As I see it, there are three possible situations at hand, in the summer of 2021.
1) We don’t have enough tourists, and attracting more will be a good thing.
2) We have just the right amount of tourism, and we don’t need to attract more, but we need to retain the amount we currently have.
3) We have too many tourists, and they are making our lives less pleasant. Maybe even ruining our community.
All three of these situations seem very real, in 2021. Simultaneously.
Depending on your perspective.
If you work in certain types of businesses — real estate, the vacation rental industry, inner tube rentals, property management — you may very well agree with real estate agent Jon Johnson, a member of the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board: that we don’t yet have enough tourists.
Here is Mr. Johnson, offering a tremendously happy, tremendously upbeat opinion at the July 21 Tourism Board meeting.
“I’ve worked on this board for about a dozen years, and I love what we do here, and there’s tremendous transparency in what we do. But there are hundreds of people and organizations who would line up to come in here, and tell you how the funds, that we help direct, have benefited their lives, their businesses, their organizations, in a tremendous way.
“There’s a lot that’s positive. And if we’re not putting that spin out there… [Tourism Director Jennie Green] thinks about how to get tourists here… we could do a better job of marketing, but thank you to Jennie, for being here, all this time. Jennie has really been a champion. And we’ve seen some tremendous success. But you know what’s cool? Everybody who was invited is here at the table here, today. And others. We’re that serious about what we’re up to.
“So, I’m excited. Let’s all get along; let’s all work towards that common goal, and agree to disagree. That’s awesome and healthy. But I think we need some more faces here.”
Mr. Johnson’s comments were delivered to seven other Tourism Board members seated around the Visitors Center conference table, and to three audience members including Town Manager Andrea Phillips, a vacation rental owner identified as “Jackie” (whom many of the Board members recognized), and myself.
In transcribing Mr. Johnson’s speech, above, I noted a bit of confusion about how the world actually works.
“Let’s all get along; let’s all work towards that common goal, and agree to disagree. That’s awesome and healthy.”
In spite of Mr. Johnson’s expressed wishes, we are not all going to ‘get along’, and work towards ‘that common goal’ — if some of us believe we need more tourists, and some of us believe excessive tourism is wrecking our community. Especially, that excessive conversion of residential neighborhoods into vacation rental districts is wrecking our community. Those two goals will necessarily be in conflict.
Yes, we can agree to disagree — and currently, the Tourism Board is in stark disagreement with the Town Planning Commission. As noted already in this editorial series, the Planning Commission, earlier this month, unanimously recommended changes to our municipal vacation rental regulations, requiring a purchaser of a residential home to wait two years before applying for a vacation rental permit. The Planning Commission also recommended that the annual permit fee for non-owner-occupied vacation rentals be increased from $500 to $6,000 — and that those revenues be used to help create work force housing.
Additionally, the Planning Commission asked the Town Council to redirect a significant portion of the Town Lodgers Tax away from tourism marketing and towards housing. Unanimously. The Planning Commission often casts unanimous votes, but not always, In this particular situation, the Commission felt no need to “agree to disagree” internally.
The Tourism Board, on the other hand, is split on the question of whether any of the Lodgers Tax ought to be directed towards housing.
Here is Tourism Board member Kristi Smith, responding to Mr. Johnson’s statements about getting more people around the decision-making table. Ms. Smith has worked mainly as an event planner; she has also been a vacation rental owner; she is now a full-time student.
“I feel completely inadequate to have a seat at this ‘larger-picture’ table. But I’m happy to have a voice in allocating funds for tourism…
“If it were up to me, all of Wyndham [Resorts] would be Section 8 housing. That’s my solution. Let’s get Wyndham out of here, and let’s use all of those units for work force housing…”
This radical suggestion elicited a considerable amount of good-natured laughter from the other Tourism Board members.
“So I don’t feel I am a great voice for [solutions to the housing crisis], but I’m here at the table for tourism,” Ms. Smith continued.
“My point is, how many of us are qualified to be the ‘solution-masters’ of this problem? Maybe the people who need to be sitting at the table are people have experience, and who are students of, like, these problems. And they are not, maybe, from this community, but they have helped other communities who have had this problem. I mean, why re-create the wheel, if there are people out there, that we can invite to the town and to the county, to help us solve these problems?”
Apparently, Ms. Smith is unaware just such an invitation took place in 2018. The Town of Pagosa Springs contracted with Pagosa Housing Partners to bring Crested Butte housing expert Willa Williford to Pagosa Springs, to help develop a strategic plan for addressing the housing crisis here.
The 54-page strategic plan includes this information:
LODGER’S TAX
In November of 1988 the County implemented a Lodging Tax of 1.9% and subsequently the Town [approved a tax] of 4.9%. Visitors coming pay this tax; it is a self-collected tax implemented by hotel and short-term rentals. This program has been well managed and has been very successful at marketing the area to attract tourism to the community. As tourism grows so do the need for additional quality services, and accordingly the need for housing for all economic levels.The correlation between increased tourism and the need for businesses to retain quality workers to support that increase is obvious. In an attempt to support tourism growth, while supplying adequate resources for housing, the recommendation to use 5% of the funds generated by the Town’s Lodging Tax for designation to housing choices. The County, at this time is not allowed to divert funds from their Lodging Tax, until the State legislature takes up the issue. The Town’s portion of the Lodging Tax for this year is estimated to be $650,000. This 5% per year increase to the housing choices fund (approximately $32,000 and proportionally rising as tourism rises) would provide an ongoing stream of funds for operating costs dedicated to advocating quality and affordable housing choices.
A relatively modest proposal? A mere $32,000, from what last year was $1 million in Lodgers Tax revenue?
We will note that the Town Council adopted this strategic plan in 2019, and the re-direction of some portion of the Lodgers Tax, towards housing, is clearly a part of the adopted plan. Thus far, however, that part of the plan has remained unaddressed.
The recent Town Planning Commission recommendations are in substantial alignment with the Town’s adopted plan, except that they are suggesting an amount considerably larger than 5%. Certain Tourism Board members are not happy about this.
But can we all work together?
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.