Column: York's proposed short-term rental ordinance will be costly in more ways than one

We often hear that in a democracy, it is the people’s government — made for the people, by the people, and answerable to the people. However, this seems to have been lost on the York Selectboard when they waded into addressing their concerns over short-term rentals in York.

Please let me reiterate “their concerns” over short-term rentals, as there is no increase in registered complaints with the town, no clamoring from the police or fire chiefs, and no change of the character of the community in York in 2024, that they can point to as the reason for the ordinance.

With over 95% of people testifying at three public hearings and through email questions and comments against moving forward with the ordinance, the Selectboard still plowed ahead with putting it in front of town voters.

All short-term rental owners wanted was a reasonable process where stakeholders were brought together to compromise and develop a reasonable ordinance that treats neighbors, owners, and visitors fairly.

Instead, the Selectboard has now pitted neighbor against neighbor in a fight at the ballot box!

The Selectboard has cited their desire to implement sections of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically section 5.3, relating to short-term rentals. However, section 5.3 is not being implemented in full but piecemeal, selecting what’s easiest to do. Additionally, anyone knowledgeable about short-term rentals can tell you that section 5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan has statements that are not factually true.

More: York short-term rental ordinance on the ballot. New rules for Airbnb and Vrbo rentals.

Section 5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan states clearly to “study the impact of short-term rentals and use the results of the study to inform policies which will register and regulate short-term rentals.” However, the town has undertaken no study, and the only data York has evaluated around short-term rentals comes to them from a global software company trying to sell them services, which was a conflict of interest the last time I checked.

Section 5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan also states, “Short-term rentals remove much-needed housing stock from the town’s supply and may also be considered businesses.” The statement has no supporting evidence attached to it. The Maine Housing Authority did a study in 2023 stating less than 1% of York County’s short-term rentals could be considered affordable housing stock for the community. And to state short-term rentals are businesses when the vast majority of these are second homes and are permitted as such is a stretch.

What the Selectboard and town staff have created is an ordinance two to three times in length greater than any other short-term rental ordinance in Maine. It is one that is in search of an issue and will create an entire administrative ecosystem around it. This is legislation in search of data, rather than using data to inform legislation.

Todd Frederick, chair of the York Selectboard, said recently about another proposed ordinance, “Do we need to have ordinances on the books, because we need ordinances on the books, and it feels good.”

However, this is exactly what is being done with the short-term rental ordinance. York already has one noise ordinance, two garbage and recycling ordinances, and a short-term rental parking ordinance. Between those four pieces of legislation, there have been between one to two documented complaints, violations, or citations annually (and this isn’t related to only short-term rentals).

Finally, let me be very clear about the administrative state that will be created around registering and regulating short-term rentals per this ordinance, none of which has been scoped out in-depth as it relates to the town budget.

In light of this, Selectboard member Mike Estes, (the only person who voted against moving this forward in a 4-1 vote), was quoted as saying, “This is not ready.” With the town manager stating that 10 to 20% of current short-term rentals have land use violations that will be very difficult to resolve, this will undoubtedly spur a lawsuit or 20 if someone now loses their ability to make the income they have made in the past.

With an estimate of 700 to upwards of maybe 1,000 additional inspections, even with these spread over three years, there will be a need for more inspection resources. The town may need to pay independent contractors, and this will come at a cost. Additionally, between inspections and land-use violations, the code enforcement officer’s time will be stretched and this will either be remedied by training additional staff or waiting longer to get answers on normal business.

What also failed to catch the attention of the majority of the Selectboard members is this anonymous complaint system that will weaponize neighbor against neighbor. It will allow for abuses by people who don’t like their neighbors and draw in police and fire resources that should be used for real emergencies and not whiney neighbors. All these items without any real data applied to them to fully scope out their costs, is like having a blank check open on the town budget.

This is a rushed and poorly researched piece of legislation, cobbled together by taking sections of other town rules and regulations and hoping for the best. York can do better and must do better than this if it hopes to not kill something that has been an integral part of its history and economic success for hundreds of years.

Kevin Breen is a resident of the town of York.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: York's proposed short-term rental ordinance will be costly