Note: Next City Council meeting Tuesday, August 20, 9:30 a.m.

COMMENTARY

MARK SCHUMANN

When three members of the Code Enforcement Board sided with a real estate investor this week, they essentially knocked the legs out from under the Planning Department’s efforts to enforce a long-standing prohibition against transient occupancies in residential areas.

By his own admission, the investor has been renting a barrier island home to vacationers for stays of less than 30 days.

Unless successfully appealed, the 3-2 decision of the CEB will degrade the character of what has until now been a “quiet little city by the sea.” 

Surprisingly, the CEB does not have even one representative from the barrier island among its membership.

The short-term rental issue is about much more than allowing single-family homes to be offered as vacation rentals, and thus operated as businesses. Especially for the residents of the central beach neighborhoods, what is at stake here is the ethos of their community and their quality of life.

Other seaside communities, such as Anna Maria Island, have unfortunately discovered that allowing virtually unlimited short-terms rentals has a profoundly negative impact, as what had traditionally been residential areas gradually became meccas for vacationers.

If the people now living in Vero Beach had wanted a spring break experience, they would have moved to Ft. Lauderdale or Daytona Beach.

There are power financial interests at work here, make no mistake about it.  Citrus canker was not the only infectious disease that blew into our community with the 2004 hurricanes.  Greed came too, and in a measure we have never seen before.  “McMansions” were built in the Old Riomar neighborhood and expensive beachside homes were soon being advertised for rental stays of as short as one night.

Obviously, some who moved to Vero Beach since 2004 have a different vision for the community, more like the cities from which they came.

While our community cannot and should not remain cemented in the past or petrified of change, it would be foolish and shortsighted to fall for every commercial scheme proffered by opportunists who, by their own admission, came here to “take advantage” of Vero Beach.

Some are here for a short time in hopes of enriching themselves, but many more were drawn to Vero Beach because they, quite literally, fell in love with the unique character of this small, quiet beachside community that has always prided itself on affording working families and retirees alike a quality of life not easily found anywhere else in Florida.

This week’s 3-2 decision of the CEB decision, if nothing else, is activist.  One member who sided against the city started out by saying he did not want to discourage tourism.  Well, this is not about tourism.  It is about protecting the integrity of our neighborhoods while supporting and welcoming tourism.

The CEB’s role is not to set policy, but to rule on facts.  And the facts clearly established that the home in question has repeatedly been rented short-term, in clear violation of the Planning Director’s interpretation of city code.

The CEB 3-2 vote this week need not be definitive.  The City Council owes it to the residents of the city to appeal the Board’s decision to the circuit court.

Once the Board’s decision is codified and signed by Chairman Kirk Noonan, the City will have 30 days to appeal.  Hopefully, the Council will consider the matter at its September 3 meeting.  Anyone and everyone who cares about the future of Vero Beach should be there.

In fact, in preparation for that meeting, concerned citizens should begin to make their concerns known at next Tuesday’s Council meeting, to be held at 9:30 a.m.

Far more than the imprudent cuts in services that have been proposed, the prospect of unlimited short-term vacation rentals could forever alter the character of the central beach.

Because City Attorney Wayne Coment represents the CEB, he cannot also represent the City, should the Council appeal the Board’s decision. The City will have to retain outside counsel to litigate the case on behalf of the City.  Without question, the most competent litigation attorneys available should be hired to move the case forward on behalf of the City.

The 3-2 activist decision of the CEB should not be allowed to stand.