Editor,
As a UC Irvine political science professor who has done research on public policy for more than 40 years, I know this key finding: a policy is very likely to fail if implementation is extremely difficult. I suggest that the STL (short term lodging) policy proposed by the subcommittee of councilmembers Dicterow and Whalen has fundamental implementation problems and should be rejected.
It is naïve to believe that the great majority of those making substantial profits from STLs will register for a permit and fulfill all of the requirements that are included in the subcommittee’s proposed regulations. Equally important, it is naïve to believe that in most cases where violations occur, neighbors and/or city officials would be able to: (1) adequately monitor the extent of the violations; (2) gather sufficient evidence of those violations; (3) document the violations in a legally viable manner; and (4) impose stiff fines that were actually paid by the violators.
Some unlicensed STL landlords and tenants are sensitive to their impacts in residential neighborhoods. But for a substantial number of STL landlords, the financial incentives are too huge for them to follow the restrictions in the council subcommittee version. The landlords will find many ways to end-run the regulations. And city officials and neighbors will find it extraordinarily difficult to “prove” crucial regulations, such as, for example: that there have been only two 2-week rentals per year; that there are only two residents per bedroom; that the landlord is in residence six of the 12 months; that “visitors” are not non-paying friends or home exchangers; and so on). Enforcement will also raise important problems regarding privacy and neighbor-neighbor relations.
Serious implementation problems are only one of the several important reasons that have been identified and documented regarding the negative effects of STLs in residential neighborhoods. On many policies, compromise is a great outcome among competing preferences. But not on STLs in residential neighborhoods.
Only a ban on all but a very limited number of licensed and rigorously monitored STLs (except in commercially zoned areas) can create the clarity of conditions in which implementation of the policy could succeed in achieving the goals of policy compliance and of protecting the “quiet enjoyment” in residential neighborhoods that is judicially protected by city zoning laws. Thus I support the Planning Commission’s proposal as the most appropriate one for dealing with STLs in Laguna Beach.
James Danziger, Laguna Beach
