Resolving Contentious Issues

With at least two highly contentious issues up for resolution - STRs and policing - I'd like to share thoughts on how we should make decisions on contested issues. I certainly can't recommend the model of political decision-making we see too often at the federal level, marked by extreme partisanship "alternative facts," and lack of civil discourse. 

It is a matter of great importance to me that we do not let this negative, unproductive, approach infect Del Mar. Now more than ever it matters how our little city runs and how we reach decisions. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts, and a decision-making process that values fact finding, careful analysis, and a commitment to the values of our Community Plan should be our lodestar.  Progress in Del Mar depends on a civil, rigorous, and relentless pursuit of facts, on listening, on respecting opposing viewpoints. 

This is hard. It requires discipline to vet facts before adopting positions. It can be uncomfortable to listen to those with whom we do not agree. It can be a challenge to recognize that, sometimes, we may need to change our preconceived notions. If a good process is respected and followed, in the end, we should be able to respect the decision that is made, whether we agree with it or not.

We are fashioning a program to protect our residential neighborhoods while allowing residents and owners to engage in some short-term rental activity that is appropriate for residential neighborhoods. The program will include good neighbor policies, will limit STR occupancy, and will be supported by a very simple, non-intrusive registration process to facilitate enforcement and to provide neighbors with a contact number in case of problems.

A key goal is to discontinue the full time STRs that are imposing intensive commercial uses in neighborhoods intended to be residential in character. STR businesses will still be allowed in the Visitor Commercial, RC, and other commercial zones, and Council is evaluating STR uses for special situations. But these "mini-hotels" - year-round, high-intensity, high-turnover STRs -- will have to move out of our residential neighborhoods. 

Here are the highlights why this middle ground approach is good for the community:

* For the first time there will be limits and protections for residents living near STR uses:

     No one in a residential zone will be forced to live next to an STR operated for more than 28 days      per year;

     No one will experience the disruptive process of turnover every 2-3 days;

     The number of people on site will be limited to 2 people per bedroom;

     The number of cars will be limited to the number of off-street parking spaces;

* A voluntary "Good Neighbor Policy" (that may become mandatory if the voluntary approach doesn't work) will be given to every STR guest;

* A posted contact number will be required so nuisances can be addressed as they occur;

* Del Mar's long-term rental housing stock, vitally important to providing housing for diverse socio-economic groups, will be preserved and not converted to the much more intensive and lucrative business of full time STR use;

* For the first time, STR renting for up to 28 days in 7 day increments will be legal for our residents and property owners in ALL residential zones. This will accommodate our residents who want to rent their property while they go on vacation, to raise some cash, or for other personal reasons while providing options for visitors;

* Rentals for 30 days or more, including for the racing season (which is typically 4-6 weeks) will remain unaffected. The right to STR rent for up to 28 days in 7 day increments is in addition to these 30 day+ rights;

* The right to have friends, college students, guests, etc. come and go and stay for short or long periods will remain unaffected. The new regulations will affect only rentals and exchanges where rent or other value changes hands.

* A "soft landing" will be offered to allow time for those who are covered by the current STR moratorium to come into compliance.

* The most recent census reported the City of Del Mar's population as 4,161, with 34.3% living alone, and the remaining living in households with an average of 2.57 people reflecting an average occupancy of 2.02 per household. Those numbers provide context for the special neighborhood character our Community Plan is intended to preserve. By contrast, the much higher occupancy rates of STRs can bring 10, 15 or even more people, and multiple cars, to a 3 or 4 bedroom home. The new rules will reduce the intensity of use in our residential zones back to what it should be.

I think this approach reflects a good compromise position. It won't make everyone happy, but it will work for most residents, and it will provide options for visitors. If it needs to be changed in the future, we can do that too. Most importantly, it balances competing interests in a way that honors the intent and purposes of our Community Plan and residential zones. 

Make no mistake, however, it won't work for those who want to run full time "mini-hotels" in our residential zones. Since their business model relies on high-intensity, year-round use, they are, perhaps understandably, not interested in compromise or a middle ground and are the loudest objectors. The attorney who speaks for them has made it clear that they oppose any minimum stay limits and any limits on the number of days per year with respect to STR uses in residential zones. I respectfully submit that I have listened with an open mind, but have ended up disagreeing with their positions on these issues. 

This article represents my personal views as one of your 5 council members. I welcome comments and feedback.

I urge everyone to carefully consider the detailed facts and analysis available (and still emerging), and listen critically to a wide variety of viewpoints, before firming up your position.   I'm still in the midst of that process myself, and I hope that the community as a whole will engage in that process. I see a three-step process making sense. Step 1, get the facts out and vet them. That's where we are now. Step 2, have a community discussion to debate the pros and cons. Step 3, take our time to make a decision, including consideration of how we should make the final decision: By council vote? By community survey? By public vote? I am open on how best to make the final decision.

  Pros and Cons: In an effort to stimulate thought and debate, here is a summary of the developing arguments pro and con on a Del Mar PD. They don't cover everything, but they do summarize what I have gleaned are the major points on both sides that seem to have some merit. Neither the pro nor the con position is "right" or "wrong." Rather, it depends on the priorities and values one uses to evaluate them. So, I hope we can recognize that those with whom we may not agree may have reached their position with as much integrity as we have. Setting out key pro and con summaries helps me evaluate the issues, and I hope it helps you too. Let me know if you think I missed something important:

PROS:

* All the reports show that a DMPD can be cost competitive while providing a better level of service than what we get from the Sheriff. For about the same cost as Del Mar pays the Sheriff for one full time deputy, a DMPD could provide two full time deputies. This conclusion is a reflection of the high, and ever escalating, cost for a relatively modest level of service from the Sheriff.

* A DMPD could provide community based service that the large and bureaucratic Sheriff department cannot. With the Sheriff, Del Mar is a small fish in a big pond. Our own PD would be like our fire and lifeguard departments, focused on our needs. A DMPD would develop a deep understanding of Del Mar, responding quickly to community calls in a way that the Sheriff cannot. With our own PD Del Mar would be the only fish in the pond. 

* Del Mar would continue to receive key services at no additional cost from the Sheriff such as SWAT, the crime lab, Astria helicopter, jail and booking services, bomb squad, etc., as well as mutual aid when needed. Del Mar would be able to handle any eventuality that might occur.

* Combining our existing parking enforcement and ranger programs into a new DMPD would provide better, more cost effective, service across a range of Del Mar needs from nuisance prevention (noise complaints, rowdy bar patrons, barking dogs, etc.), to community policing (facilitating neighborhood watch, home inspections, door checks on local businesses, neighborhood patrols by bike or car, responding to alarms, etc.) to addressing traffic and crime issues.

* Del Mar would decide how its police would be deployed and what the priorities would be, not the distant and bureaucratic Sheriff command structure, where the Captain responsible for Del Mar changes on a nearly annual basis.

* The reports and studies document that liability, pension, labor, finding a site, start up costs, and other issues can all be handled cost effectively and safely. Read the studies to see for yourself.

* Augmenting the current Sheriff's level of service would be expensive and still leave us that small fish in a big pond.

* If a Del Marian has a problem on the beach and calls the Del Mar lifeguards, chances are they know the caller. They pick up the phone on 3 or so rings, and provide great service. Why shouldn't we expect the same from police services? We don't get that from the Sheriff where calls often get put on hold, and wait 45 minutes or more for a field response. The Sheriff deputies are rarely seen in town as they have duties elsewhere and they turnover often. A local PD can bring the kind of service we want at a competitive cost.

* Bottom line: If you want better service at a competitive cost, a DMPD makes great sense. It's been studied in detail by consultants, by the city finance committee, and by outside sources. Sure, it would reflect a big change, but that would be change for the better. 

CONS

* A DMPD would likely be the largest department in the city--bigger than the Planning Department, Lifeguard, or fire service--bringing bureaucratic issues we will regret. This idea that little Del Mar can support and manage a police department runs counter to our small town experience.

* Sticking with the Sheriff is a known proposition. It has worked for Del Mar for decades. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  
* Creating our own PD brings unknown risks. It will change city management as it takes on an oversight role for a large, new department. It may well bring labor, pension, insurance, and liability issues that are now all handled by the Sheriff. Why would Del Mar want to take on those risks and responsibilities?

* If your vision for Del Mar is a quiet, residential community with a small city government tending to the basics, then sticking with the Sheriff is the way to go. 

* Finding a place to house a DMPD will be difficult and expensive. Putting it in City Hall will drive neighbors crazy. Buying and building in Del Mar is very expensive. Renting will incur ongoing costs indefinitely. The Sheriff takes care of all this for us--why change that?

* Even if a DMPD is cost competitive (a claim that needs further vetting), abandoning the Sheriff to set up our own PD is a risky gamble that is unnecessary. We contract for many other services. Contracting with the Sheriff has worked for decades and can continue to work. 

* Bottom Line: Del Mar is a terrific place. Our crime rates are low. We're doing fine with the current level of Sheriff service. If we want more, let's augment Sheriff services. It's worth the extra cost and less risky than striking out into the unknown by creating our own PD.

Watch for this issue on a future Council agenda, and please share your views with me and other councilmembers.