This is the last of my three-part series on common misperceptions about the vacation rental industry in Oregon. In my first post, I explained why vacation rentals are important drivers of local economies. In my second, I discussed why vacation rentals have little impact on housing supply. Today, I wrap up by illuminating the primary challenge facing vacation rentals: NIMBYism.
For the uninitiated, NIMBY stands for “not in my back yard.” It encapsulates the attitude that development and change are appropriate in the abstract, but are never appropriate near me or my property. NIMBYism often involves arguments based on assumptions or appeals to emotion that usually are not supported by actual facts. For a humorous illustration of the NIMBY attitude, see this NIMBY bingo card that appears to have originated in Portland.
Opposition to vacation rentals in Oregon is often infused with NIMBY attitudes, and those attitudes often take on the appearance of actual fact if not strongly and regularly countered with solid evidence. For example, the idea that vacation rentals reduce the supply of affordable housing has almost become dogma in Oregon housing policy, despite the fact that it is mostly untrue.
Another common misperception is that vacation rentals lead to disproportionately high livability violations – things like excessive noise and trash, or overuse of public parking. In fact, vacation rentals lead to nuisances of this sort no more often than permanent housing or second homes. For example, in Tillamook County which has over 1,200 short term rentals, only 32 nuisance complaints were filed with the County from 2019 to 2023, and only 9 of those were corroborated and resulted in citations. That is an annual violation rate of just 0.15%, or 1.5 violations per 1,000 rentals. Common sense alone tells you that the violation rate for other types of housing is no better than this.
Property taxes and property values are another common NIMBY refrain. Vacation rentals either raise property values, causing property taxes to skyrocket, or they lower property values, causing homeowners to lose equity. Neither is a good thing, according to the NIMBY and depending on the audience. In truth, both outcomes are possible, but in most cases vacation rentals tend to have a slight positive impact on property values. This benefits other property owners by increasing their equity, and benefits the community as a whole by creating more revenue to local governments for public services. This positive impact is compounded when vacation rentals also pay lodging or other business taxes.
Given that most NIMBY opposition to vacation rentals fails to withstand objective scrutiny, why has there been such a rise in restrictive regulations on vacation rentals? Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and it holds here. Popular vacation towns are also popular retirement communities. Permanent residents vote in that community, but short-term renters do not. And similarly, owners of vacation rentals do not vote in the community unless they happen to live locally. The end result is that elected officials tend to be more sympathetic to NIMBY attitudes, either because they actually share those beliefs or out of concern for reelection.
What can vacation rental proponents due to counter this trend? Consistent success at the local level will remain difficult because of the electoral disadvantages discussed above. Legal victories are good, but can be short-lived as the NIMBYs adapt and find loopholes. In my mind, the best strategy is for vacation rental proponents to unite and organize a state-level political strategy to educate lawmakers on the truths and myths surrounding vacation rentals. A strong case can be made that vacation rentals benefit communities, make vacations more available to all, boost local economies, and advance private property rights. The housing crisis is real, but there are much better tools to solve it than restricting vacation rentals. Organization, coordination, and funding within the vacation rental industry are needed to make an effective state-level pitch.
