Serious questions about the implications of the vacation rental issue
To the Editor:
Perhaps I am missing something. Amidst all the furor surrounding vacation rentals, and specifically the recent concerns that have arisen pertaining to when a non-licensed rental becomes illegal. The mayor has essentially said that there are “unwritten rules” regarding when a rejected application crosses the line. Apparently those in the process of becoming legal can operate. Now he says that those that have been rejected can continue to operate. He has given reasons for this, which do have some merit.
My issue is not with the merit of these arguments, but by the way that this is being implemented. The City has bylaws that people are expected to follow. These have been formed by council during public meetings where anyone can attend and hear the reasoning behind them, and see which Councillors vote for them. The mayor has seemingly taken it upon himself to make these “unwritten rules” in private, that he is then unilaterally applying on his own. If there has been discussion on this, it has not been at public meetings as it should be. These “unwritten rules” seem to be changing as we go along and more of Scott Duke’s questionably ethical business dealings come to light. The mayor is having “ongoing discussions” with Scott about these issues.
The message seems to be if you want to stay in business illegally, go with Revelstoke Vacation Rentals. That way you will have access to the “unwritten rules”, and won’t have to follow the written ones. This leaves the door to corruption wide open. Revelstoke is open for business. Too bad for you if you follow the laws.