Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Split Vhr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and businesses sharply split as council weighs Measure T aftermath
Summary
Public comment at the South Lake Tahoe council meeting split between residents who say Measure T restored neighborhood livability and business/property interests who warned of job and revenue losses; commenters urged either appeal, immediate reinstatement of pre‑2018 rules, or a carefully phased moratorium and permitting plan.
Speakers at the South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting presented sharply divergent views on Measure T and the city’s path forward.
Jerry Goodman, a long‑time resident, urged the council to "put it back on the ballot" and said neighborhoods were ruined by concentrated vacation rentals: "You got a lot of investors that want to ruin our neighborhoods. Don't be cowards, okay?" he told the council. Several other neighborhood residents described loud parties, excessive cars and safety concerns; Janice Dillians said her block had seen "44 extra cars and 90 extra people" during the VHR peak.
Opposing voices included property managers and business representatives who said VHRs sustain jobs and municipal revenue. Lauren Gres, general manager with RNR Vacation Rentals, said the industry provides steady work for local employees: "We now employ 28 full‑time, year‑round workers," she told the council, and urged against a long moratorium or appeal. Mark Sammon of the South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group urged the council not to appeal the court decision and to reinstate the 2018 ordinance quickly to reduce economic harm.
Speakers proposed a range of fixes: some urged a full legal appeal to preserve the voter mandate; others recommended immediate reinstatement of the 2018 VHR ordinance with improved enforcement, and others asked for a multi‑month moratorium or a tiered permitting rollout to avoid overwhelming staff and neighborhoods. Multiple commenters recommended prioritizing previous permit holders when reissuing permits and investing any resulting transient occupancy tax revenue in enforcement and housing programs.
The meeting record shows the council ultimately decided not to appeal and adopted a 45‑day moratorium to allow time for staff to draft amendments and a phased permitting plan. That outcome leaves open whether the council will adopt stricter limits, caps, buffer zones, or phased renewal rules after public input and staff analysis.
