Last year, a
group of Sonoma citizens put forth a ballot measure to limit downtown hotel
development in their city. I was
generally supportive of their goal, but disliked how the measure was structured.
I feared
that setting a maximum hotel size and prohibiting new hotel development until
high occupancy rates were reached in the existing hotels were ill-conceived tools,
sufficiently flawed that the goal of managing hotel growth might be undermined. As a result, I argued against Ballot Measure B. My position elicited a strong response among many
readers, particularly on the Patch website.
The ballot measure
failed by a small margin.
This year, a
group of Healdsburg citizens is beginning to bang the same drum. Thus far, their primary effort has been the
use of a poll with uncertain statistical validity to encourage the City Council
to adopt lodging restrictions, encouragement against which the Council is
pushing back. Because they’re still
early in their process, the group hasn’t yet defined the tools that they’d
propose, although they’ve suggested a hotel size restriction similar to the
Sonoma measure.
Once again,
I’m supportive of the goal of balancing lodging versus local residents in
walkable settings. I understand the
attractiveness to tourists of walkable urban places. When I travel, I love to stay in small hotels
from where I can walk about, enjoying the local shops and non-chain
restaurants.
However, I
understand that it’s possible to love a place too much, that too many visitors
can destroy the character which they came to enjoy.
A recent article in Salon focuses on this concern,
with particular attention to Barcelona and Venice. The writer differentiates between voyagers
who bore deeply into the local culture, exploring nooks far from the
established tourist paths and dining in restaurants where none of the waitstaff
speaks English, and tourists who take photos of the best-known landmarks, buy
t-shirts, and head back to their cruise ships.
I like to
think that I’m closer to the voyager model in my travels, but acknowledge that even
voyagers can change the character of a place if there are too many of them.
On the other
hand, tourism can bring economic benefits.
The Salon article notes that tourism makes up 12 percent of the economy
of Catalonia, the Spanish province that includes Barcelona. And tourists can help sustain the downtown
restaurants that the locals love.
So, how to
balance the two sides of the debate, without using the tools proposed by the
Sonoma citizens that I found defective?
Having
pondered the question since the failure of Sonoma Ballot Measure B, I have an
idea to propose. (I also offered some
thoughts when I wrote about Measure B.
This proposal supplants those thoughts.)
I won’t try to phrase my idea in the legal language that would be
required for a true ballot measure. I’ll
just offer a lay version. If it finds
resonance anywhere, others can worry about getting the words right.
I’ll start
by limiting my proposal to hotels in walkable locations, which I’ll define as
locations within a block of a sidewalk that has an average daily pedestrian
count of at least 1,000 people. I don’t
know if 1,000 is the best value, but it seems about right and equates to a peak
hour pedestrian count of perhaps 100, or slightly little less than two
pedestrians per minute. Many downtown
sidewalks have much higher pedestrian counts.
This
limitation would exclude the chain motels by the freeway. The hotels may have their own land use
issues, but have little relationship to walkable urbanism so can be addressed
by others.
Once a hotel
is determined to be in a walkable setting, a map should be drawn, determining
all city blocks that lie completely within a line drawn 2,000 feet of the hotel
site. Like the 1,000 pedestrians per
hour, 2,000 feet is a guess, but seems reasonable. A quarter-mile is considered an easy walk and
a half-mile is the usual outer limit of walkable urbanism. Two thousand feet is a balance. Also, including only complete blocks avoids dealing
with partial lots.
For all the
blocks identified, the number of permitted residences and lodging units should
be tabulated. This could become a
challenging mapping effort, but not unlike other efforts required during an
entitlement process
Then, no
hotel project would be permitted if the resulting total of lodging units would
be more than 40 percent of the number of residential units.
Once again,
40 percent is a best guess. Less than 30
percent would seem to leave economic potential untapped and more than 50
percent would risk swamping the locals in a sea of tourists. If someone has data to support a different
number, I’m interested.
In addition
to finding a good balance between tourists and locals, this standard would also
offer several incentives that could benefit the community. Homes in walkable urban settings often have
unpermitted secondary living units. An
example might be a basement apartment with plumbing that doesn’t meet
code. A potential hotel developer might
be motivated to work with homeowners to bring unpermitted living units up to
code. For every five units that are made
legal, another two rooms could be added to the hotel.
Also, a
potential developer might be more willing to invest in downtown residential
projects. Or to add a floor of residential
units to a hotel.
Non-hotel
lodging businesses, such as Airbnb and VRBO, would also factor into this subject. The topic of a recent spirited meeting in Petaluma, I
support the regulation of non-hotel lodging units, including the identification
of all units and the collection of transient occupancy taxes. Those
units should then count against the 40 percent standard, but with the
expectation that a potential hotel developer could pay an Airbnb operator to
cease operation in order to increase the hotel room count.
Also, as
with the hotel restrictions, no new Airbnb or VRBO units would be allowed if
the 40 percent standard would be exceeded.
Some may
note that downtown hotels aren’t the only source of downtown visitors. I agree that folks staying in the hotels by
the freeway or making daytrips from nearby towns may overload downtown
settings. But with the possible exception
of adjusting the 40 percent standard if the number of day visitors is huge, I’d
argue that the day visitor issue is a different challenge and should be
addressed separately.
Before
closing, some may note that the standard doesn’t touch on the aesthetics of
hotels. I’m sympathetic to the concern
that many hotels present blank facades that deaden pedestrian interest. But the same can be true of theatres or
office buildings. Rather than addressing
the concern is a piecemeal fashion, I’d suggest that a comprehensive approach
to downtown aesthetics is appropriate.
But if the aesthetics can be mastered and unit count fits within the 40
percent standard, I don’t care if a hotel is 25 or 125 units.
Lastly, I
should note that the standard proposed above doesn’t apply in all settings,
particularly the downtowns of major cities where most travelers are business
people. The standard would be nonsense
in the Financial District of San Francisco.
But it seems that a standard like this would fit in every North Bay city.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment