Readers Write

We want to vote for FVWD directors

Dear editor:
We have lived in Fern Valley since November 1987. When we moved here we were told that Fern Valley Water District is a landowner voter, state special district.

Any changes to the board that represents the homeowners, not the district, requires a vote.

We have not been allowed to vote for our representatives for over 15 years. We vote they do not appoint the directors for the board.

Danny and Colleen McDonald
Idyllwild

Supervisors’ want Idyllwild to have the most STRs

Dear editor:
We citizens of Idyllwild, typically peaceful and non-combative, have repeatedly asked the board of supervisors to step up and protect us against the unfettered greed of the short-term rental (STR) business, which runs at our expense — runs at the expense of our treasured residential neighborhoods, otherwise known as home. We have to put up with weekend renters who blast amplified music, yell and scream late at night, generate outdoor fires with live embers, pack too many people into homes, and cause driveways and streets to be blocked and congested. It’s a plague on R-1.

Most cities and municipalities all over these United States are limiting or eliminating STRs in R-1 neighborhoods. But, not our supervisors, who advocate for 500 STRs (more than we have already), which amounts to an exorbitant 14% of our housing stock.

For example, in Rancho Mirage and Temecula, all STRs are banned; in Mammoth and South Lake Tahoe, STRs are banned in R-1 neighborhoods; in Cathedral City (0.6%) and Palm Desert (2.62%), only hosted STRs are permitted in R-1; in Murrieta only 300 are allowed in the entire city which equates to 0.84%; Indio and Coachella have about 2%; Desert Hot Springs is taking action to cap STRs at 4%; even Palm Springs, with a generous quota for STRs, has only 8%, which is really 4% as they can only be rented 26 times per year (half of the year); La Quinta is not renewing any STRs in R-1 zones; Yucca Valley is taking action to reduce STRs to 10%.

And, now our supervisors want to increase our STRs TO 14% — the highest, by far, in any city or community of Riverside County, despite that we are in a very high fire area. Why? Transient Occupancy Tax and the STR lobby.

Our community, during sessions arranged at Town Hall by our current Supervisor Perez, voted for a 10% cap (about 350 STRs) and a density limit of 300 feet.

The proposed 927.2 has yet to be voted on: It has been put off several times and now has been delayed until Nov. 28, 2023, so that more changes can be made at the instruction of the supervisors — most likely loosening of restrictions. Why not change the proposed 927.2 to reflect our community’s negotiated mutual compromise? Why push it up so high, when no one who lives here wants that?

Besides R-1 disruption and increased risk of fire, another point is that tourism, which attracts STRs, cannot prosper without workers, who in turn, need local housing. Mammoth Lakes is having the same trouble, so acutely, that last month it decided to halt STRs in a multi-family zone (already prohibited in R-1 and R-2). It found that, “there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare associated with the lack of long-term rental housing in Mammoth Lakes, that there is a link between the prevalence of short-term rental properties and the lack of long-term rental housing, and that the issuance of additional transient occupancy tax registration certificates would exacerbate the threat.”

If you would like your opinion heard, please write to the supervisors, attend or phone-in at the next meeting:
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected] (Our Supervisor Perez)
• [email protected]

Penelope Smrz
Idyllwild