The survey was jointly drafted by the board, with a view to inclusiveness and neutrality. There is no specific language about the proposed ZTA, and no preamble containing advocacy. We gave STRs the benefit of the doubt by asking about benefits before concerns, and gave people the opportunity to respond with unprompted text comments. The survey was distributed before the board released its statement of opposition, as it was a key part of our information gathering.
The survey was sent to BCPOA members (about half the list) as well as nonmembers on the Bridger Canyon email list, which includes entries from other organizations, signups at the BC picnic, and other ad hoc subscriptions, totaling 518 unique email addresses for canyon households. The survey was also promoted via a paper mailing to all known canyon addresses. The response rate was just under 20%. (It has since climbed slightly, without changing the qualitative outcome.) We required unique email addresses to limit the ability of a few to spam the results with multiple responses, a problem that marred an earlier attempt. No responses were suppressed in the reporting of results.
While no survey instrument is perfect, we believe that this is about as close as one could get to a broad view of canyon opinion, short of holding a formal election.
These results haven’t been fully validated for duplication etc., but spot checks suggest no obvious issues.
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email
This survey is to garner responses about the Short Term Rental/ Accessory Dwelling Unit zoning amendment that was written up to allow short term rentals in Bridger Canyon. I am in support of short term rentals in Bridger Canyon and elsewhere for that matter. They are highly regulated already, there are already standards in place.. The folks who have short term rentals have an obligation to their clients as well as to their community to have a high standard for operating such rentals. Each property owner should have the RIGHT to have an extra opportunity to rent as seen fit. These units have been in co-existance within the Bridger Canyon community without a problem for years. If Bozeman and Bridger Canyon want to tout about their unique and special attributes to the world community, then tourism is at the top of list of win win situation. I believe that that there is a need for the property owners to have leaway to be able to do things with their property without such ‘concerns’ for the community. I believe that we all do not want a commercial development to come but why single out those with a short term rentals scattered over the huge area that the Bridger Canyon zoning covers. I would suggest that a solution, which everyone seems to not appreciate, IS to have a commercial development at the base of Bridger Bowl so that the traffic concern could be eased and affordable housing for the employees can be right where their job is.
I implore the residents and the BCPOA to be good neighbors and to promote unity than exclusivity and judgement on their neighbors. Please, please allow the property rights of the owners. I believe that the zoning amendment was carefully written and thoughtful for all.
Linda Meuret: Canyon Property owners and residents, BCPOA and many Gallatin County residents fought literally for years to stop “commercial development at the base of Bridger Bowl”. You don’t live in the Canyon so perhaps you do not appreciate the results of winning that battle. Had we lost that battle there would be no Crosscut Ranch. That’s a simple fact. Here are some more facts. The Dickson’s and their supporters claim that STRs were always legal and the County arbitrarily changed the rules, stealing “property rights”. That is nonsense. The head of the Planning Department, says that claim is “unsupported by the facts”. His predecessor in the job concurs. Past and present County Commissioners say the claim is false. The 2020 election was not stolen from Donald Trump and the Dickson’s property rights were not stolen by the County Commission. Saying something over and over, especially when it strikes an emotional chord that obscures the facts, does not make it true. While it may be true that the Dickson STR flew successfully under the radar of compliance for years, the issue is not a single STR but the obvious proliferation of STRs in the last couple of years. This is a problem happening around the Rocky Mountain West and the nation where non-resident home purchases become year-round STRs and business/investment opportunities. Calling those homes “vacation homes” or “second homes” doesn’t change the fact that they are financially fueled by the unique ease of operation created by Airbnb and VRBO. The result is the same, the transformation of neighborhoods into tourist accommodations. The problem with the proposed ZTA is that it completely opens the door to all forms of STR. It would literally mean that any and all homes could be purchased and turned into a landscape of STRs. You may think that would never happen, but the ZTA would make it legal. BAD idea. And please note that the STR I own in the Bozeman City limits is in the B3 zoning district which is analogous to the Bridger Bowl Base Area where STRs are explicitly mentioned and allowed. Efforts to claim that my position on STRs in the Canyon are hypocritical is an exercise in willful ignorance of the facts.
Mr. Madin,
I have been a homeowner on Jackson Creek Road since 1990. I have used my property both for my own use and as a short-term and long term rental from that time until the county ruled against it recently. I see no reason to argue with you, except to say there have never been any objections to my doing so from anyone in or outside the Canyon. I am quite familiar with the attempts to build resort style housing around Bridger Bowl as well as other enforcements of the original Canyon zoning and I supported those. I believe this to be a different issue and see no reason to be antagonistic, which is how your reply to Linda stuck me.
Regardless of that, I believe restrictions could be put in place to make rentals a reasonable option for those of us who wish to use our property to help support our expenses when we are not using the property ourselves.
I am not in favor of wholesale Air Bnb rentals unless there is proper vetting of potential rentals and the owners are approved by the BCPOA, I would never associate my property with such a rental plan in any case. I understand your objections and concerns regarding commercial interests in the Canyon. I have never heard of a property owner seriously inviting such an entity to buy property here, although that may have happened. I agree that the Canyon needs to be kept as quiet and rural as possible.
However, there have already been recent subdivisions of the 40 acre rule as well as the viewshed provision of the zoning.
As I understand it, there is no formal rule of law that prohibits owners from renting their properties as they see fit. I would like restrictions and compliance oversight for property rentals to ensure all parties are treated fairly. I am uncertain that that is the current situation.
Should you wish to reply, I would welcome discussion, but no emotional, angry responses. Thank you. Mary McClain
Hi Mary, My intention was to be plain-spoken about the facts. If that came across as angry or emotional, it was not my intention. The “property rights” issue is a straw man relentlessly trumpeted for its emotional appeal rather than logic. Are you familiar with the regulations that the City of Bozeman has adopted wherein resident property owners can STR their property for a minor part of the year? That seems to be in line with the model of how you have used your property. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not against this concept. I am firmly against non-owner occupied (i.e. investor-owned) year-round STRs. Claims that “there has never been a problem” or that BC is so vast that no one is impacted entirely miss the point and intentionally obfuscate the issue. The current fact that matters is that investor-owned STRs are proliferating in just the last two years, as they are all over the Mountain West. This is undisputable. Wendy’s ZTA would have shouted loud and clear to the investor community (and the local realtor/property manager community) that BC is open for the business of year-round STRs. It’s of note that in January, a property immediately across the road from Bridger Bowl, owned by a fellow who has publicly stated that he bought the property as an investment STR, was on the market, touted as a successful STR for 5 years running and being sold fully furnished, down to the bed sheets and linens, as a turnkey business. This actual example flies in the face of the argument that allowing investor-owned STRs is going to keep investors from buying up homes. My wife and I also bought our property in 1990. We were greatly encouraged by the foresight embodied in the zoning district regulations. We are deeply concerned with the implications of the misleading claims of the “STRs for all” crowd and efforts to drastically amend the regulations. Not angry, just determined. Would love to speak with you directly.
Pingback: BCPOA Board Opposes the Proposed STR/ADU Amendment | BCPOA