COMMENTARY
MARK SCHUMANN
When the Vero Beach City Council meets Tuesday evening, it will consider a proposal to appeal to the circuit courts a recent 3-2 ruling by the Code Enforcement Board. If left unchallenged, the CEB’s ruling could open the way to unlimited and virtually unregulated short-term rentals.
The CEB’s split decision in favor of Vice Mayor Tracy Carroll and her husband, John, departs from a long-standing interpretation of City code prohibiting so-called “vacation” rentals.
Many concerned citizens believe allowing rental of less than 30 days, and as short as one night, could alter the face and the character of the community. In just the past week, the Council has received a flood of email messaged urging an appeal of the CEB’s split decision, included two emails from leading, long-time real estate professionals, including Kay Brown and Matilde and Dale Sorensen.
Honey Minuse, chair of the Indian River Neighborhood Association executive committee, sent two urgent appeals this past week asking IRNA members to lobby Council members personally and to attend Tuesday evening’s Council meeting.
Councilmen Jay Kramer and Richard Winger have both publicaly indicated a willingness to appeal the CEB’s decision. Since Vice Mayor Tracy Carroll will have to recuse herself from the vote, the decision will come down to how Mayor Craig Fletcher and Councilwoman Pilar Turner view the issue. Regardless of whether Fletcher and Turner think it advisable to allow rentals of as short as one night in the city’s neighborhoods, they owe it to the community to bring closure to this issue by seeking a ruling from the circuit court.
In siding with Vice Mayor Tracy Carroll and her husband, John, CEB members Dan Hagett, Kirk Noonan and James Richardson greatly confused their responsibility to rule on the facts in the case with the role of the Planning Director in interpreting city code and the City Council in establishing policy. CEB members Harry Howle and Suzanne Shell, who were appointed to the board in 2012, supported the City’s position.
Before overruling the Planning Department, Hagett, Noonan and Richardson could and should have sought clarification from the CIty Council, when the Carrolls were first issued a warning more than a year ago. At the time, John Carroll was still a member of the CEB, and it was no secret to the Board that this issue would eventually come before them. The matter only can to a head now because the Carrolls were finally issued a citation.
Regarding the CEB majority’s inclination to establish city policy, one comment by Richardson was especially revealing. “We don’t want to discourage tourism,” Richardson said early in the meeting.
Well, there is no evidence prohibiting rentals of less than 30 days does anything to discourage tourism. Secondly, whether or not to promote tourism is simply not Richardson’s call to make, at least not in his capacity as a member of the Code Enforcement Board.
It can reasonably be argued that the CEB’s 3-2 ruling in favor of short-term rentals might instead have been 4-3 in favor of preserving the quality of life in Vero Beach, if only the two open seats on the CEB were filled, and with members who care more about the future of the city.
Why are these two positions vacant? It’s not like a recalcitrant Congress is holding up appointments It is time for a few concerned citizens to step forward and offer to serve on the CEB.
Hagett, Noonan and Richardson have all served on the CEB since 2004, including during the years when John Carroll was on the Board. If Hagett, Noonan and Richardson are going to be allowing to continuing in their seemingly lifetime appointments, then their views should at least be moderated by the appointment of new members to fill the two vacant seats.
Finally, if Hagett, Noonan and Richardson want to set policy, they should consider running for the City Council. In fact, if they want to join Tracy Carroll in altering the course of the city for the worst, they have until Friday, Sept. 6 to fill papers with the City Clerk to have their names appear on the Nov. 5 ballot.
Indian River Guardian 
Maintain our neighborhoods as just that!
It’s really tragic when people not only forget their role in holding a public position, but then fail to listen to the experts on the law. None of these three should be on the board if they don’t understand their jobs. People in the city rather ignore who’s who on these unelected boards, until something like this happens, and then the city council fails to keep faith with the public, as well.
Perhaps they’ve been doing the buddy system for so long they forgot what they were supposed to be doing. Nah, that’s not it….
The Code Enforcement Board is intended to serve the people and not alter policy to change the affect of that policy on certain people.
Tracy Carroll and her husband knew of the deed restrictions when they purchased the property and have no justification for changing it now.
John Carroll was on the code board before and after his wife Tracy Carroll was elected to office in 2010. As soon as she was elected he should have removed himself from that board. Instead he was removed via the city attorney opinion (public record) response to John Carroll requesting another term on the code board while his wife Tracy sat as an elected city official.
While on the code board John Carroll lobbied his fellow board members to re-write policy to enable him to continue his business of short term rentals (he admitted this when he was appealing the code violation). If the majority of the code board had questions at the time Carroll first questioned city code they should have been sent to the city council, the governing body that drafts policy. Tracy Carroll as an elected official and John Carroll as a code board member would have had to excuse themselves from the decision then also. It also would have become more public that John Carroll was a board member of a state statute board while his wife Tracy was in office.
Standing before the code board as a resident two weeks ago John Carroll spoke of the relationship he had with the members of the code board he sat on. He wanted them to do what he had lobbied them to do while he sat with them on the code board.
The code board does not draft or set policy; they follow the code.
This time the majority of the code board found fault with policy and sided with their former fellow code board member instead of following policy and the code.
The old boy system is alive and well in Vero. Now let’s get rid of Tracy Carroll in November and her three friends ,who are too weak to vote the best interests of Vero.
It might be a good idea to know exactly how the code reads on this issue. So publish it before casting stones.
Rosemarie, I do know EXACTLY how the code reads on this issue. If you are curious to know, it is available at COVB.org. Mark
The public should be informed as to the details of the code in order to make a sound judgement.
Most fly by the seat of their pants out of pettiness.
The public isn’t making this call, so why educate them, or try. Most have no idea about this issue. Nor do they care. What do you want, a referendum? We have the circuit court. Their interpretation is what matters. And either way, life goes on.