Some say that the upcoming election cycle will see the return of ugliness to those who will campaign for election.

I disagree.

We are on the right track for increasing property values for all residents and for continued prosperity for rental home owners. Kudos to our city council for considering all stake holders on the island and coming up with a solution that is workable for all.

Come November, I say re-elect those that have served us well.

-Elizabeth Gaskell

Interestingly, Sullivan’s Island, as of October 11, 2009 posted a 6.5% increase in median home value over the past year, while Isle of Palms saw a close to 20% drop in median home value. Obviously, many factors contribute to these trends, however, it is very clear that these communities have adopted differing paths for the development and re-development that is taking place in their residential districts. The community that chose to protect the residential character of its Single Family districts, Sullivan’s Island, actually saw an increase in home values – despite the historic recession we’ve suffered through. The news wasn’t so happy for Isle of Palms property owners.

Current ordinances on IOP still allow for up to 28 person short-term rentals virtually anywhere “outside the gates” on the island. Yes, that means next door to YOU. Would you buy a home for your family next door to a mini-hotel? It’s no wonder our real estate market is under-performing. This situation will only worsen as the economy turns around and the building of massive rental homes fires back up.

So what can residents do? Despite the fact that neighborhood friendly candidates captured three seats in the 2007 election, our council is still controlled by folks who want to maintain the status quo. Plainly stated, we still don’t have enough votes to pass fair but effective measures to protect our single family residential districts (such as limiting the rental capacity of newly constructed homes to 12). Which is why our municipal elections this November are so important. Get to know the candidates – it’s not difficult to see that some of them have special interests that conflict directly with how you might want your neighborhood to look in 5 or 10 years. Then get out and vote – your home’s value is at stake.

Links to Altos Research Data

Isle of Palms Home Values: http://www.altosresearch.com/research/SC/isle-of-palms-real-estate-market

Sullivan’s Island Home Values: http://www.altosresearch.com/research/SC/sullivans-island-real-estate-market

After the ordinance was made law, I distinctly recall Councilperson Carol Rice saying “One day we’ll look back and be proud that we did this.”

Well, it only took a year, but it looks like she and other council folks who voted in the law can indeed be proud. A recent study has determined that in communities where smoking bans are in place heart attacks dropped from 17% in year one to as high as 36% by year three. The team of researchers pooled data from 13 studies of smoking bans in communities in the United States, Canada and Europe.

A big thank you to our council for passing the smoking ban – cheers to our improved health.

To read more about this research read the full article at MSNBC:  Smoking bans reduce heart attacks by a third

The article tells us that Sandy has worked with the Boy Scouts and coached youth sports, activities everyone would agree are very commendable. We also learn that Mr. Stone has been a resident of the island for 30 years and has volunteered at the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, both of which are of less interest to me in guiding my decision for voting, or not voting for him. But what grabbed my attention wasn’t what was written, but what wasn’t written. The article failed to mention that Sandy is the owner of Island Realty, one of the largest, if not THE largest short-term rental agencies on the island. In my view, that’s a rather important factoid that the public should know. This omission isn’t, of course, his fault. He didn’t, after all, write the article. But it does point out the need for the voting public to become knowledgeable about whom they might cast their vote.

Pointing out Mr. Stone’s business interests isn’t meant to insinuate that he’s not a decent, god-loving individual. I’ve shared my opinion in this space in an earlier article that Sandy is, by all accounts, a good guy. What I am suggesting is that, lacking any specific statement during the campaign season that outlines his intentions, I would fully expect him to continue obstructing any attempted reforms to the ordinances that govern his industry. As a member of the Planning Commission he has been consistent in this regard. He has vigorously argued against even minor changes to short-term rental rules. His perspective on this particular issue is different than many residents – which shouldn’t come as a surprise. He views the issue of mini-hotels through a different lens.

As the campaign season rolls along, it is important for all of us to ferret out the intentions of the candidates. As citizens we need to ask, before the election, where the candidates stand on the myriad of issues most important to us. This serves two purposes: 1) Informs our vote and 2) provides a record for which we can hold those elected accountable. It is only with this type of transparency that we will elect those who will truly represent the interests of the voting public.

Instead of embarrassing footage covering steamy e-mails and understandably snarky comments from Sanford’s wife, we’ll be watching extensive retrospectives of the high profile careers of Fawcett and Jackson.

If I were in his shoes, I’d be grateful for any small break that comes my way – surely this is one story the local media will keep it’s claws dug into like an osprey on a spottail.

At the most recent Planning Commission, several commission members voiced the idea that second home owners and real estate investors should have as much of a say as year round residents about community issues. In my opinion, this is way off base. Those that live in a community hold the privlege to vote in local elections. This privlege allows residents to vote for those that will be stewards of the community standards they would most like to see carried out.

Those that own property here, but live and vote elsewhere, get to have a say in their chosen places of residence. Owning property does not, in and of itself, give you the right to dictate anything – unless of course the property owner has rights through a Homeowners Association (HOA), Planned Unit Development (PUD) or other legal entity that controls a specific development.

As an owner of several investment properties in Mount Pleasant, I fully understand that the public officials elected by the residents of that community will dictate the growth and development that is allowed in that community. I also understand that I will be bound by the ordinances passed and enforced by those same elected officials. I have never for a second thought that my investment in their community included the right to dictate their community standards.

Second home owners and real estate investors are here at the behest of residents. They make their purchase decisions based on the standards that we set forth – if they don’t like those standards, then they can choose to purchase in a community whose standards better suit their criteria.

Recognizing that year-round residents provide stability to the community, many municipalities have taken steps to ensure that vacation rentals don’t overtake residential neighborhoods. Check out these articles that report on the ongoing debate occurring in destination communities across the country:

Isle of Palms – Isle of Palms is a barrier island on the South Carolina coast, less than 20 minutes from Charleston. In the late 19th century, local residents began using the island as a vacation spot. At that time it was only accessible by ferry. From condos to cottages, to oceanfront mansions, Isle of Palms offers a wide range of vacation and investment homes.

Compare this to the description for Sullivan’s Island:

Sullivan’s Island – The Town of Sullivan’s Island, a barrier island north of Charleston Harbor, is comprised of approximately 2,000 residents in half as many households. These are primarily full or part time citizens that enjoy the relaxed lifestyle of the Island. There are very few short-term rentals and no hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, or other transient lodging.

The description of Isle of Palms as a place that only offers “a wide range of vacation and investment homes” is, from my perspective as a resident, dead wrong. This description highlights that fact that IOP has an image problem. While those of us who live here know what a delightful place Isle of Palms is to live, the perception out there in the real estate market seems to be that IOP is a transient place for visitors and second homes. Our city’s lack of action to protect the residential character of our neighborhoods only worsens the problem. For those who make their living in real estate this, in my opinion, means that fewer people looking for a place to call home aren’t considering IOP in their search. Fewer potential buyers = fewer home sales.

With a few modest measures (Limit rental capacities to 12 people max, reduce maximum lot coverage allowed to 35%) we could stop the erosion of our neighborhoods and revive our image as great place to call home. Isn’t it high time we got this done?

Now that we have that out of the way I’d like to share my thoughts about a recent series of Letters to the Editor, and responses, initiated by a local builder. To get right to the skinny, our letter writer/builder opined that folks in the Isle of Palms Neighborhood Association (IOPNA) are being less than hospitable in their quest to save their neighborhoods from the encroachment of mini-hotels. As a builder of mini-hotels, this builder’s opinion shouldn’t surprise anyone.

What was surprising was that the letter writer forgot to mention that he is a builder.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I like builders. I sell to them. I work with them. Further, I think that anyone who blames local builders for the prolifieration of large rental homes in our SR Districts is wrong. The builders abide by the rules that the city created. They are, in fact, just trying to make a living within the parameters that our municiplity has embraced. I say, give ‘em a break already.

However, if you’re going to weigh in on what’s happening in our neighborhoods, I think full disclosure is a good idea. It’s beyond obvious that our individual points of view are shaped by what we do for a living.

Regardless of this lack of disclosure, it’s my opinion that the letter writer/builder missed the mark with his comments. I participate in the IOPNA, and I have to say that, as a rule, everyone is exceptionally friendly. In reality, I think our writer/builder is just afraid that his ability to make a living will be threatened, so he’s adopting an us against them mentality.  This really isn’t necessary.