SWINGING FISTS, BLOODY NOSES, AND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2024

 How can you spot a shitty neighbor?

Sometimes it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

 

On the other hand, spotting a really good neighbor might require a little more attention. They are the ones who keep an eye on their neighbor’s home while they are away, or shovel their sidewalk, or take packages left on their front porch and put them out of sight from would-be porch pirates, or drop by their neighbor’s home to feed their pets.

Good neighbors are likely to check in on you if you’ve been out of sight for a week and are known to have health problems. Sometimes neighbors turn into friends, but even when they don’t, they play a special role in providing that underrated gift, known as peace of mind.

Who doesn’t want to live in a neighborhood where neighbors are looking out for neighbors and where mischief-makers and criminals might sense that vigilant eyeballs are scanning the neighborhood?

 

Unfortunately, all of those eyeballs are useless when it comes to one special category of neighborhood disruptors.

At the Watertown City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 9, the room was packed with residents who showed up to make their voices heard on an issue that asked two fundamental questions: Do strong, stable neighborhoods matter? And does local government have a responsibility to preserve them?

The specific issue on the Council’s agenda was a category of home-operated businesses known as short-term rentals (STRs), which have thrived in Watertown as unsanctioned, unregulated “shadow” businesses.

At this meeting, the Council would be voting on an ordinance that would legalize STRs.

If you’ve paid the slightest attention to this issue, you’ve heard residents’ horror stories of strangers showing up in their neighborhoods, occupying one or more homes, throwing loud, late-night parties, monopolizing on-street parking space, and moving out a few days later while leaving trash on the sidewalks and streets for someone else to clean up.

Those carefree merry-makers were “guests” of opportunistic homeowners who decided to periodically turn their homes into small hotels.

The politics associated with STRs is interesting. There is one side that loves them and one side that hates them.

Some progressives love them because they see STR operators as victims of an unfair economic system who need the money to keep their heads above water. Progressives to the rescue!

Some libertarians love STRs because property rights are sacred and the government should not be sticking their noses where their noses don’t belong. My home is my castle!

How do we explain progressives and libertarians becoming unlikely political bedfellows?

The answer might be summed up in a line from Glenn Frye’s song about the drug trade, Smuggler’s Blues:

It's the lure of EASY money, it's gotta VERY strong appeal...

 

On the other side, those who hate STRs are individuals of every political stripe who rank neighborhood preservation near the top in their value system.

At the April 9 meeting, twenty-one residents voiced their opposition to the ordinance − fifteen from the podium, five on Zoom, and one by email – some of them sharing their personal STR horror stories publicly the first, second, or third time. 

Three residents voiced their support for the ordinance – two from the podium and one by email.

(one commenter went to the podium and came down firmly on both sides of the issue.)

Perhaps Watertown resident, Ruth Rappaport’s testimony provided us with the best visual – three STRs, each accommodating up to ten “guests,” flooding her very small street with cars, taxis, Ubers, and noise at all hours of the day and night, and drawing rodents to overstuffed trash receptacles, that were left on the street for multiple days.

Under such conditions, one’s sense of personal safety, where normal renters become familiar to the neighbors, is sacrificed in favor of quick and easy conscience-free cash.

Some residents came to the podium and spoke for a second time, adding to their lists of complaints and putting the finishing touches on their opposition to what they regarded as a menace to the community.

Now it was up to the nine Council members to determine the fate of the ordinance. Could the overwhelming opposition coming from the room and from Zoom help persuade at least four Councilors to vote NO, preventing a supermajority of the six Councilors needed to pass this screamingly anti-neighborhood ordinance?

Or would the few Councilors who strongly support the legalization of STRs present arguments so convincing that they would win over the majority of their fellow Council members?

The spotlight was squarely on Councilor Feltner who championed the STR cause, which would allow, in some cases, an STR operator to rent to up to ten guests at a time.

Her presentation was passionate, emotional, and no doubt sincere, but it was a flop. She made this bombshell statement:

“I know that if we take this away, there are people who will not be able to stay in their homes.”

She did not tell us who those people were who would not be able to stay in their homes.  Would knowing the names of these community members have mattered in determining the outcome of the vote? We will never know.

Had these members of our community shown up at the meeting and told their stories, might that have changed the dynamic in the room? In such a high-stakes meeting, with so much to lose, why on earth would they have remained silent and invisible?

People do not tell their best stories through an intermediary. And in this case, those stories weren’t heard at all – just the second-hand report that they would lose their homes.

 Councilor Feltner pointed to public meetings where “there’s been a lot of negative energy…where neighbors were not being the most friendly to each other…” as justification for them remaining silent and invisible and revealing their potential hardship only to her.

Did Councilor Feltner implore them to show up and tell their stories? If she did and they refused, then they hung her out to dry.

Councilor Gardner told us that she also had heard from quite a few residents including some who told her that they would have to sell their homes and move out of Watertown if they were prevented from operating their “hometels” (my word, not hers).

All of those potential victims, along with Councilor Feltner’s, remained nameless and faceless. Not one of them showed up, either in person or on Zoom, to tell their story at the one forum that would mean the difference between staying in Watertown or packing up and moving to Buffalo.

Here's a fun question. During her lengthy comment in defense of STR operators, who desperately need the money that only STRs can deliver (seriously?) did this progressive Councilor ever utter the libertarian-ish statement: “I would like to respect their property rights…”?

Of course, she did. As I said, this is a strange issue.

But if Councilor Gardner made one significant contribution during this consequential public forum, it was this:

She calmed the minds of all District A residents who own ski condos (You have probably bumped into some of them at Coolidge Hardware or Donohue’s Bar & Grill) by informing them that when she rented out her ski condo, she returned to find her possessions, including her wine glasses and teacups intact.

If you had told me before this Council meeting began that it would end in a SIX to THREE vote against adopting the ordinance, I would have bet you all of my wine glasses and teacups that you were nuts.

But that is exactly what happened.

Nobody in the room said it as concisely and as eloquently as Councilor Airasian:

“For me, this comes down to a quality-of-life issue and Watertown’s neighborhoods are precious, and now more than ever they need to be protected. I feel like there has been a tremendous amount of pressure put on some of the neighborhoods with all the development going on. If people want to come to this area, there are places for them to go other than our neighborhoods.”

The only worthy response that I can come up with is Hallelujah, Councilor Airasian.

Oh, and one more thing.

I am a homeowner and I am a staunch believer in property rights. I am also a staunch believer in the principle expressed in this famous statement:

The right to swing your fist ends at another person’s nose.

The six Councilors who voted to kill the STR ordinance were in no way voting against the swinging fists of property rights.

They listened to the testimonies. They heard the first-hand horror stories and they voted to put a stop to the neighborhood bleeding.

Many thanks to Councilors Airasian, Izzo, Gannon, Palomba, Council Vice-President Piccirilli, and Council President Sideris.

Unlikely political bedfellows, to be sure.

Did I mention that this was a strange issue?

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown 

.