The Astoria City Council is again discussing the possibility of regulating vacation rentals in the city.
And — with two new councilors in place after the November election — a cap on the number of vacation rentals allowed in the city also seems to have council support.
The previous council was split on several aspects of the proposed vacation rental licensing program before it paused consideration of the ordinance last year. Mayor Sean Fitzpatrick and former city councilors Tom Brownson and Tom Hilton in particular worried that the licensing fees were too high.
But Brownson and Hilton did not run for reelection. Andrea Mazzarella and Vance Lump now hold their seats. At a work session Thursday night, the new city councilors spoke strongly in favor of a cap and Lump wondered if the proposed licensing fees were high enough — though, he added, “I’m not going to die on that.”
City staff have identified about 43 operators in Astoria who would likely need to apply for a vacation rental license if the program moves forward. City staff’s proposal included a suggestion to cap the number of vacation rentals allowed in Astoria at 50.
On Thursday, the council generally agreed that any license renewals and fire- and life-safety inspections should be done on a two-year schedule instead of being required annually, a nod to feedback the city received from vacation rental owners last year.
The majority of the city council also felt that staff’s suggestion of an initial licensing fee of $500 per unit made sense. If renewals are every two years instead of annually, Mazzarella and Lump suggested the initial fee should be $1,000.
The City Council plans to consider a draft ordinance at a future meeting where the public will also have a chance to comment.
On Thursday, Fitzpatrick said he didn’t feel the need for a cap. But if there was a cap, he added, it didn’t need to be at 50.
Councilor Elisabeth Adams quickly replied that she supported a cap at 50. The rest of the council agreed with her.
In researching other municipalities that have passed caps on vacation rentals, Lump said it was clear “they’re reacting to an overabundance of short term rentals and I think this is for us to be able to get ahead of it.”
If the council chooses, it always can raise the cap later, he said.
“But,” he added, “I think Astoria generally has done well staying ahead of short-term rentals. … Most coastal communities are much more overrun with them than we are so I see this as another way for us to just kind of keep a lid on that for now since we are also still in a housing crisis.”
Housing was a big part of discussions about the licensing program last year. At the time, councilors Adams and Andy Davis and Elisabeth Adams noted Astoria’s housing needs and voiced their concern that vacation rentals took long-term rental options away from residents — themes Lump and Mazzarella echoed during their election campaigns and continue to voice as city councilors.
The council has been united in wanting a better understanding of where Astoria could develop housing in the future and a clearer sense of the types of housing that would be most useful.
But increasingly, Fitzpatrick, who owns several rental properties in Astoria, is in the minority on aspects of the housing discussion.
While they have agreed with Fitzpatrick on some points, Davis, Mazzarella, Adams and Lump have consistently aligned with each other in recent meetings, emphasizing a need for workforce and affordable housing in Astoria and pushing for an approach that, they say, requires more creativity and perhaps less profit.
There have been some tense exchanges during public meetings this week as the two sides stressed the needs and interests of different groups.
On Thursday, Fitzpatrick said there had to be consideration for the burden vacation rental operators shoulder given the age of some of Astoria’s buildings and the stormy weather they endure on the North Coast. Fitzpatrick said running a vacation rental can allow people to maintain their property in a way that would be impossible if they were renting to long-term tenants.
“I would also say, from experience, that historic preservation is extremely expensive and I don’t know that habitation can always pay those bills,” he said.
Adams disagreed, saying it was true that some of Astoria’s dilapidated buildings may not pencil out for long-term housing, but added that she didn’t believe the answer is to turn them into short-term or vacation rentals.
“If we really care about historic buildings then we’ll find ways to be able to get people into them, to live in them, to flourish and thrive and continue to be able to have these buildings,” Adams said. “If not, they’re either going to just, you know, be destroyed or they’re going to be turned into short-term rentals — because it sounds like that’s the most appropriate way to use them.”
Fitzpatrick replied: “I urge you to make that investment and show us how it can be done.”
Later, Mazzarella, who is a realtor, noted that she owns a building in Astoria’s historic Uniontown district. She and her husband are slowly restoring it and the only income from the building comes from long-term tenants. She does not charge market rate.
“It can be done,” Mazzarella said. “You don’t make a big profit. We both work full-time jobs and we do a lot of the work ourselves … but it can be done.”
She said she understood Fitzpatrick’s point.
“Not everybody wants to do it that way, and not everybody will,” she said. “And I’m not even saying everyone should. I’m just saying that’s what I’m doing.”