was a City employee, he gave only lip service to those residents who live near or next to the PHR from hell. Perry did give out his personal telephone number to the complainers. However, no matter, if people called him personally, the City’s hotline, or the Sheriff’s office, results were never to be seen. As a result, property owners stopped calling, feeling that it all was a farce. Statistics have been given to the City Council stating that there have hardly been any calls about trash, noise, or parking issues with residents; which has caused city officials to come to the conclusion that there are no problems with the PHRs. Tim Brigham, current planning commissioner, candidate for City Council in November, even went to the San Bernardino County supervisor’s meeting this year stating there were no problems. The county is currently working on their own ordinance regarding the PHRs within county limits and they are eyeing the results of the current strife between the real estate industry and property management companies with the disgruntled city residents. Many residents feel as if Perry has been in the pocket of the rental industry all along and has never been a neutral party on behalf of the people who paid his large salary. With this in mind, the City Council is also smeared with the same tainted brush of distrust and disdain.

   In the current ordinance, the costs of the hotline and enforcement fall to the Big Bear Lake tax payers. The ordinance can not control those property management owners who do not obey the laws of the City. To date, no property management company has been warned or fined, that if they do not clean up their act, they will lose their license.

   To those people who own the commercial lodges and B&B’s, they feel the crunch of the shift from people staying in a PHR, rather than their establishments. Not only do these businesses have to comply with added county health and safety laws but also with spa inspections and occupancy laws. These additional laws add to their expenses of staying in business. The PHRs do not have these restrictions or added expenses. Over the last 10 years the taxes collected by the City have shown that the commercial lodges have gone down in revenue/taxes paid, in direct proportion to the increase in the PHR revenue/taxes paid. There are currently about 1,400 PHRs within the city limits.

   Perry’s letter and his blatant effort to shift the issue from the residential property owner’s right to the true R1 zoning, meaning that R1 zones are not to be used for commercial business, to the property owners rights to do whatever they want, smacks of the old Texas side-step dance Ned Betty did in the movie “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.” Tell them one thing and do the other, while making money from both sides for personal gain and defraying any costs onto the tax payer. The scare tactic that property values will go down and the economy will collapse is the same old rhetoric the residents have heard for years. In Florida, an ordinance which forbids PHRs was enacted and a study proved that property values actually went up. Every time a new second home owner buys a home, the agent should be telling them that a PHR could open up next door, under the disclosure rule in real estate.

   So to ‘chicken little’ Michael Perry, I say, the sky is not falling. Changes will have to be made to make it fair to all sides and no one side should be given an unfair advantage. There should be a way to find a fair and equitable ordinance that will put some teeth into the enforcement of the current laws, providing neighbors a meaningful way to live in a neighborhood zone in the tranquility that they expected when they purchased their property. This would give a way for second home owners to rent their property while allowing neighbors to have the same enforcement as a visitor staying at Motel 6 with a rowdy party next door. As the current initiative would allow for PHR with enforcement, we can only wonder why the PHR industry is so afraid to have the people’s voice heard on this issue. It is the public’s right to be heard and to make our officials act as the majority wants. If the people say that they like the way the PHR works now, so be it. If the people say that they want it changed, then so be it. It should be up to the people and not any official or consultant, who is in the pocket of the backroom politicians in this Valley.

Danielle

   As a rebuttal to Perry’s letter, see the author’s of the ballot initiative, Dixie Allison, on behind Perry’s letter. There are two websites regarding this issue – www.bigbearprivatehomes.com. This website has the entire initiate and a summary of it’s’ contents. The other website is www.calppr.com.

Michael Perry’s Letter

August 16, 2006

Dear _______

As your former City Manager, I am writing to you about a serious threat to our property rights, our property values and our valley's economy. Jim McLean, owner of Apples Bed and Breakfast, has filed 2 lawsuits against the City of Big Bear Lake attempting to eliminate every homeowner's legal right to rent out their home. Fortunately, both lawsuits have been dismissed, by a state court and a federal court.

Mr. McLean is not giving up in his quest to eliminate a homeowner's right to rent out their home. He is circulating a petition to put an ordinance on the ballot that would effectively eliminate a homeowner's right to rent out their home. I am recommending that you NOT SIGN Mr. McLean's petition.

Why should you be concerned about the right of a homeowner to rent out their home?

(1) Your property value of your home would be significantly reduced: Over two thirds of our valley's homes are owned by second homeowners. If Mr. McLean's ordinance is approved and rental of second homes is eliminated, over 1,000 homes that are currently rented could be placed on the market for sale, which would significantly reduce everyone's property values. If the property values of second homes drops, then the property values of full time homes drops also. The loss of second home rentals would mean that a huge market of potential second home buyers (families that need to rent out their homes part time to help offset the cost of their second home) will be eliminated from buying homes in Big Bear. This means that the amount of home sales would be drastically reduced, again causing everyone's property values to fall.

(2) Big Bear's Economy would be significantly reduced: Second home rentals provide over 50% of the beds available for all our overnight visitors. If Mr. McLean eliminates 50% of every night's available beds, during our busy visitor seasons that means that 50% fewer visitors can stay overnight (all lodges are already full). That means that there will be 50% fewer people to shop in our stores and gift shops, eat in our restaurants, purchase food and gasoline, etc. The impact on our economy would be devastating. Retail, service businesses, recreation, construction, almost every business would be negatively effected if rentals are eliminated. Some businesses would close and employees would lose their jobs.

(3) Your City Services would be cut drastically: The rental of second homes provided the City of Big Bear Lake with over $930,000 in TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) revenue last year alone. This is almost 10% of the City's entire General Fund budget which pays for your law enforcement, road paving and maintenance, drainage, building and safety, planning, code enforcement, Performing Arts Center, etc. If Mr. McLean is successful in eliminating the rental of second homes, the City could lose between $1million to$2-million each year TOT revenue, sales tax revenue and property taxes. Based on my experience in preparing the City's budget, this would mean drastic cuts in all City departments. Our Hospital District and our Fire Departments and the ambulance / emergency services they provide could be reduced also.

My family and I have lived and worked in Big Bear for over 23 years. We have worked hard to build up the equity in our home as our 'nest egg' for our family's future. Big Bear's home values have increased and our economy has grown because of the many second homeowners who buy homes in our valley, and, the many overnight visitors that visit our valley and spend the night by renting private homes.

Working together, we can protect our property rights, our home's property value, our economy and our City Services. I strongly urge you to NOT SIGN Mr. McLean's petition.

Thank you,

Michael Perry

Former City Manager, City of Big Bear Lake

Rebuttal Letter from Dixie Allison

August 18, 2006

Michael Perry
P.O. Box 706
Big Bear City, CA 92314

            Re:       Your letter of August 16 (which did not have a mailing address)

Dear Mr. Perry:

What a disappointment you are!!!  Not only did you send a letter that provides no return address, you failed to mention that you are a paid consultant to the private home rental industry.  You appear to have deliberately misstated the issue, and also perverted the facts to suit your agenda.  You have also failed to acknowledge your own role in what is now an extremely volatile situation.  

1)  The private home rental initiative is not connected to the McLean lawsuit.  Mr. McLean is, however, one of the few people who is not afraid to speak out against injustice.  Most people are understandably afraid of retaliation.  You have made the issue personal. It is not.  

2)  The initiative will not eliminate a homeowner’s right to rent out their home.  It will require a forum for neighbors to be heard before a permit is granted.  It will provide the city with better tools to prevent abuse of our residential neighborhoods.   If you had done your homework when you were city manager, you would know that many cities have ordinances that are much more harsh than the one proposed.  Many cities prohibit transient home rentals altogether.

3)  Property values are already in jeopardy:  the number of listings in the multiple book have quadrupled in recent months and prices are dropping -- all within the context of unfettered transient home rentals!!!  The initiative WILL NOT ELIMINATE THE RENTAL OF SECOND HOMES.  IT WILL MAKE THEIR GUESTS RESPECT THE PEACE AND PRIVACY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 

A.                 So many people have purchased second homes with the promise someone else will make their mortgage payments (why are they buying homes they can’t afford anyway?),   that we have created a false economy.   I am told that rental agencies, often associated with real estate offices, tell buyers, “I would not even accept your home into my rental program if I weren’t comfortable that I can rent it [79] days of the year.”  Now there are too many transient rentals.  The agents cannot fulfill their promises.  Homeowners are struggling to make their payments.

B.                 What about the decrease in value many of us have seen because we have to disclose the fact that our home is next door to a party house?

C.                What about the property values of our lodges?  The lodge owners are part of our city.  Lodges cannot even sell for replacement value because their income does not justify that price. 

4)  Of course transient home rentals provide over 50% of the beds available!!!  They have surpassed the beds offered by the lodging industry because they are cheap and unregulated.  The initiative WILL NOT ELIMINATE 50% OF EVERY NIGHT’S AVAILABLE BEDS.  It WILL assure that the homes offering the beds are safe and that their occupants will be respectful of the neighbors.  It will improve the quality of homes offered.  Surely you remember recent comments at city counsel about weed-infested, run-down transient rentals. 

Furthermore, most lodges are NOT full on busy weekends, unless they are willing to forego their minimum 2- or 3- day requirement. 

5)  Our economy is already impacted by the caliber of people we market to.  We tell them, “come to Big Bear,”  “if you can’t afford to make your mortgage payments, we have a plan to have someone else pay it,”  “lodging is cheap—rent a house for six people and we’ll turn our backs while you jam it with as many people as you want.”  These people do NOT eat at our restaurants.  They cook at home.  They do NOT buy at our local shops.  They do NOT visit our local bars.  They load up with booze from the local supermarket and party the night away right at home — next door to our homes— raucously.   They poison our animals.  They throw their cigarettes and trash into our yards. 

6)  Retail, service businesses, recreation, construction are already negatively affected—and there are plenty of rentals.  Contractors are required to perform warranty repairs on homes that have been abused.  I am told that many retail businesses and restaurants are struggling.  Many businesses have closed.  Recreation will, of course, always depend on the quality of its service.

7)  It is not true that City Services would be cut drastically.  The quality of rental homes would improve; with the demise of shoddy, unregulated, unhealthy transient rentals and their incredibly cheap rates, visitors would be attracted to our lodges, which offerings range from clean/healthy/comfortable to luxurious. 

While I am happy for the ‘nest egg’ you have built up in your home, what about the ‘nest egg’ lodge owners worked so hard for?  While the primary issue is NOT the inequality within the commercial lodging industry (yes, transient homes are commercial lodging), it cannot be ignored.

   Your group wrongly focuses on the competition issue.  The issue is what is happening to our neighborhoods.  Lawful commercial lodging is zoned and regulated to protect guests and neighbors.  When commercial lodging occurs in our residential neighborhoods, those protections disappear.  Your group says our visitors are diverse; they require diverse types of lodging.  That is certainly true.  Some want to save money, often by hosting more than the authorized number of people.  They want to party, and do not want supervision.  These people will rent a transient home.  The more conservative guest will appreciate a lodge or motel.  Why do we get the rude people in our neighborhoods and the commercial districts get the less problematic guest? 

   While we’re at it, why don’t we look at our overall economy?  Why don’t we market to the people that are more likely to spend money and that will return if they have a good experience?  I am told that the ski areas spend millions each year on capital improvements and advertising, only to hold their own in visitor numbers.   I was told last fall that the Resort Association was not even marketing to Orange County.  I am told by Orange County residents that they would rather travel to Whistler, or Mammoth, or other “classy” resorts where they have a first-rate experience, than drive just 2 hours to Big Bear.  They don’t like the attitude of many of our employees and they don’t think we have a tasteful atmosphere.  These people work hard, and when they relax they want amenities; they want to be treated respectfully; they even want to be catered to.  If they chose to rent a private home, they don’t want a houseful of partiers next door.  They expect sanitary conditions.  If we focus on providing a class experience, we won’t have to spend millions on advertising—word of mouth is always best.  Instead of bickering over whether we should adopt an ordinance that will regulate private home rentals, why not arrange a workshop in Orange County.  Let’s ask them what they like and dislike about Big Bear.  Let’s ask them what they would like to see changed.  Let’s send our employees to the Von’s school of public relations.  Let’s involve the city, the ski areas, the chamber of commerce and the Resort Association.    This false economy we have created cannot last forever.  Let’s have a plan rather than sit back and let a “reduced economy” surprise us.

   Your letter contains generalities, but no substance.  What part of the initiative is a problem?  It is the result of the continuing refusal of the city to address the problem of transient home rentals.  Such refusal was blatant when you were city manager, and it continues.  You told me over a year and a half ago in public forum that the council realizes that there is a problem with transient rentals.  You promised that the city would have a workshop “in a few weeks.”  We didn’t have one.   When you were city manager Mr. McLean made an offer to meet to discuss the issues prior to circulating the initiative petition.  You did not respond.  Mr. McLean and I met later with the city clerk and renewed the offer.  You did not respond.  A few weeks ago I told council the offer had been made twice.  Mayor Jahn’s response was, “I didn’t know we could talk to Mr. McLean.”  The city attorney told him a meeting was permissible as long as the lawsuit was not discussed.  Still, no one responded.  The petition is our last resort to reclaim our neighborhoods. 

   It is NOT “Mr. McLean’s petition.”  It is the “residents’ petition.”  In signing the petition, many remark, “it’s about time!!”  “let me tell you about the nightmare in my neighborhood”  “why wouldn’t the city do anything?”  If you or city council had another idea for bringing sanity back to our neighborhoods, why didn’t you do something?  If you really want to “work together,” why don’t we do something productive?  When various factions worked together after an initiative was presented regarding sign regulation, we developed an acceptable ordinance.  The city does not have that same cooperative spirit today.  If city council refuses to even discuss the problem, what other choice do the residents have?  We cannot keep living like this.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Sincerely,

Dixie Allison

Big Bear Lake

Back to Front Page