What follows is in regard to your editorial of 10 August 2017 "The Ill Sides Of Pure Ideology" and subsequent news article "Short Stay Mayhem?"

You state, "On the one hand were old ideas, based on nothing but fears with no supporting research, that short term rentals had to do with 'transients' and were basically undesirable..."

This veiled reference to the Town of Rochester's town board being reactionary and biased is so wrong as to verge on the scurrilous. What was proposed was a proactive local code to ALLOW short term/transient rentals throughout the township. Under zoning law, if a use is not listed, it is not allowed. That's the law! The code enforcement officer would be within his rights to close down all current short term/transient rentals operating illegally within the town. The town board chose NOT to do that!

Your charge that the town board considered short term/transient rentals as being "undesirable" is not at all true. Short term/transient rentals is the operative phrase used in planning and zoning circles to describe the phenomenon of AirBnb (and a whole host of other "sister entities" like Tripping.com, FlipKey, HomeAway, VRBO, HouseTrip, VayStays, VacayHero, Roomorama and 29 plus others with just a cursory google search). You make it sound as if the code proposal was trying to keep out dusty hobos or something. Unbelievable!

As for your assertion, "Airbnb and its sister entities in the shared economy work based on review systems that regulate hosts and guests equally." Such a "fact" doesn't solve the problem of having troublesome renters creating havoc for an entire weekend. In fact, Airbnb expressly dismisses ANY responsibility whatsoever for immediate solution to such problems and/or liability concerns. As for said rating system regulating guests? Completely irrelevant for the kinds of short term/transient rental problems that have actually occurred in Ulster County as documented by the Daily Freeman. Also, how is this quote, directly from AirBnb's website supposed to comfort the town re problem renters: "Any references to a Member being 'verified' (or similar language) only indicate that the Member has completed a relevant verification or identification process and nothing else. Any such description is not an endorsement, certification or guarantee by Airbnb about any Member, including of the Member's identity or background or whether the Member is trustworthy, safe or suitable."

As regards the article contents:

Brought up repeatedly was a charge that houses already have certificates of occupancy which assures the house has satisfied building code so why do they need further inspection. FACT: Many, if not most, houses built earlier than the modern building code (Uniform Building & Fire Code, 1984) would not pass an inspection. The difference resides in the fact that going to short term/transient rental status means a commercial aspect has been added, one that will be allowing the public into the home. That becomes the purview of local government to assure safety; thus, the liability angle. In addition, C of O's consider the number of bedrooms which sizes the septic tanks required. With short term/transient rentals using "sleeping rooms" in order to maximize the number of renters, septic tanks may easily become overburdened with the result being raw sewage seeping into neighboring properties' water sources. Ascertaining the actual occupation rate is both legitimate and necessary. Also, with such "sleeping rooms" added, an inspection is required to assure that new rooms have adequate exits in case of fire.

Also, the assertion that the "county is actively trying to address the same issues" is wrong. The county seeks only to address the bed tax issue to assure a two percent charge is paid as traditional B'n'bs, hotels, motels, etc are now required to pay.

An extremely important point, in fact the premise for the code offering, was left out of both the editorial and article: a point made by the town supervisor, town code enforcement officer, town planning board chairman and myself, a member of the town's zoning board of appeals and zoning review committee (ZRC). This is the FACT of the town facing liability due to a lack of action to assure the health and safety of proposed short term/transient rentals.

As for the components of the actual code offered, AirBnb on its host responsibilities page states the need for "contact info", "fire prevention" (which includes the statement: "Ensure you have a functioning smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detector, and that your property meets government safety guidelines for your area (e.g., International Building Code)," "Occupancy: Establish safe occupancy limits — your local government may have guidelines," "Building Rules" to be clearly posted, "Parking rules" and "House Rules."

The above are the major elements of the town's code proposal. As such the code proffered requires a safety inspection that will cost approximately $75. It's a one-time inspection (unless the host entity makes significant changes). The permit issued for a successful inspection will serve as an invaluable document to certify that hosts have met the responsibilities that AirBnb and its sister entities require.

As to the repeated statements made by the crowd that they're bringing tourists into town to visit the fine businesses here and spend their money, that they were doing the town a service so why is the town board attempting to "take from us" the ability to bring people here? The town board and the various zoning code committees have, over the span of 10 years, created a code that protects residential uses of residential properties even as it encourages business growth. Because of the code development agricultural districts were created, processes were streamlined, building incentives were included. As a DIRECT result of these additions, we have seen a burst of new businesses and the expansion of older ones. I mention just a few: Arrowood Brewery. West Wind Cidery. Long Seasons Farm. Woodstock Farm Sanctuary. Crested Hen Event Space. Saunderskill expansion. Kelder Farms expansions of use. etc etc etc. The code has sought to preserve prime farmland even as it protects the renowned Shawangunk Mountain viewshed giving the scenic byway its spectacular views.

These locations and businesses BRING IN THE TOURISTS, give them somewhere to go, see and experience. To imply again and again that the town doesn't understand the need for tourism — after all that has gone into code development so that it actually delivers tangible results in real time — is to be completely obtuse.

Some very good suggestions, however, were made by community members. Those suggestions led directly to the suggestion that the town board remove from the proposed code all "self regulating" aspects (lawn care, maintenance, snow and garbage removal, etc); remove the requirement for posting permit to be visible from roadside; along with adding a provision to assure those short term/transient rentals in operation will be able to conduct business while waiting for an inspection (as long as an application for permit is filed within 62 days of passage of code). Also, a clarification regarding tent use was suggested.

Steve Fornal lives in Accord and has been involved in town, Rondout Valley and regional community actions, as well as this publication, for years.