Letter to the Editor from Ralph Copeland

Editor:

I just read Mr. Adamson’s letter to the Copper Gazette.  He forgot the one main reason we are wanting transient rental guidelines in place.  Especially after my wife lost her arm in a home accident, our concern IS SAFETY!!  Is the Association’s insurance in place for accidents created by these transient renters?  Two transient rentals are at the mouth of the Kiva boat launch.  Is the CCLTOA spending our money to expand the Kiva launch because of these overcrowded docks?  Does our Insurance cover a launched boat running into swimmers who crowd the launch from these rentals??   The transient renters fill up our cul-de-sac.  Emergency equipment would have a difficult time making it through our street.  Does the Association’s insurance cover a house burnt to the foundation because they allowed cars to close access by allowing rental to 20 people in a 3 bedroom, two bath(!),  2800 sq foot home (it is advertised on VRBO.com).  And Mr. Adamson wants us to call the county to have cars towed and in the next breath he states the county doesn’t have the resources to facilitate a permit system?  I would be calling the county at least  twice a week from April to October (we have TWO transient rentals on our street).  This is not my responsibility.  It’s the responsibility of the landlord while he collects the $50,000.00 to $ 70,000.00 a year while showing complete disregard for the year round residents in their neighborhoods. 

And Mr. Adamson wants illegal transient rentals to be kept as an “in house” discussion between the Board and its members.  For those who have never had the need to speak in front of the Board, I’d like to share our experience from February. 

                                                                                                                                                                                   

My wife and I attended the CCLTOA board meeting in February which had short term rentals on their agenda.   We were a part of the few, if any, in attendance for short term rental control.  When it came time for discussion of this issue, the President of the Board went on a dissertation about America, the flag, his service to America, his fallen comrades, and laws in other states such as Montana.  There was talk of freedoms and interpretation of America’s Constitution.  Even though there was a podium for the members to speak, comments randomly came in from the floor, from those in attendance.  I asked if this was up for discussion from the floor or podium.  I was told the podium, from someone on the floor.

After the 12-15 minutes of flag waving and another 15-20 minutes of floor discussion, I stepped up to the podium.  I distributed some handouts and proceeded to tell those in attendance about our situation on Lakeshore Court where we have TWO illegal transient year round rentals.  After a little more than ½ way through my presentation, I was told there was a time limit to speak.  HUH?  My wife and I sat through over a ½ hour of floor discussion which was blatantly one sided and mostly misinformed.  I was presenting the other side and my time was up, the board was flustered and wanted nothing of it.

I found my First Amendment rights were infringed upon by this same group who no more than 30 minutes earlier exuberated their fondness for the freedoms granted us by the Constitution. 

The board adjourned without action.  My wife and I stayed after to speak to those who may have been interested in what we had to say.  We all live here.  We want members to understand that there are members, while exercising their rights, they are stepping all over ours.  It was a good post meeting discussion with our fellow members and with the President.  We pretty much agreed it’s ok to disagree.

BUT, while speaking to the President after the meeting, another board member, an elected official, approached me and insinuated that it I continued my freedom of speech in regards to illegal rentals, this board member would make things difficult for me because the board member said they’re known to be that type of person.  The board member used a two word adjective to describe this “type of person” which you don’t want to see in print.  Still, these were the board member’s words, not mine, not made up. 

So, I’d like to remind this board member and others who use intimidation to govern, the First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

And in case this board member requires a 20^th century interpretation, Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall explained in 1972:

“Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

Sincerely,

Ralph Copeland