Short term rentals or long term neighbors?
Dear ER:
Hermosa Beach is a small town in a big city. People in this town know their neighbors and care about them, including the 50% of our residents who are renters. Short Term Rentals (STRs), like Airbnbs, raise concerns in our neighborhoods not just about party houses and noise complaints, but also about preserving the sense of community that comes from knowing the people who live next door.
The City lost its court case opposing STRs, and I recognize this creates an appealing revenue stream for the city at a time when we really need it. We should pursue that. But we still need to think proactively about how we preserve our neighborhoods in this new reality.
As our housing stock ages, we’ve seen older apartments and rental properties renovated, with long-term tenants displaced through no-fault evictions to make way for higher-paying tenants. Now that short-term rentals are legal, we should be asking whether those same no-fault eviction provisions will be used to convert long-term housing into vacation rentals. We risk losing families who support our schools, kids who grew up here and want to stay as adults, and seniors who have spent decades here.
I ask that the Hermosa Beach City Council work with planning staff and the city attorney to explore whether properties vacated through gut-renovation or other, no-fault evictions should be prohibited from operating as short-term rentals for a set period of time. The goal is simple: if a tenant is asked to leave because a property needs major renovations or for another legitimate no-fault reason, that process should not become a backdoor way to convert long-term housing into Airbnbs. Such a policy would help protect existing rental housing, which is part of our Housing Element commitments.
Additionally, we should explore a dedicated short-term rental tax surcharge on top of our standard TOT to generate revenue for priorities like maintaining our aging pier, which many visitors will continue to visit. People don’t want their neighborhoods overrun with STRs, and such a measure would likely receive widespread support.
Eric Horne
Hermosa Beach
Love the laws you have
Dear ER:
I have lived on Monterey Boulevard for 40 years and I remember when Hermosa actually enforced parking. When the meter maids came around on street sweeping days, people would run out of their homes to move their cars. People knew if they ignored the rules, they would get ticketed. Parking turned over, the city generated revenue, and residents could actually find parking near their homes. Today, it feels very different.
We have a one-hour parking restriction in the Coastal Zone during the summer, but it doesn’t mean much if it isn’t enforced. I’ve seen cars stay all day in one spot. Many consider the occasional ticket as the price of a day at the beach.
Meanwhile, I pay for a permit and there are days I cannot find parking outside my house. So, I don’t understand the push for expanded metering on Monterey Blvd. and Manhattan Ave. But it doesn’t seem like a viable solution to the budget deficit. If we are not consistently enforcing the rules we already have, why would anyone believe expired meters will be enforced?
If the goal is to generate revenue, enforce the existing time limits. Increase fines so violations actually have an impact. (Costa Mesa charges up to $250 a ticket). Hire enough meter people to enforce the one-hour restrictions.
Most of all, residential neighborhoods should still look and feel like neighborhoods. I don’t want rows of parking meters on my street. Let’s start enforcing the existing rules and rethink whether new meters are actually necessary.
Darlene Goodwin
Hermosa Beach
Pier mathematics
Dear ER:
For those younger folks that say we must rebuild the pier please consider the construction of the current Hermosa Beach Pier in 1965 cost $589,600. Exactly half of that cost, $294,800 was covered by the state’s California Wildlife Conservation Board. The city covered the other half with reserve funds. Taxes were not raised.
Adjusting strictly inflation, the original 1965 construction cost of $589,600 works out to $6.1 million today. The $294,800 the city paid with its reserves equates to $3 million to today’s dollars. However, rebuilding the exact same structure today is estimated by city officials to cost $44.5 million to $58.6 million. On top of that, it will cost another $40 million to pay the interest on a 30 year bond.
The fairness of a parcel-tax that charges a senior living in Hermosa on modest fixed income in a modest home the same pier-tax as will be paid by rich Strand property owners and the same tax amount as a high value commercial parcel may be questioned when a bond measure comes to the voters.
One alternative that has been bantered about is raising the local hotel/short-term rental TOT tax to help fund a new pier. But each 1% increase in the Hermosa Beach Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) generates only about $364,000 annually. So a TOT tax won’t get us far. To fund the pier it would probably take the better part of .75 % sales tax increase and a 1% to 2% Hotel/Short Term Vacation Rental tax increase.
And if we use those new taxes to fund a new pier how will the city fund the other $50 million in existing unfunded, high priority capital projects like the $20 million city yard and the approximately $20 million in urgent, approved but unfunded deferred capital maintenance on the Civic Center, City Hall, Police Station and parking lots.
If a ballot measure explicitly guarantees the TOT or sales tax will only be used for a specific project like a pier, it becomes a special tax. Under California law (Proposition 218), a special tax requires a tougher, two-thirds (66.7%) voter majority to pass. But without a Special Tax there is no way to guarantee funding actually goes for a specific purpose like a Pier or a City Yard or even public safety.
All this is above my pay grade but some things to consider.
Anthony Higgins
Hermosa Beach
