1 of 2
2 of 2
At our Feb. 28 meeting, the city administration presented that IOP has 1,772 short-term rental licenses, representing a 39% penetration of IOP’s 4,570 dwelling units. It’s also a 26% increase in licenses in about 18 months. In the mayor’s message, posted on the IOP city website, the mayor “adjusted” those results to indicate that there are only 697 relevant STRLs and 15% penetration. How does that difference happen?
Anyone with experience with Wall Street or familiarity with reporting company results is aware of the practice of “adjusting” or “normalizing” results to achieve a story for stakeholders that is much better than what generally accepted reporting practices would yield. In my opinion, the STRL results presented by the mayor takes these practices to new heights and ignores over a thousand of our neighbors, full/part-time residents, along with over 32% of the homes on IOP to get there. Here’s the reconciling math in a nutshell:
First, start with IOP’s 1,772 STRLs, or 39% of IOP’s 4,570 dwelling units.
Adjustment 1 - Exclude 1,456 multifamily units (32% of total island) that have 897 STRLs issued, along with over a thousand full- and part-time IOP residents/neighbors living there, primarily due to a false assumption that most of these multifamily units were originally built to rent.
Adjustment 2 - Subtract 178 STRLs that included single and multifamily units that were in queue to be issued, operating without a license but compliant now and other full-time resident STRLs.
The “adjusted” IOP now has only 697 relevant STRLs and 3,114 dwelling units.
Adjustment 3 - Use the newly defined IOP with only 697 relevant STRLs, but now use all of IOP’s 4,570 dwelling units to arrive at the penetration of only 15%.
Mayor’s STRL results = 697 STRLs/4,570 dwelling units – 15%.
Imagine a city representative telling residents that if we “adjust” (ignore) some full- and part-time residents and their homes on Palm and Ocean boulevards, some of Wild Dunes and … and … there are only 697 relevant STRLs to consider. Then this city representative conveniently adds all those residents/homes back again, when it’s in the interest to get to the answer of 15%.
On a serious note of clarification for the full/part-time residents who live in the “adjusted” areas – the continued claim that the IOP multifamily units were all built to rent is simply false. It is well documented in the original marketing materials (“residential, retirement community”) that they were primarily built to live/retire in, and the April 11, 1975, article in the News and Courier sums it up:
“Bolstered by the well wishes of residents and town officials alike, the future of Sea Pines Co.’s future development on the Isle of Palms looks bright. At a public hearing Wednesday, island residents voiced enthusiastic support for the company’s development plans. The hearing was held on the company’s request that zoning on their 956-acre tract be changed from single family residential to “planned residential community.”
IOP is one community. We should always consider and disclose total island impacts on any issue, without arbitrary exclusions of our residents for the convenience of a narrative. You should ask, who/what will get arbitrarily “adjusted,” discarded or omitted from the next island-wide impacting issue? It might be your turn next time.
The mayor goes on to state: “The argument that all short-term rentals are creating the traffic problems on the island is also misplaced.” Well, they are a growing contributor. IOP hit a significant milestone in February. With 1,772 STRLs, the number of IOP-licensed rentals exceeds the total number of all public parking spots (streets/lots) on the island. Parking spots are capped. The STRL trend line is up, IOP is the only uncapped rental market in the area and there are two months remaining in the license registration period.
In closing, as a representative and resident of the IOP, it’s disturbing that the official IOP city website allows for any representative to use the forum to express personal messages/views where information can possibly be spun a certain way or posted without independent vetting or verification. The site should not communicate/promote any representative’s personal opinion vs. distributing community and verified information. It’s especially concerning when it involves pending legislation, such as the recent STRL discussions. What’s next?
Alternatively, the city site could have space for all Council members to have an equal voice.
Reminder: IOP has a weak mayor, strong council form of government. That means the mayor is an equal member of Council, with a separate election race and equal vote. The mayor develops agendas and presides over the Council meeting. All else is equal.
