Anti-vacation rental measure in P.G. inches closer to reality as city eyes initiative to raise revenue.

Shared housing is the greenest building movement in recent history. In a near zero growth area more residential buildings or hotels are not an option. Making existing housing more effective by sharing is a very sustainable housing method.
Shared housing can reduce embedded energy/resident by magnitudes never seen in most green building and energy efficiency retrofit methods.

Pacific Grove is a progressive community,
We have a special type of tourist in Monterey and Big Sur that have a genuine love and respect for the area. The current trend in our tourism is to try to integrate into communities, and have more awareness of community and environmental issues. The nearby nature and marine preserves are what attracts many of our tourists and residents. These tourists crave more family based values, conservation, and green housing methods that reduce traffic. The hotel corporations have no response to this kind of request other than trying to use propaganda to outlaw it. They are based purely on short-term profit models, not making any changes to accommodate these progressive new tourists.

I have to compliment the author of this article for using the perfect word, "cadre", for this “anti-competition” campaign by hotel corporations.

ca·dre
noun a small group of people specially trained for a particular purpose or profession.
synonyms: corps, body, team, group, nucleus, core
"a cadre of academic specialists"
a group of activists in a communist or other revolutionary organization.

This kind of anti-competition behavior fits more in communist countries.

This article is full of misinformation! It mentions “Mini-commercial hotels”, when the actual zoning and usages, as defined by the County, are in fact residential. Shared residential housing is residential usage, period. The article continues to state STRs “Bringing a host of problems” when there is no evidence of more problems with this type of residential usage, but instead, the home sharing economy actually helps solve many problems in a near zero growth policy area like PG. Shared residential properties have a much lower impact on resources than the large corporate owned wasteful hotels.

#1 reason for sharing a home: to afford housing in a high priced tourist area.
#2 to be self-employed and receive fair wages, unlike a hotel workers poverty level salary.
#3 to integrate tourists into the community, and educated them about the area and protecting the environment. To be social, and not live alone as many single owners do.
#4 Sustainable, higher occupancy housing, for our sensitive coastal areas.
#5 Reduces traffic. Groups tend to carpool and not eat out as much. Less commuting when staying near areas of interest.

When did it become ok for the local Chamber of Commerce to push these out of town big corporate agendas of “no competition”? How pathetic that this Chamber of Commerce does not represent the local small "mom & pop" community who wish to share homes for residential vacation stays.

Isn’t it time to stop these big hotel corporations from segregating poor workers out of an area, forcing them to commute for low wages. This just causes more traffic on the already overused HWY 68. Why would PG want to become an elitist neighborhood, ruining a livelihood for so many current residents, and favor “anti-competition laws” by big hotel corporations?
Why don't these big hotel conglomerates pay their workers enough to live in the areas in which they work? Why do they expect the residents to "foot the bill" for their low-paid employees, by renting to them at well below the market rate?

Finally, the big hotel corporations refuse to listen to customers who want more of a family and community experience on a vacation. These big profit/investor driven corporations have no family values or community integration. These big hotels, with terrible water and energy usages, are not sustainable buildings.