Editor:
Sechelt director of planning Andrew Allen’s comments at the recent zoning bylaw public meeting indicated that the community remains “split” on the issue of changes to short-term rental (STR) regulations. But is this true, really?
Any lack of unanimity or consensus, large or small, can be characterized as a split opinion when it’s convenient to do so. That said, one explanation for a split opinion on STRs might be because the district is mostly hearing only from people with immediate skin in the game, i.e. STR owners, local businesses that benefit from STRs, and neighbours who are being negatively impacted (almost exclusively) by unsupervised STRs, a.k.a. party hotels.
Largely missing are the opinions of residents who are currently unaffected by unsupervised STRs but could well be affected tomorrow, next month, or next year if or when a party hotel sets up shop in their neighbourhood. This is a vast swath of households, easily more than all of the groups currently weighing-in combined. One might call them the blissfully unaware (for now) majority.
I’d be very interested to know exactly how “split” community opinion would be if this majority were asked the following question: “Would you like an unsupervised STR/party hotel to open up next door to you or across the street from you?” Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could guess the outcome of a survey like that.
Split opinions? I think not. Here’s the truth: no one wants to live next door to a party house. Yet a number of STR owners and business people seem to think it’s perfectly OK to force this situation onto others. Sechelt council has the power to stop this, yet all they’ve done to date is stall and prevaricate. What are they waiting for and why?
MJ Lord, Sechelt
