City's future must take precedence over financial gain

Dear Sandpoint Development and Zoning Committee, 

As a resident of South Sandpoint, I urge the commission to reconsider the timing and potential cumulative impact of the two code amendments now under review: the Short-Term Rental deregulation and the increased lot coverage proposal.

While I understand the legal imperatives behind the STR amendment, simultaneous consideration of both measures requires more thorough community dialogue and extended deliberation.

Sandpoint is experiencing a genuine housing affordability crisis. The median home price has climbed from roughly $320,000 in June 2020 to $540,000 in November 2025, a 68.75% increase in just five years, while area median income remains at about $64,000.

City Councilman Joel Aispuro recently observed: “There are only two ways to get affordable housing: density or subsidy.” Since Sandpoint cannot depend on subsidy, the primary focus must be on well-considered density.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) offer a meaningful path to increase housing supply without fundamentally altering the character of our neighborhoods. However, enacting STR deregulation and vastly increasing lot coverage at the same time, risks creating strong incentives for property owners and outside investors to prioritize vacation rental businesses over long-term housing, worsening, rather than alleviating, the affordability crisis.

Legal constraints following the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in Idaho Association of Realtors vs. City of Lava Hot Springs require removal of the STR cap. But pairing this with expanded lot coverage invites financial speculation: research shows a 10% increase in short-term rentals corresponds with higher local rents and home prices. Both local and out-of-town investors are significantly more likely to convert properties into STRs rather than maintain long-term rentals, further tightening the local housing market.

Moreover, increasing lot coverage from 35% to 70% removes a major constraint on property development. When combined with STR deregulation, this change strongly incentivizes maximizing development for vacation rentals instead of homes for local residents. Additionally, allowing up to 70% impervious surface raises possible serious environmental issues, such as increased stormwater runoff, reduced groundwater recharge, and diminished stream and water quality, all concerns that are acute in Sandpoint’s sensitive mountain environment. Such impacts warrant detailed environmental review before moving forward.

Rather than adopting both amendments simultaneously, I respectfully urge the commission to: 

• Preserve owner-occupancy requirements for STRs while lifting the numerical cap, if legally permissible. This approach upholds community stability and complies with state law. 

• Moderately increase lot coverage, to 45-50%, or as indicated by environmental studies, to support ADU/DADU development on existing residential parcels.

I recognize the city faces fiscal constraints and that STR deregulation may generate short-term municipal revenue. However, once these changes are made, they cannot be easily undone. The combined effect will fundamentally alter Sandpoint’s character, economy, and future affordability.

Sustainable budgeting relies on sustainable housing policy, not on short-term revenue at the expense of long-term community stability.

While I could personally benefit from both proposed amendments, I believe Sandpoint’s long-term future should take precedence over individual or corporate gain. Community and neighborhood stability matter more.

LISA MILLER

Sandpoint