A Letter to the Board on Pittsford's Short-Term Rentals

Comment from Facebook

I think this is the right thing to do. I’m important to say that I do not want Airbnb’s to proliferate in the village, and I’m in support of letting them dwindle in numbers. The initial decision by the trustees to shut down these short-term rentals within a few months of their decision seemed unnecessarily sudden and disrespectful of these str owners who have been operating for years within policy. I was particularly against this decision because of the long history of pittsford making rash decisions like this that are unnecessarily harsh on business owners. As a result, out reputation among business owners is in the gutter and we have no idea how many potential businesses this scares away every year.  I don’t just want full storefronts, I want a vibrant business economy. This decision is antithetical to that, and we  really would have lost nothing to have been a bit more kind. I think acting on Carolina‘s suggestion would be the right thing to do, although I’m afraid to say the damage has already been done to those individuals and to our reputation.

Comment from Facebook

it isnt clear what this means, would the existing SFR's not be allowed to continue as SFR's? Also it seems that the existing tenants are not a problem but what happens when they move? Would the units be grandfathered forever or for the term of the existing tenants?

Comment from Facebook

I support grandfathering in the current STRs. Perhaps also giving them reminders about how to vet the visitors? They probably already know, but the apps do provide ways to verify whether the visitor is a good fit or not, in terms of why they are staying, who will be staying, what their past ratings on the app look like, etc. When I use the apps, it looks like a booking can only be confirmed by the host after the visitor requests the AirB&B and answers questions about themselves and the nature of their stay. I personally have used local Pittsford STRs to have a quiet space to finish writing my dissertation, and I LOVE that I could find an AirB&B near my own house and family! 🥰

Comment from Facebook

After a thorough discussion, which included extensive resident input, the Village Board made a decision to limit short term rentals. During the discussion and debate it was revealed that the vast majority of short term rentals were operated by real estate investors rather than village residents. Residents mentioned that the village's sense of community and neighborliness were community values that should not be sacrificed so outside commercial interests can profit. Since the 1970s, Village mayoral administrations have made the protection of village residential life and keeping commercial encroachent out of our neighborhoods a priority. That is why our neighborhoods remain livable unlike many other nearby villages. Only since 2021 has the Village mayoral leadership targetted the very policies that have produced and protected our neighbohoods. The mayor has consistently aligned herself with commecial interests she instead of the residents she is supposed to represent. During the last election cycle, the sponsor of this petition served as the voice of the mayor, calling political opponents names and disseminating misleading and false information. Rather than articulate positions herself, the mayor repeatedly uses political surrogates, village staff, and consultants to advance positions that may be unpopular and which may reflect poorly on her. This practice is diengenuos and is the opposite of the transparency one would expect from an ethical elected official. The mayor has repeatedly used stall tactics to circumvent Village Board votes that did not go the way she wanted. A recent example is the shenanigans involving the effort to shift the date of village elections. In that case the Board made a decision but was then forced to reconsider the issue all over again because the original decision wasn't properly filed. Let's stop with nonsense. As a repeated victim of the mayor's attacks, lies, smearing, and gaslighting I have have had enough. Let's stop the use of Machavellian political tactics and divisive bullying behavior. Let's restore ethics to Village government. Let's respect the majority vote of the Village Board rather than try to undermine it through the use of duplicitous tactics.

Comment from Facebook

villages and towns all over new york state are taking similar action. citizens want their communities back. PE firms are generally not great neighbors for a myriad of reasons.

Comment from Facebook

Didn't the board have a thorough public process, heard from residents, considered the committee’s findings, and made a decision intended to protect the residential character of the Village? The fact that no complaints were recorded against the current short-term rentals is relevant, but it does not answer the larger zoning question: Should residential homes be operated as commercial lodging, particularly when many are owned by outside investors rather than Village residents? This is not about whether families visiting Nazareth students, Oak Hill guests, or relatives of Village residents are welcome here. Of course they are. It is about whether the financial interests of a small number of property owners should outweigh the long-term interests of entire neighborhoods. Once commercial uses become established and grandfathered, they can be extremely difficult to reverse. For decades, Pittsford has protected its neighborhoods from commercial encroachment. That did not happen accidentally. It resulted from elected officials making difficult decisions before a problem became widespread, not waiting until residents were overwhelmed with complaints. People have every right to petition the Board, but the majority decision of the trustees should also be respected. Continually reopening an issue because the original vote did not produce the desired result undermines confidence in the process. I also believe Village government must be transparent, accountable, and guided by the interests of residents—not outside commercial interests or political maneuvering.

Comment from Facebook

I think they were trying to legislate an issue that didn't exist.

Comment from Facebook

People should be able to do whatever they want with their own property. Zoning restrictions like this are abject communism.

Comment from Facebook

Utter chaos Disrepair on every street going on 6 years Disgusting traffic Awful timing of traffic lights Chaos in the library pkng lot

Comment from Facebook

Ronald G. Bajorek JrBe careful what you wish for. If the Village dissolved, our zoning and historic protections would generally be guaranteed for only two years. After that, Village residents would be a small voice in a much larger Town, with no mayor or trustees elected specifically to protect us. Would you rather send your children for an evening walk through today’s Village, or along the commercial stretch of Monroe Avenue near Wegmans and McDonald’s—crossing busy entrances, dodging turning traffic and walking past sprawling parking lots? Picture that future here: historic homes converted to commercial uses, local storefronts replaced by corporate chains, and peaceful evening walks disrupted by heavier traffic, delivery trucks, bright signage, late-night noise and constant turnover. It wouldn’t happen overnight. It would happen one rezoning and one variance at a time—until the Village we were trying to protect no longer existed.

Comment from Facebook

Ronald G. Bajorek JrAnd what happens when people no longer feel like the Village or their historic homes are being protected? They start selling. More houses go on the market, fewer people are willing to pay a premium to live here, and property values start dropping. Then the Town looks for ways to make up that lost tax base, which creates even more pressure for commercial development, more traffic and more corporate businesses. Once that cycle starts, it would be very hard to stop.

Comment from Facebook

Ronald G. Bajorek JrWe have already seen a version of this in Greece. Neighborhoods were built for Kodak’s thriving workforce, and Kodak once represented roughly 20% of the Town’s tax base. When Kodak declined, the community lost jobs, residents moved and the Town had to look increasingly toward commercial development to offset the burden on homeowners. Why would we risk starting a similar cycle here? If Village residents lose confidence in the protection of their homes and neighborhoods, they will start selling. Property values could weaken, and pressure to expand the commercial tax base would grow. That is how a quiet historic Village slowly becomes another commercial corridor—not overnight, but one approval at a time.

Comment from Facebook

It would be nice. My parents rent regularly when they visit. The place they rent is well-managed.

Comment from Facebook

I didn't know there were short-term rentals. It would be good to know for family members visiting.

Comment from Facebook

How does not granfathering in existing things comply with the requirement of the US Constitution to not take things without compensation? Is the village making payments of some kind to the owners?