Borowsky, Ortega answer questions on Scottsdale short-term rentals

By Melissa Rosequist
Twitter: @mrosequist_

With residents concerned about short-term rentals wreaking havoc in some Scottsdale neighborhoods, mayoral candidates David Ortega and Lisa Borowsky have differing opinions on supporting the vacation properties.

Leading up to the Nov. 3 general election, the Scottsdale Independent is hosting an ongoing question-and-answer series with candidates for local government.

This week’s questions include two topics suggested by readers: short-term rentals and the land-use agreement at Papago Park between Scottsdale, Phoenix and the Giants.

Read below to see what Scottsdale’s two mayoral candidates, Ms. Borowsky and Mr. Ortega, have to say on these two community topics.

Do you support short-term rentals in Scottsdale’s neighborhoods?

DO: At last count, there are 4,528 short-term rental properties in Scottsdale. Estimating three-bedrooms each, that represents 13,600-room nights and two persons per room up to 27,200 occupants. 27,200 occupants equals 11% of the population of Scottsdale, encroaching into our neighborhoods. (Statistics provided by the Arizona Vacation Rental Association.)

Last weekend, I counted 16 cars and one eight-passenger van at 8201 E. Lincoln Drive. No, I do not support STRs, which overwhelm my neighborhood or any other neighborhood. Surprisingly, they were relatively quiet and all were gone Sunday morning.

The most vulnerable Scottsdale neighborhoods are in “open neighborhoods” without a homeowner association. However, proliferation of STRs into gated communities such as Gainey Ranch is a constant HOA management problem.

We must protect the peaceful fabric of all family-centered neighborhoods.
Since the Arizona Legislature stripped authority of cities to place curbs on STRs, localities have had to deal with the consequences. Constituent pressure on legislators to regulate STRs, as one-size-fits-all legislation has failed.

Proposed legislation curbs have ranged from STR stay of 30 days maximum per year, to a minimum stay of 30 days. Short-term rental interests know that they must come to the negotiation table.

The League of Cities has weighed in, but it is my belief that the Arizona Legislature is incapable of passing blanket regulations; therefore they should repeal central authority. Scottsdale should be the leader at the table among many municipal allies.

LB: Yes, conditionally. (see No. 2). Pursuant to state law, we cannot discriminate against private residence owners who want to use part or all of their homes for paying guests. Nor should we limit the options for visitors we work hard to attract to our city. However, we must focus on meaningful enforcement of the ordinances in place to protect neighbors where there are problem rentals.

What change would you propose to fix the issue of short-term rentals if you had the authority?

DO: Of 14,319 total STR properties Valley-wide, 32% are in Scottsdale! By comparison, the city of Phoenix has 3,755 and Tucson 3,211.

Many issues must be hashed out to find the right balance to preserve neighborhood resident property rights and invasive STR syndicates.

Criminal events have occurred such as shootings, loud party houses and worst case, looting at Fashion Square, which was staged from a nearby STR. HOA residents have told me they are alarmed that strangers gain easy entry at any hour. Others say having the Scottsdale experience for family reunions under one roof is ideal. Common ground must be found.

Scottsdale City Hall should have direct control, not have to peck around the edges. Issues such as private security, contamination of recycling, COVID sanitation, surveillance lighting and clientele screening are standard in the hotel industry. STR owners should be accountable for similar overhead obligations. Scottsdale police resources should not be the enforcement guardians for absentee STR owners.

Scottsdale is renowned for precise zoning regulations. Eventually, an STR conglomerate will manage to buy an entire block and attempt to build a STR cluster, with “vested” rights. I will work proactively with the new city council, other city allies and STR associations to find answers.

In contrast, my mayoral opponent is “proudly endorsed” by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. AZFEC and my opponent espouse no government regulations for the short-term syndicates. I support surrounding resident property rights. We must protect our quality of life, first.

LB: Arizona statutes and Scottsdale ordinances are in place for the protection of neighborhoods from disruptive residents. The occupancy and sales tax revenue generated by these properties should be dedicated exclusively to strict enforcement of those statutes and ordinances. This tool is currently under-utilized and it is time to focus on meaningful enforcement.

Do you receive any financial benefit from STRs, STR owners, or online lodging operators?

DO: No, none. I have no financial or beneficial interests in short-term rentals. And absolutely no ownership or participation in any online lodging operators. I am focused on Scottsdale residents’ property value erosion due to saturation of STRs.

Per my financial disclosure on file at the city clerk, I do not own any rental residential or commercial property in Scottsdale.

LB: No.

People in Scottsdale and neighboring areas have concerns about the Giants project at Papago Park. They believe that this project: 1. Has caused serious harm to the scenery and desert landscape of that park; 2. That the financial conditions are inappropriate; and 3. It is unacceptable to build a private corporate compound in a public park. What are your feelings about this?

DO: It is a shame that the San Francisco Giants training facilities will be nestled in such a scenic location. Scottsdale has no control of city of Phoenix transactions, property or baseball contracts. In Scottsdale, San Francisco team facilities located in the Indian Bend greenbelt (park) have been restricted for exclusive use. And I believe the same Indian Bend training facilities will be used, but for another team franchise.

Scottsdale is committed to retain San Francisco Spring Training and year-round training is the game plan. I agree wholeheartedly.

LB: I understand the concerns but, this project will not negatively impact the area’s beautiful scenery. It is projected to simply update and enhance what is already there. As a member of the Scottsdale Charros Foundation Board, my experience with the Giants is that they are sensitive to the needs of community, and I expect they will complete a nice renovation which will benefit the area.

The agreement will not cost Scottsdale any money. The Giants are paying all costs for the use. The financial terms are entirely appropriate from Scottsdale’s perspective. Additionally, given the importance of the Cactus League to our city’s economy, Scottsdale will see a revenue benefit.
This facility was historically utilized as a professional baseball facility. While it was not used as such for a period of time, it was open to the public. Now, there is an opportunity to restore the use as a Giants year-round facility. This is a good result for Scottsdale, which will not negatively impact the surrounding area, will not cost the taxpayers anything and will create a revenue generator for our city.