The Marin County Board of Supervisors should step back from the detailed arguments about short-term rentals and look at the big-picture impacts of coastal S.T.R.s on our vulnerable coastal communities. These villages are most easily damaged by housing shortages because they are too far for workers to commute to from population centers in other counties. Supervisors agreed with this basic point at a May meeting on the Housing Element.  

The ordinance approved by the Planning Commission last month would reduce coastal S.T.R.s from 16 percent of all dwelling units to 9.6 percent. Hosted rentals are included in the caps, but that issue is contested by some interest groups. One commissioner recommended an annual limit of 90 days, to eliminate corporate investors buying up units. Many perceptive and heartfelt letters have appeared in the Light and the I.J. pleading for the board to stop the damage caused by the increase in overnight visitors. Many letters have also appeared from S.T.R. owners asserting a right to make more money.  

To support the public interest, I think the Board of Supervisors should: 

1) Reduce hosted S.T.R.s by at least 50 percent in all communities. 

2) Not allow ADUs and JADUs to be S.T.R.s. Those special development rules are intended to produce affordable long-term housing.  

3) Prohibit apartments and condos from conversion to S.T.R.s. These small units are clearly needed for long-term renters. 

4) Not exempt agricultural properties from the ordinance, as those units also could be in the normal rental market. 

5) Not allow multiple S.T.R.s by one owner, as those encourage corporate ownership. 

6) Prohibit any S.T.R. where the owner does not live on the site. An unhosted S.T.R. is simply a real estate investment, and there are infinite ways to invest money. 

Finally, 7) Limit S.T.R.s to 60 days per year. This has been enacted in cities worldwide to prevent corporate ownership while allowing incidental renting by second-home owners. 

Most economists believe S.T.R.s reduce units in the long-term rental market and so limit opportunities for workers to rent near their jobs. Current S.T.R. owners say their property rights will be taken by any stronger limits, but the United States and California Supreme Courts have always held that substantially reducing the value of someone’s property for a defined public purpose is not a taking. Comments from residents mostly ask the county to limit S.T.R.s much more than is proposed, to preserve affordable housing and our sense of community.  

Though the draft ordinance states that it “…preserves existing housing and communities…and provides visitor serving accommodations for coastal tourists,” allowing 480 S.T.R.s in coastal Marin will definitely damage most of our communities. For example, Marshall was mostly first homes and second homes until S.T.R.s caught on and investors came in. It is now mostly S.T.R.s and the sense of community from Fisherman’s to Cypress Grove has died out.  

Marin’s Housing Element includes Policy 2.5—Preserve Existing Housing—and Policy 2.6—Preserve Permanent Housing. Both are violated by the proposed S.T.R. ordinance that removes 9.6 percent of units from the long-term rental stock. Most community plans on the coast have policies favoring a sense of community. 

It is not necessary for short-term visitors to stay overnight here, as there is a good supply of motel rooms along the 101 corridor and in the nearby cities. This is what most tourists do now, because of the much greater supply of services there. Marconi has just added 45 beds on the coast. If we strongly limit coastal S.T.R.s, a few tourists would be slightly inconvenienced, but the residents of our villages would be greatly benefitted by the preservation and prioritization of community.  

Short-term rentals are a huge problem in tourist-serving cities all over the world. Neighborhoods in Venice, Barcelona, London, Paris and many smaller cities have been devastated by S.T.R.s. Many cities in the U.S. have been impacted and as a result have tightly restricted S.T.R.s. People in these places realized that making more money is not a public interest goal, whereas protecting a sense of community is. 

Don Smith’s Oct. 12 op-ed in the Light described how the California Coastal Commission has approved low S.T.R. caps in coastal communities, in recognition of the damage they cause to affordable housing and to a sense of community. This is an important finding, since that agency is biased toward short-term visitors. Don states that the proposed ordinance conflicts with our Housing Element and Local Coastal Program. I believe that it would likely be struck down in court. In California, all land use plan elements must contain compatible objectives and policies. Mr. Smith also shows that home prices rose faster in coastal Marin than countywide from 2013 to 2020, the period of S.T.R. conversion. This is another important point that should have been included in county staff reports.  

Bob Johnston is a retired University of California, Davis, professor. He lives in Inverness.