In response to the front-page article, "Apartment project blends workforce housing, vacation rentals" (The Astorian, June 19): There has been a push to curb short-term rentals with arbitrary rules and fees imposed on local property owners, which seems excessive, unfair and a deliberate bias against local people who just want to maintain their property and/or pay property taxes.
Preservation has been important for Astoria, yet it takes money for restoration/maintenance. Follow the money. Developers, generally with cookie-cutter corporate hotels, want our waterfront, while we the citizens sacrifice our own need for income and loss of property values due to the riverfront view now being blocked, especially in the "Bridge Vista zone." A vista?
Is it OK to eliminate locals, the citizens who live and work here, paying property taxes for years, who bear the burden of maintenance/preservation alone, especially if divorced or widowed? Does eliminating locals pave the way for developers so they can add 34 Airbnb-type vacation rentals?
Why discourage short-term rentals with no history of complaints, infractions or police calls? For those who vote on this issue, do they understand the positive impacts on communities? I question the veracity of their decision, and the arbitrary rules and excessive fees.
Have they stayed in an Airbnb or researched the reviews? The extra money of "sharing" helps with preservation, taxes and offering guests real hospitality.
Please don't deny the opportunity for local citizens to follow part of the money.