We are utterly amazed why those that own or manage STVR’s so adamantly oppose Geno Shipley’s resolution. Those for this resolution have never opposed the owners personally as portrayed or implied. The opposition is what the businesses bring into the neighborhood due to the nature of the business. The constant change of renters, sometimes several different ones a week; the influx of traffic; fights, even shootings; strangers walking their dogs (Parvo the issue) for potty breaks on properties that do not belong to the property owners but the neighbor’s yard instead; and late night arrivals with renters going to the wrong house because someone else made the reservation for them, shining flashlights around someone’s front porch and garage door looking the for the key yet the owners are asleep inside their home, etc. Why should someone that has been on their land since 1958 or those that have been in their homes 15, 20 or 30 plus years have their property rights stripped?
Everyone that has spoken at the Commission meetings gives their names and addresses as required. It is obvious that only a couple of owners even live in the unincorporated area of Hamilton County. This resolution only pertains to the unincorporated areas of Hamilton County. If they do not live here, it does not affect them unless it is for the financial reason of them operating a business in these residential areas. And if that is the case and they are already operating, why should they care? They will be grandfathered in. It was stated “so others could follow behind them and do the same.” If others follow imagine what happens to neighborhoods, they will be overrun with rentals unless this resolution passes. Even the analysis of this statement does not make sense, as why would they want competition that would cut into their bottom dollar, and it is obvious that dollar is what they want more than anything. If you do not believe it just look at the rates charged. They want it so much that not only do they not live within the unincorporated areas, but the majority live in either protected municipalities or HOAs; others have been from Georgia and even Arkansas. Yet they have been given the green flag to steal our quality of life by implanting these commercial businesses into our neighborhoods that have absolutely no governing body to fight for us except the entire body of the County Commission.
We have a wonderful Sheriff’s Department in Hamilton County, yet he cannot enforce the Commission’s rules unless they are in Tennessee Code Annotated. The rules and regulations set by the Commission, the sheriff himself cannot enforce. The officers respond, but there is little they can do except ask the people to adhere. Once the officer leaves, they can go right back to what they were doing before. Most of these owners do not live next to or close to them (with a couple of exceptions), but they feel we should have to.
The owners and managers are the same ones that have spoken repeatedly but have never been talked down to by respectable commissioners by being the “same faces with the same words” as has been done by one commissioner several times to those in support of this resolution. Yet they are the same faces with the same words. Every angle imaginable has been used to make residential property owners that own the surrounding homes look to be the aggressor, yet nothing is further from the truth. Represented at these meeting are homeowners from the unincorporated areas of East Brainerd where the shooting took place last year at a rental, as well as residents from the unincorporated areas of Harrison, Birchwood, Hixson, Soddy Daisy, Sale Creek, etc.
Never in our lifetime of working for county government could we have imagined such rude behavior from a sworn public officer during a meeting. We have remained polite and professional, as hard as it has been, even through all the wrong data and information. As the saying goes, if they tell a story long enough, before long they believe it themselves.
We have heard the opposition to this resolution talk so much we know their names before they say them. We also know their stories such as: “the operation of a rental provides them with a retirement income; a single mom raising two kids now 22 and 26 years old; a chance for newcomers to see what Chattanooga has to offer”. If the latter is true, then why should the unincorporated areas matter as it is at least a 30-minute drive to Chattanooga from most of the unincorporated areas? Yes, they make a great income, for example at one property on the water they are charging $579 per night, an optional docking slip for $50 per night as well as canoe and kayak rentals for $50 plus a $150 non-refundable pet fee. A 5-day vacation for two adults and two children - the cost is $3,487 non-refundable and refundable is $3,855 and that does not include the boat slip or canoe/kayak or pet fee if applicable. Then there is the property manager that now oversees 30 or more rentals whose personal home is in a protected HOA. None of this information is false, it is on the videos of every County Commission committee meeting on this topic. The majority do not personally live in a neighborhood which allows a STVR. They live in restricted subdivisions, in the city of Chattanooga, in Georgia or even other states. We are not against the rentals, there is a place for them, but that place is not in a residential area where your family can be put at risk.
What has been forgotten and is rarely brought up is that those of us that live here have rights too. It has become obvious from the opposition at repeated meetings these individuals have no regard for the surrounding property owners and their rights. They do not care that someone has land that was purchased by their late family during challenging times in the 1950’s and then passed on to the next generation that now call it home. Land where they built a home by working hard themselves on that land while they also worked jobs beginning when they were teenagers to retirement age just to live a peaceful retirement life. After being able to retire, we are now being told we do not have the right for a peaceful life in our unincorporated area of Hamilton County, that the owners of rentals have more rights than those that reside in their own home.
It is not only the owners telling us this, look at a few on this County Commission. The majority of our County Commission live in incorporated areas that are municipalities that are governed by the laws of their municipality, yet they vote for what they think should be in the unincorporated areas. Those commissioners that are protected should take heed and listen to the commissioners that have the unincorporated areas in their district and what that majority feels would be best for their constituents.
All in all, it comes down to one very important fact. Property owners that live in Hamilton County vote in Hamilton County and in their districts, those are the ones paying the commissioners' salaries. If this cannot be taken into consideration, please explain why the citizens of the unincorporated areas (Apison, East Brainerd, Birchwood, Georgetown, Harrison, Hixson, Signal Mountain, Lookout Mountain, Lookout Valley, Soddy Daisy, Bakewell and Sale Creek) of Hamilton County do not matter. Why is it that those that do not even physically live in these areas let alone our county or state, matter more than your own citizens?
Cindy and Frank Triplett
* * *
Responding to Cindy and Frank Triplett as someone deeply invested in real estate: they're totally correct. I understand the libertarian, "it's my house, I can do with it what I want," but our houses aren't all islands. Allowing short term rentals in residential property to any extent whatsoever is a clear, open violation of the social contract we signed on that deed when we bought the property. No, that house bought for "Airbnb" is not a hotel/motel property and absolutely should not be allowed to be used as one.
If investors want to be in the motel business, they should go get into the motel business and keep it out of our neighborhoods. The difficulty is the enforcement mechanism. I propose if tenants are changed out more than once every 90 days, it's a zoning violation and/or a nuisance property. The property ought to be condemned and a full condemnation hearing held so the sleazy fake-landlord speculator is hauled in to explain why he didn't approach his neighbors about a zoning change for his wannabe crap-tel.
Cindy and Frank and I and thousands of others specifically bought houses *not* next to hotels and it's the county's job to ensure hotels aren't moved in next door without our consent in a public hearing, by whatever means necessary.
This issue has been going on for years and it's time we bury it for good by banning all short-term residential rentals.
Chris Wicker
* * *
I wholeheartedly agree with the other two writers, as do the 1,544 individuals who have signed the petition to keep short-term vacation rentals out of residential and agricultural zones.
It is perplexing that STVRs, which are required to obtain a business license and contribute to the hotel and motel tax, are permitted in these zones. If a Hilton, or even a boutique hotel like The Dwell or Moxy, were to request to establish a hotel in a residential zone, the zoning board and commissioners would undoubtedly refuse.
Why, then, are STVRs, which are a form of transient lodging, treated differently? Despite their obligation to pay hotel and motel taxes and their recognition as businesses by the county, they are still allowed in residential and agricultural areas.
This discrepancy undermines the integrity of our zoning regulations and disrupts the character and tranquility of our residential and agricultural communities. I urge the commissioners to vote to keep our residential and agricultural zones for our families and communities and free from commercial business.
Colleen Kirk
* * *
It is said that a man’s home is his castle. When I google the definition of home I got the following: Home is a place blessed, where you and your family can be secure, have all you need, and share your sadness and happiness. When we bought our home 38 years ago in the outskirts of unincorporated Hamilton County, we never dreamed that someday we would be fighting to keep our quiet rural home and neighborhood free from commercialism. Now today we are standing by to see if our peaceful quality of life will be destroyed. Our fate lies in the hands of the 11 county commissioners. We have no other governing body to protect us like other residents in Hamilton County that live within the governance of municipalities.
We who live in unincorporated Hamilton County are asking the commissioners to restrict any further development of STVR’s in our areas. The properties that have already received a permit to operate a STVR will be grandfathered and be allowed to continue to operate. What Resolution 624-5 will do for those of us living in our homes/neighborhoods located in unincorporated Hamilton County is stop any further infusion of STVR businesses in our neighborhoods.
I am not against STVR. I agree that they have a place in the tourist industry if located in the right zoning. However, A-1, R-1 and R-2 in unincorporated Hamilton County is not an appropriate location for these investment ventures.
By description short-term vacation rentals are "Furnished self-contained apartments or houses that are rented for short periods of time. They are usually seen as an alternative to hotels." Who wants their home located next to a hotel? When I asked one commissioner who is a proponent of STVR’s, if he would want one next door to his home, his response was a firm No. However, he recently indicated he was going to vote against Resolution 624-5. Why? Why would he want me to live next to something he is not willing to live next to?
My neighbors and I have worked hard for our homes. We have a right to feel safe, secure and happy within the confines of our homes and neighborhoods. We don’t want to live next door to a hotel. If we wanted this type of life we would have stayed in the city! But wait, the city has rules protecting their residents. STVR are not allowed in residential neighborhoods. Why should unincorporated Hamilton County residents not have the same protection? I sincerely hope when it comes time to vote on Wednesday, June 5, the commissioners will listen to the people who live here, actually live in the home they are trying to protect and vote for Resolution 624-5.
Cathy Faulkner
* * *
I agree with the above comments regarding STVR’s in the unincorporated areas of our county. We currently have them in our neighborhood, and I have no desire to have more become established here. It does not support the type of neighborhood I desire, nor the type I bought into 28 years ago. None of the homes here have ample parking areas for the number of vehicles that typically come with the renters, which is only one of the issues with these rentals.
We are not new to having STVR’s within an area we own. We have a cabin in a small community that sits in a small sliver of land between the GSMNP boundaries. We have never rented our cabin, nor do we desire to do so. We used to know our neighbors there, but no longer. Now with all the rentals, the complexion of our community has drastically changed. I do not wish the same to happen around my home, my place to feel safe and enjoy my surroundings.
Those that support STVR’s in the county, and have spoken at commission meetings, say they aren’t getting rich with their rentals. If they are not making a profit, why continue? The bottom line is they are in the hotel business, and conducting that business within our county neighborhoods with no respect for the continuity of a neighborhood and rural communities.
I sincerely hope our commissioners will vote in favor of Resolution 624-5 tomorrow.
Lynn Ownsby
* * *
I agree that STVRs should only be in commercial areas. One of the many problems is parties. One of the STVRs was rented for a late night party that started at 10 p.m. and ended around 4 a.m. There were over 20 cars and two limos parked at this house.
After hearing a loud argument, I called HCSO. The deputy who responded said they were all drunk and he asked them to be respectful of the neighbors and keep the noise down. He came back to my house and said all he could do was ask them to be quiet.
The other problem is that they all left after several hours of drinking and endangering everyone on the roads. The next morning, I had beer bottles and other trash thrown in my yard, something my neighbors would never do.
Please vote to put them in commercial areas only.
Steve Roark
