The issue of short-term vacation rentals of less than 30 days continued to reverberate yesterday, generating comments and emails.
One of those emails came from the person who solicited the rental agreement referred to in the Star-Advertiser story cited here on Saturday. The source is a well-known former islander now retired on the mainland.
Although the rental agreement appears authentic, based on this information, it is not clear whether it was approved by the home owners or whether this proposed rental was known to them at the time.
According to this email:
I, using the pseudonym Jon Sturdivant, solicited a reservation at Banzai Hale for 14 days between May 28 and June 10, 2010 from Luxury Vacation Homes, agents for the Turbin properties. ( e-mail correspondence sent by separate message ). Luxury Homes proffered the rental agreement covering 14 days (that you obviously have a copy of ) to me for signing and pre-payment
In light of Turbin’s statements to the Star Advertiser, I want to assure you that the rental agreement is authentic. To help assure you, I am also forwarding you the e-mail message in which the rental agreement was embedded as an attachment.
With regard to your notice and display of the “Special terms” clause in the rental agreement, I would like to add this comment: There is no allowance in the Land Use Ordinance for a short-term rental if there is only one such rental per month nor is there any allowance for a short-term rental if no other party moves into the rental in a 30 day period. The LUO language makes it clear that any rental of less than 30 days is prohibited.
I’ve looked at the emails to and from the rental agent, and there appears no doubt that the rental agreement is authentic, although the transaction was not completed.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
comments deleted?
See? The Star Badadvertiser doesn’t want to have to have their pick revealed to be a prevaricator.
No big surprise. Politicians dance their way around important issues all the time. It’s just that Turbin did it before the election and now the voters can choose if they want a politician who claims to abide by transparency (as quoted in Turbin’s mailer) or one who really does.
That does not make sense. Even if it was “authentic” the fact is that the Turbins must not have allowed it to be a vacation rental if the contract didn’t go through. Nothing is wrong with having vacation rentals if they are longer that 30 days anyway. This is to insure some type of consistency in neighborhoods.”John Sturdivant” did not actually stay. He tried to solicit an agreement between the Turbins to make it a B&B but nothing materialized. Which means the Turbin DO NOT own a B&B or TVR since they do not rent it for less than 30 days. Just because you can ask to rent it for less than a month doesn’t make it is illegal rental. You have to STAY in it for less than a month for it to be a TVR. The Turbins clearly did not allow that since Don Bremner a.k.a. Jon Sturdivant didn’t actually stay there. Not to mention all the scam vacation rental sites that are out there. Also citing another article, “City compliance officials say Turbin’s rental record is clean.” What this really sounds like is a failed attempt at entrapment.
I can’t agree.
“John Sturdivant” solicited AND WAS APPARENTLY OFFERED a rental stay of less than 30 days, although the exclusive “rental period” was defined as 30 days.
The rental agreement form, which appears to be authentic, has a provision recognizing that an actual stay may be less than the legally required 30-day rental period, and basing rental fees on the lesser number of days.
So while this transaction was not completed, it certainly appears that the elements were in place.
At least that’s how it looks from where I sit.
I can certainly appreciate that people who oppose these transient rentals would not look on this kindly.