Letter: In response to guest column on VHRs (opinion)
In his guest column, Brad Schiller cites the low number of complaints as an attempt to show that the VHRs are not a problem. That is not a very good gauge of the number of people annoyed by them.
We have two of them 150 feet from us that disturb our peace and quiet frequently, but haven’t filed complaints against them for the noise. I know many others who feel it is useless because it is so difficult to prove. I believe that most residents have encountered problems with them and now have an opportunity to get rid of them once and for all.
Like many others, he cites the loss of the $3 million dollars in VHR revenue as a reason to keep them. However, the tourists will simply shift to the motels that are currently suffering a very low occupancy rate and the city will make just as much money from them. Filling our motels would be much more beneficial to the economy than the VHRs ever would. Not to mention, the city has wasted more than that just by dragging its feet on implementing a recreational marijuana ordinance.
Schiller claims it is unjust discrimination to prohibit individuals from operating motels in residential neighborhoods and overrunning the streets with the visitors parked cars, making noise and creating other nuisances. He overlooks that zoning laws are intended to restrict uses that annoy the neighbors. Just like you can not operate a auto repair shop, strip club, pig farm or other things that would disturb the neighbors.
Finally, it appears that Schiller can refer to it as “VHR hysteria” not just because he owns some, but because he doesn’t have to contend with one being next to his huge Zephyr Cove, Nevada mansion, so he has no idea just how bad they can be.
South Lake Tahoe, California