Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge supervisors not to ban short‑term rentals, citing jobs and caregiving income
Summary
Dozens of residents told the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 6 that short‑term rental income supports local jobs and helps owners care for family members; industry representatives urged negotiated fixes rather than an outright ban.
Dozens of residents and industry representatives urged the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 6 to avoid an outright ban on short‑term rentals (STRs) in unincorporated Monterey County, saying restrictions could force longtime owners to sell and would cost jobs that support local households.
Commenters recounted personal situations and economic impacts. "My mom's 92 now ... the income has allowed me to live here with the flexibility to help take care of my mom," said a commenter who identified himself as Kevin of Carmel Woods, describing two properties his family operates as short‑term rentals and warning that a heavy restriction or ban would likely force a sale and open the way for larger developers.
A caller identifying with the Monterey County Vacation Rental Association (MCVRA) told the board the organization has tried to negotiate a "fair and balanced ordinance" and called a full ban "beyond belief," arguing the county adopted an ordinance the association found "unfair and unworkable" and urging the board to meet with industry representatives to craft workable changes.
Other speakers emphasized local jobs tied to STRs, saying property managers and service workers provided emergency assistance during recent storms and that TOT (transient occupancy tax) revenue could be targeted for affordable housing. One speaker told the board there are roughly 1,500 short‑term rentals among 147,000 housing units in the county, calling the STR stock about 1% of total housing.
The board noted short‑term rentals are scheduled for a fuller presentation and discussion in the afternoon agenda and encouraged those who could attend later to save their comments for that session so they could hear the staff presentation and be better informed. The board allowed brief morning public comments for those who could not return in the afternoon but said commenters who spoke in the morning would not be allowed to speak again on the same item later that day.
No formal action on STR regulation was taken during the morning session; the item remained set for the afternoon for staff presentation and fuller public comment.
