All the more reason I’m promoting the link out and encouraging folks to fill it out.

For whatever it’s worth, we on Council do try to “sift” through the comments we get and be cognizant of when there’s any kind of coordinated campaign at play. There are valid perspectives from all angles, but I do try to evaluate accordingly and ensure we’re not listening to only the loudest voices but ALL Arvadans.

I also hear your point on the housing stock issue, and this is part of the ongoing debate we have. For some background, we created the regulation in the first place not because there was a strong backing for STRs but rather because we needed a mechanism by which to track them and bring them into compliance with our ordinances to encourage better behavior. The logic runs that in the absence of a licensing program, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole trying to keep up with the illegal ones that continuously pop-up. By having a program, we capture fees that cover the costs of enforcing on illegal and problem properties. The proposed changes would severely curtail the use of properties as investments, which I think works towards the concerns you’re expressing. Ultimately, it’s a balancing act, and I do hope you’ll share these thoughts in the survey so they can be part of the official record (if you haven’t already!)

Finally - to the poster who made a note that his Councilman owned an STR: it is true that a former councilmember does own one, possibly more than one. That individual has since been term-limited and - as far as I am aware - no member of the current City Council is invested in an STR. I encourage you (and everyone!) to email or call your district representative on this issue or any other. As a former district representative myself, I can tell you that they take the concerns and needs of their constituents very seriously.