The guest editorial by Sarah Filosa, Pacaso Public Affairs Manager in Park City, that appeared in the September 3-6 edition of the Park Record, completely misrepresents the impact of unchecked fractional ownership in single family neighborhoods.
The incursion of Pacaso into many communities has resulted in a flurry of activity. Several communities have successfully petitioned courts to issue cease and desist orders to stop Pacaso including South Lake Tahoe, CA, Palm Springs, CA, Carmel-by-the Sea, CA, and Monterey County, CA.
Several others have crafted new regulations, some of which have already been enacted, to specifically ban fractional ownership. These communities include North Haven, NY, St. Helena, CA, Paradise Valley, AZ, Palm Desert, CA, and Indian Wells, CA. In the case of St. Helena, CA, Pacaso’s response was to sue the city. This may be a “test case” of sorts and Pacaso has demonstrated that any community opposing their practices may face costly litigation.
Many of these cities had long standing bans on short-term rentals and timeshares. However, new regulations were deemed necessary as Pacaso has repeatedly claimed that short term rental and timeshare bans do not apply to their model.
In her guest editorial Sarah Filosa writes “Pacaso homes are owned by an average of six families who come back over and over again, just like any other second homeowners. It’s not a revolving door of thirty new groups on average every year like you find in short-term rentals.” Ms. Filosa ignores the fact that many communities have made it clear they perceive Pacaso’s model as a timeshare. Communities that have banned short-term rentals and timeshares value a traditional single family home experience that would be destroyed by the incursion of fractional ownership into their neighborhoods.
Ms. Filosa goes on to state “Pacaso is committed to supporting the Park City community and maintaining its existing character.” If this is to be believed, why is Pacaso fighting back and litigating against communities that perceive their model analogous to a timeshare and thus not allowed? Pacaso does not seem to recognize existing community bans on timeshares and has proven litigious when challenged. Ms. Filosa also states, “there are about 6,500 second homes in Park City which, on average, sit empty 89 percent of the year.” Ms. Filosa does not cite any sources for these figures. Nonetheless, she ignores the fact that vacant homes do not contribute to our already overcrowded roads and trails, our overbooked restaurants, or our crowded ski resorts. Increasing occupancy of existing homes will only exacerbate these issues. This is especially true since the high-end homes desired by Pacaso can accommodate large numbers of people. It does not appear that shareholders will be limited to the number of guests they can bring.
Admittedly, Park City and Summit County have many housing challenges. The most pressing issue seems to be the lack of affordable housing. Selling shares in multimillion-dollar homes for which shareholders have only 6.5 weeks of residency in two-week increments will not alleviate the housing shortages facing our community.
The Park City Planning Department is proposing Land Management Code amendments that will “prohibit fractional ownership of Single-Family Dwellings in primarily residential areas.” Furthermore, the proposed amendments will “allow fractional ownership of Single-Family Dwellings in those zoning districts where Timeshares and Private Residence Clubs are allowed.” I urge the Park City Council to adopt these proposed amendments and for the Summit County Council to follow suit.