In an ultimate irony, this new policy that Hammett is
musing over would also exclude Christian youth groups and any gaggles of
Catholic nuns and priests that might come to Venice to visit the Diocese
headquarters -- it's my understanding that the Diocese also has rental property
that is used as transient housing. You get five or six nuns together on a
vacation outing and you are just asking for social upheaval. Those penguins are
party animals.
What Hammett has done, in two words, is quite likely to change
the dynamic of the discussion and may very well have elevated the fight to a
very precarious legal precipice. By openly stating that this is about
"Traditional Families," Hammett appears to be stating that Venice is willing to
take the fight well beyond that which is allowed by law. In a clear, concise,
and strongly exclusionary statement, Hammett has unfortunately tainted the
argument, possibly for good, and for no good reason.
Read
the first seven or eight paragraphs of this document and you'll see the problem in a
clearer light. Granted, much of the document deals with laws in the State of New
York, but pay close attention to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions mentioned.
Keep that in mind when you read Hammett's words about "Traditional Families."
When Principe read those words, she focused right in on
them and exploded, and rightfully so.
To compound the error, Councilman Rick Tacy stumbled in and mumbled out a confusing and creatively spelled response,
stating that some of Principe's points were, in his word, "crap." Later,
Tacy would add the descriptive phrase "neighborhood destroying" into the mix.
These e-mails have been circulating all over town as they
were being sent out. They
are public record and span from July 24 to July 26, 2006. I'm reprinting them
here because... well, because I couldn't possibly come up with anything funnier
this week.
Honorable Fred
Hammett
Mayor of the City of Venice
Venice, FL 34285
Dear Mayor Hammett:
I am writing this letter to you to address the recent restrictions
imposed on short-term rentals in the city of
Venice.
It's amazing to me that the residents of the city of Venice
are so short-sighted. It is also amazing to me, how
the general populace fails to comprehend (or care
about) the basics of Economics 101.
I have just been informed of the new initiatives to curtail short-term
rentals. And make no bones about it, it's all about curtailing
short-term rentals, not just about making sure
these rentals are done properly.
The handful of vocal citizens of
Venice that called for this action fail to realize
that their lovely town is not just a community of permanent
year-round residents that are 70+ years old. The town's future, whether
residents like it or not, depends on tourism.
That said, let's look at local tourism. Seasonal rentals are down and
many homes go unbelted during the winter (this has been confirmed a
reputable local property management company). This is
because there are an overabundance of monthly
rentals and most potential vacationers do not/can not
rent for an entire month. If Venice homeowners wish to rent
their homes by the month they're being "advised" by local property
management companies to upgrade their kitchen's & bathrooms and
provide full cable on plasma televisions. This,
I'm told, is because anyone renting for the season or
by the month wants all of these modern conveniences.
Truth be told, this is not a cost effective option to
spend this type of money in order to possibly rent
your house for 1-3 months in
the winter. Thus the older homes are less likely to be rented by the
month or season.
If vacationers would like to experience Venice, they have a handful of
motel/B&B choices that do not meet the needs of families. But of course
that's not a problem to these vocal Venice residents, because if they
could, I believe they'd outlaw children in their town as well. I truly
believe that the vocal Venice residents do not wish to entertain
children in their town and these short-term
rental restrictions are another way to
keep them out. There is almost no way for a family to vacation in
Venice unless they rent a home for a month. This is
not a likely scenario for any family as in most cases,
one or two members of that family work for a
living. This is one reason why I believe Venice will eventually fail as
a resort town. There is no life being breathed
into the area. Realistically, with an average age of
Venice residents being nearly 69 years old, the
general populace of Venice will not be able to support
the town in the manner to which they've become
accustomed. At least, not for
many more years.
The real estate market in Venice is getting crushed. There is increased
supply on the island and Venice area with very few homes being purchased
every month. Which means it's a seller's market, the home prices are
falling fast and the tax base in Venice is going to get lower and lower
as new homes are purchased at prices lower than
their current appraisal. This
coupled with investors pulling out of Venice due to the new stringent
restrictions on short-term rentals, will inevitably drain the tax base
and budget of Venice.
What's puzzling is that the initiative to curtail short-term rentals is
coming from a city that spent millions of dollars on beautifying the
area to attract tourism. This initiative from a
city that claims it cares about the well-being of the
local businesses that are clearly the ones that will
suffer the most from a slowdown in tourism. Do you honestly
believe that the residents of Venice are supporting the shops on Venice
Ave? Or do you acknowledge the more likely scenario that they are
fulfilling their shopping requirements at Wal-Mart. It's the short-term
renters and the part-time residents that support the Venice Ave shops.
My husband and I own a home on Venice Island. Until recently we owned
two homes. We renovated both homes when we
purchased them and continued to
maintain them to a high standard. Because of rising insurance premiums
and the increased danger of hurricanes we sold one of our properties.
It was comforting to know that if we chose to rent our remaining property
to help defray costs, we could do so within our
rights as homeowners. However, it now seems that in
order to rent our home periodically, to the
type of renters/vacationers that now exist, we need to declare our home
as a vacation dwelling. This entails additional
cost for licensing and a process that would be near
impossible for a family whose primary residence
is thousands of miles away.
I adore Venice for the quaintness that it serves, yet I see what's
coming down the road. I see the local
businesses suffering due to the insistence
of a handful of Venice residents that they can remain in a time warp.
West Venice Ave shops will eventually once
again be boarded up and the tax base
will be insufficient to keep up the maintenance of the recent
beautification of the city and tourism will decline with the lack of
rentals. House values will continue to decline as investors and
residents with any kind of vision continue to sell their homes. Thus, my husband
and I are seriously considering cutting our losses now and finding a new
area we'd like to eventually call home.
What's sad is that the typical Venice resident complaining about
short-term rentals will likely read this letter and say "Good, we don't
want you here." And that is the way we feel as part-time residents:
"Unwelcome." To you, vocal Venice residents, I say "good luck." Good
luck with the predicted rise in hurricanes, good luck with rising
insurance premiums, good luck with the deteriorating tax base, good luck
with the ultimate closing of local businesses, good luck with the baby
boomer tourism that increases in other Florida
cities that allow short-term rentals and passes Venice
by.
Mayor Hammett, this is my second letter to you. I was disappointed to
hear others that had written to you received a response but I did not.
That said, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and feedback on this
matter which is of great importance to me. Granted, my taxation is
without representation and I'm not technically a "constituent" as my
primary residence is elsewhere. But I hold out the hope that this is
not the reason I have not been granted the
courtesy of a response.
Thank-you.
Best Regards,
Lisa (and Frank) Principe
Now watch this response from Hammett closely:
In response to your email and request for a response, I will
explain what concerns that
Council and Staff are trying to resolve. The real issues
seems to be both length of stays in a rental and the quantity or number
of people populating a rental unit. Weekend
stays and having 15 or 16 people
in a house in a single family neighborhood is not appropriate. That
activity would be considered "resort dwelling" similar to the buildings
found is an area like Nags Head North Carolina, not Venice Florida.
While some of the community have advocated
elimination of rentals as you have stated will not
likely happen.
If someone has a house for rent to a traditional family for a
month or so in the winter
season, there should be no concern. The houses that have
caused the concern, now nearly community wide, are not of that
description. City Staff and City Attorney are working on
definitions and conditions that are acceptable in
single family neighborhoods and will make
recommendations to Council [emphasis added].
I expect to have this subject be an agenda item at our August 8 Council
Meeting. I hope this clarifies the work that is being done and why on
Short Term Rentals.
Fred Hammett
Uh oh. Can you smell the burn? Now would be a good time
to duck.
I thank you for your response. However, I don't agree that
this is the best course of action to address the "real
issues" you've described.
If what you say is correct, and the only real concern is length of stay
and occupancy, couldn't this just be resolved by instituting a minimum
length of stay for rentals of one week and a maximum occupancy by square
footage and/or bedrooms?? Thus addressing and rectifying your concern
with weekend rentals and overpopulated homes. I
believe this would be a much less expensive and time
consuming option for the city of Venice.
I refer to a recent Herald Tribune poll that indicates 50% of the Venice
population are against curtailing short-term rentals and 25% couldn't
care less about the issue. Thus, all of this
time, effort and expense for a small consensus
(obviously a small consensus with great influence.) I
don't see the justification. I'd like to know how many complaints have
been filed with the police regarding noise, parking issues and/or anyone
breaking the law.
There are so many problems with Venice....corruption in the news every
other day. Is this issue really something that
the council should be focusing on given all the other
issues and problems in the city????
And one final point, you state in your note below that "If someone has a
house for rent to a traditional family for a month or so in the winter
season, there should be no concern." I ask you to please note the irony
in that statement. A traditional family consists of parents and
children. I personally don't know a
"traditional family" that can take a holiday for a
period of one month.
Regards,
Lisa Principe
If that "Traditional Family" thing wasn't bad enough,
let's see if we can make things worse:
I was ready to address your reasonable questions and concerns
unitil you insulted our fine hard working employees
with all the curption crap. Suffice to say we are
addressing the issue with all current tools we have and will add other if necessary, after careful examination of the
possable unintended consquences [all words sic].
Good day.
RICK
[Venice City Councilman Rick Tacy]
And that's about the time I went off on Tacy in an
e-mail that appears to have been either filtered or deleted from the city's
servers (can't imagine why that would happen):
Oh Rick, come off it. I wasn't going to enter this fray, but
you gotta be kidding me. We're paying $2 goddam
million dollars for corruption, corruption that
happened while you were sitting back trying to figure out if
[former city manager George] Hunt was full of it when he was talking
about his Fifth Column. By your own account in the EPA
Shade Transcripts, you went along for the ride for a
while, but even when you were jaded by Hunt's paranoiac musings, you never
spoke out against it until the damage was done. I would never presume to
even hint that you were a part of any corruption, I truly believe that
you weren't, but you sat on the
sidelines while it all happened, you were
present at the Shade Meetings and you approved a $2 million dollar payout.
Playing the naive innocent right now does not befit you in the least.
Corruption? What corruption? Give me a freaking
break.
You wonder why I get so pissed off at government?
Well, I read an e-mail like yours and it's guaranteed
to hit a nerve.
You are capable of better and God knows, we deserve it.
-- John Patten
Meanwhile, Principe was forming a more reserved (but
equally angry) response to Tacy:
Dear Mr. Tacy,
My prior letters and emails have been written with respect and
professionalism. I am appalled and astonished by your lack of either,
especially given your position within the Venice government. My
reference was to the corruption cited in
various local news reports and I don't think anyone
can refute that there have been many allegations of
corruption in Venice over the past year. If you don't consider the very
recent (& confirmed) reports of a Venice police sergeant tipping off a
drug dealer to an imminent drug raid an example of
corruption, I'd really
like to understand what criteria you recognize to describe the term. I
find it demoralizing that the charges were confirmed and the officer
received only 4 days suspension....and I'm sure many citizens of Venice
whether full or part time would agree with me.
I also would appreciate if you could reiterate and further articulate
your second and last sentence as I am not quite
sure what it means.
Thank you and regards.
Lisa Principe
Surprisingly, Tacy mellowed and conceded Principe's
point, although he apparently goes along with this "Traditional Family" thing,
only the new catch phrase is "neighborhood destroying:"
Yes, your prior letters were ["written
with respect and
professionalism"]. Yes there have been allegations,
the officers carreer is virtually over due to his
actions. But about that. What I said we are currently
using the tools we have available to us to regulate
this neighborhood destroying activity. We are studying our
other options to make sure what every we do do not have any unintended
consquences. We want to protect the people who have bought their
retirement home but find it necessary to rent it 1-2 weeks several
mutiple times a year, to help cover the carrying cost. These people
don't cram 18 people into a built for 6 week after week.
And finally, Principe's closure to the matter:
That's comforting to know. My husband and I have yet to even
rent our home. However, our wind insurance just doubled and our taxes reassessed
after a year from purchase and we now find our carrying costs to have increased
to a level that forces us to defray increased costs by renting. We don't want to
sell but may be forced to if necessary given the outcome of this action. We're
considering renting only to friends, colleagues and family for periods of one to
two weeks as we have our money as well as our hearts invested in our Venice
home.
Thank you for your feedback. I hope that you keep our type of scenario in mind
when determining the recommended course of action to address party type rentals.
Regards,
Lisa Principe
NOTE: All e-mails above are reprinted in
their entirety and are unedited. No deletions of any text were made, this so
that the reader would have complete grasp of the context in which statements
were made. Header and footer information, including To, From, and Date fields,
were stripped out for space considerations.
John Patten is the head of Web Operations for Creative Pages, and has worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He
can also be incredibly rude at times.
