Letter: When is a VHR not a VHR? (opinion) | TahoeDailyTribune.com

Letter: When is a VHR not a VHR? (opinion)

One would think it would be easy to answer this question.

However, recently I found that a structure soon to be completed and advertised for rental was approved as a vacation home rental even before its construction, which allows 30 occupants, parking for 23 cars and with 13 bedrooms. This property is in a residential neighborhood outside the “casino core” area.

It is no wonder that residents are becoming more concerned about VHRs. It seems more and more that VHR stands for Vacation Hotel Rental versus Vacation Home Rental.

Added to this concern is finding out that it may take up to 90 days for a complaint to be formally recorded against a VHR. Further, while it is true that complaints supposedly lead to fines against owners and occupants of VHRs, it is unclear as to the success the city has in the collection of these fines.

Given these points, it should be understandable to objectively minded people as to why the residents and voters of South Lake Tahoe wanted to enact Measure T to safeguard their residential neighborhoods.

Now, it has been reported that the city and those for and against Measure T are in discussions to try to come up with a compromise. However, if any compromise still allows building such mega-VHRs or fails to address the other concerns, I’m not sure it will be successful.

My answer to the question posed in the title is: If the building being considered is operated or will be operated as a business versus a residential home and is in a residential zoned neighborhood, it is not a VHR but a commercial enterprise.

Common sense says that a 13-bedroom building allowing up to 30 occupants and the parking of 23 cars is such a business enterprise.

Bob Lewin

South Lake Tahoe, California