By NICOLE BALES/The Astorian
ASTORIA — A Clatop County circuit court judge is expected to decide by the end of the month on the legality of a referendum on the May ballot that, if approved by voters, could threaten vacation rentals in nearly all of unincorporated Clatsop County.
The referendum — Measure 4-221 — seeks to repeal an ordinance approved by the county commissioners last summer that recognized vacation rentals as a permitted use in 16 unincorporated zones in the development code.
While the county began regulating vacation rentals through an ordinance adopted in 2018, vacation rentals were never a formally recognized use outside of Arch Cape, since the county failed to add the use in the development code.
The ordinance approved last year sought to correct the mistake.
A group led by homeowners in the wealthy enclave of Cove Beach and the gated community of Surf Pines — some of whom have a history of battling vacation rentals in their neighborhoods — quickly challenged the ordinance. Organized under the name North Coast Neighbors United, they collected enough signatures to refer the ordinance to voters in the May election.
The county has said that if the referendum is successful, the ordinance will be repealed, and that more than 100 vacation rentals could gradually disappear as licenses expire.
In March, Everyone For The North Oregon Coast, which was formed last year to support the rights of vacation rental owners, filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court asking a judge to deem the referendum unlawful and remove it from the ballot or invalidate the election results.
The lawsuit also argues — and asks the judge to declare — that the ordinance is in effect and that vacation rental permits issued by the county since 2018 are lawful.
‘Strategic choice’
During a court hearing on the case Tuesday, Paul Conable, a partner with Portland-based Tonkon Torp, who represents Everyone For The North Oregon Coast, said that since ballots have been printed and it is too late to remove the measure from the May election, his clients are asking that the election results not be certified.
“There were, and remain, opportunities for these intervenors and others in Clatsop County who are concerned about short-term rentals to participate in the political process in bringing this before the voters,” Conable said. “The referendum process is not the appropriate process.”
He said the referendum process can only be used for legislation, and argues that the ordinance approved by county commissioners last June was not legislative. Instead, he said, it was an administrative act to conform the development code to the 2018 ordinance, continuing the policy that had been in practice.
Conable said the ordinance could have been challenged a number of ways, including through an initiative, which would have required new legislation. He said it could have also been appealed through the state Land Use Board of Appeals.
“This is not a question of the people of Clatsop County will not have the opportunity to speak on this,” he said. “It’s a question of whether their strategic choice to proceed through the referendum process is legal in this circumstance or not. The answer is that it is not.”
Conable said there was no effort to refer the initial ordinance that changed the law in 2018 to voters, and argued that an existing practice and policy cannot be referred to voters years later. He also said that land use decisions cannot be referred to voters.
Constitutional right
Daniel Kearns, of Portland-based Reeve Kearns, who represents the group behind the referendum, argued that his clients have a constitutional right to refer a decision to voters. He also maintained that the ordinance approved by county commissioners in June was a legislative land use decision because it added a policy to the development code that was not in place before.
Arch Cape is an exception, since vacation rentals were added as a use to that zone and regulated by a separate ordinance since the early 2000s.
Kearns said his clients checked the county’s code prior to purchasing their properties to ensure vacation rentals were not allowed. “Arch Cape — well, if I wanted to live in Arch Cape, I’d move there, and they didn’t,” he said.
Kearns argued that vacation rentals the county permitted in unincorporated areas outside of Arch Cape since 2018 are illegal.
He also asserted that the Land Use Board of Appeals was not the appropriate channel to challenge the ordinance.
“You go to (Land Use Board of Appeals) to decide if it can be adopted,” Kearns said, “if it can be made part of the county’s land use regulations. You go to the voters to find out if they should adopt it. And that’s exactly what my clients wanted to do.”
Judge Kirk Wintermute told the parties he expects to issue a decision on the case by the end of April.
John Campbell says
Those opposed to vacation rentals fail to realize that they are essential in a tourist based area. Families that do not want to incur the cost of eating out three times a day will go elsewhere if the option to rent homes does not exist. This will cost kids, some businesses to close and owners who rely on the income to be able to keep their vacation homes will sell which will flood the market and drive property values down. Loss of property value will cause loss of tax revenue plus the loss of the room tax. If you are selling your home, it has more value if it can generate income. The tourist related businesses struggle now due to our shortened tourist season. When the county loses property tax revenue and room taxes they will have to recover the money somewhere. Cannon Beach now has a food tax. Don’t be surprised if Caltsop County doesn’t devise a sales tax. I was in mountain real estate in Colorado for years and saw this scenario play out. It can be an economic disaster for homeowners and the county. Be careful what you wish for.
Keith Miller says
Is it fair that all Clatsop County voters get to vote on the fate of just 110 units in the unincorporated areas? Arch Cape, Seaside, Astoria, and Warrenton are where most of the population resides, and they already have regulations allowing STRs. Yet those residents get to vote on whether or not I can keep the STR that I have run for five years with no complaints. I am in a rural setting and plan to run this vacation rental on my property as part of my retirement plan. Now they are voting on taking that right away? That doesn’t seem right to me to tell me I can no longer rent out a bedroom in my house. The people that started this ballot initiative live in gated exclusive communities. They should address their own local homeowner associations rather than force this measure down the entire county’s throat.