Editor’s note: This article is continued from last week’s A1 story about Riverside County 4th District Supervisor V. Manuel Perez’s May 1 Town Hall meeting regarding short-term rentals (STRs).

Perez and the STR committee are attempting to develop recommendations for changes to the county’s STR ordinance. A current moratorium on new STRs in the unincorporated areas of the county will expire in October.

Public comments at the meeting indicated a spectrum of sentiment, but many of the speakers readily identify themselves as being on one side or the other: Either they are neighbors who have experienced a disruption in the “quiet enjoyment” of their homes, or they themselves rent a house as an STR or wish to, and speak of their “equity,” the right to “responsibly” rent their property, and the need for that extra income to pay a mortgage.

People come here for peace, quiet, and the freedom that comes from being on the periphery of the heavily regulated urban environment. This has a downside also: It’s nice being able to put a small building in your backyard without having to explain to Code Enforcement, but you may not approve of the way your neighbor utilizes this freedom, and response from authorities will be slow at best.

STR owners who spoke were mostly owners of a single cabin they rent out “occasionally.” No one stood up and identified themselves as an investor with dozens of STRs in different areas. The common story is one of decades as a visitor, the decision to buy a vacation home and the purchase being made possible by STR income. Some have lost a spouse and found STR income a way forward in hard times. All these people identify as “responsible” and “good neighbors.” Many repeated that their tenants are “families,” not here for a wild party. It is hard to know how exactly they vet their renters and how the modern internet driven system allows them to know that their renters are “good people,” however.

One of the larger local management companies, a 20-year resident who counted themselves as “among the first to implement all the new regulations … my signs were the first ones up. I’m the one who gets up at 10 o’clock at night when one of my housekeepers might say to me, ‘There’s seven cars at that house and it’s only for eight,’ and I’m driving over there.” She claimed that county personnel have said that most complaints stem from “1 to 2% of STRs,” and holds that conscientious owners and managers should not be punished for the negligence of those few, something all STR owners seem to agree on.

Love of community was professed by all, but Marge Muir, a broker with 66 years on the Hill admonished, you need to know the community to be a part of it. “Meet your neighbors, don’t just send them a letter … You are going to have to be a part of it; don’t just be an owner.” It is axiomatic that loving a thing one does not understand may lead to its destruction.

Concerned neighbors also dwelt on “infrastructure,” primarily water and sewage and fire safety. Longtime residents recall that most of the houses used to be empty, and that seemed “a shame,” but that greater occupancy strains infrastructure designed for part-time use. As to fire and evacuations, one resident had two words “Paradise, California.” STR owners are required to post an evacuation plan, but as one noted, “I am not qualified to put together an evacuation plan.” Muir responded, “There is a master plan for evacuation … in place since 1985 … updated every year,” and directed the public to the Mountain Area Safety Taskforce.

Neither STR owners nor neighbors were satisfied with the county’s role. One former public health nurse who has repeatedly complained about septic effluent from a neighboring STR said the county was “overwhelmed” and that the people answering complaints needed “to be told where Idyllwild is.” When Perez asked whether this situation had improved in the last six months, as the Special Enforcement Team (SET) was activated, the answer was “no.”

On the other side, one owner told of being targeted by a neighbor who told him he was “waging a war on STRs” and saw himself as “the tip of the spear.” They suggested there should be a way for STR owners to respond to complaints they believe are harassment, to bring “balance to the complaint system.” This owner said the relationship had improved over time, a newsworthy story in itself. The “tip of the spear” neighbor spoke to this reporter after the meeting and explained that a broader involvement in neighborhood issues led him to take a more nuanced view of the situation.

Both owners and neighbors complain about the lack of solid facts. A part-time resident who “worked with San Diego County for 22 years … oversaw TOT” [Transient Occupancy Tax] and was involved in drafting that county’s STR ordinance has been requesting information from the county. They shared with the Crier what purports to be April’s STR certificate list for 92549. The county has not responded to the Crier’s request for confirmation, but the list includes 499 active permitted STRs. A visit to AIRDNA, a website that aggregates STR information from a variety of platforms for investors and renters, shows listings for “584 Active Rentals” in Idyllwild/Pine Cove, implying 85 unregistered.

The issue of a “cap” comes up from citizens on both sides of the issue, and the number being cited is 10% of total homes. A quick survey of the three water districts found a total of 4,538 meters, some of which are businesses, implying that the existing number of certified STRs is already over that suggested cap.

STR owners have several well-organized groups they can join that advocate for them, but concerned neighbors seem to lack a “lobby.” They share information, and perhaps misinformation, on various Facebook pages. It is hard to have a meaningful discussion without facts, and one frustrated owner of a second home they use as an STR lamented this lack. “That’s the county’s job.”

Several STR owners in the Mountain Center/Garner Valley area described their situation as different from that of “town” rentals. “The loudest noise we have is the frogs.” Where properties are further apart, they would like more freedom. One resident whose permit expired pleaded for a “case-by-case” approach to permits. Ordinances, however, are written to be applied mechanically as conditions are fulfilled and not at the judgement of bureaucrats. The question before the county becomes: Where are the lines to be drawn? Are owners of a single “second home” to be treated differently from investors who own several? Can residents who live on-site be treated differently than absent owners who hire a management company?

An ordinance without enforcement is a fiction, and “people policing people” not a practical solution. “People say ‘Just call your neighbors and tell them you’re concerned,’ but that’s not realistic … retaliation is a really big thing.” One part-timer who rents their cabin out summed up the lack of clarity on the reality of enforcement: “I don’t know who is supposed to come and visit a home when there is a violation” and asked if “that’s something that is done professionally and provided by people who have supervisors … to hold them accountable … to standards of conduct. I would hope those people are vetted … trained in peaceful intervention.”

The formula heard several times is that money from permits or TOT should come back to the community to do this. TOT goes to the general fund, but permitting fees, ($740 for new permits, $520 for renewals) may be used for enforcement. The former San Diegan involved in their ordinance put this at the top of their recommendations: That the county “hire one-and-a-half compliance officers. They will be a community resident, they will understand our neighborhood and they will understand the values of the community.”

This citizen told the Crier that the one question the county did not answer was whether there has been any enforcement at all of current regulations. Have any fines ever been levied in our area? The county has not yet answered the Crier’s request for clarification on this issue.