Janik Q&A talks Scottsdale short-term rentals, Papago Park deal

For this week’s Scottsdale City Council Q&A series, candidate Betty Janik answers questions on topics submitted by readers: short-term rentals and the Papago Park land deal.

Ms. Janik is one of six candidates seeking to be elected to three open seats for Scottsdale City Council in the Tuesday, Nov. 3, general election. Mail-in ballots will be sent to voters this week, the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office says.

This week’s questions come from Scottsdale Independent readers, who want to know candidates’ perspectives on issues near-and-dear to their heart.

Short-term rentals — also known as vacation homes — are criticized by homeowners as disrupting Arizona neighborhoods as online sites such as Airbnb and VRBO gains steam. Many residents question how to resolve the issue of unruly vacation properties in their neighborhoods.

A second hot topic is the Papago Park land-use agreement between Scottsdale, the city of Phoenix and the San Francisco Giants.

In November 2018, the Scottsdale City Council approved a lease of Papago Park with Phoenix, and a sublease with the Giants to provide the California baseball team with a permanent, dedicated year-round player development facility at the Papago Sports Complex.

Read below to see what she has to say.

Short-term rentals

1. Do you support short-term rentals in Scottsdale’s neighborhoods?

While I wish the regulations on Short Term Rentals (STRs) were never changed in 2017 and Scottsdale maintained home rule, we must deal with the current situation. The most common complaint I encountered while delivering 11,000 flyers was regarding short term rentals (STRs). Most residents do not want a different group of people, especially a rowdy group of visitors, in the home next door on weekends.

This disrupts their sense of safety, peace and quiet. I agree with them. I acknowledge many STR owners are in compliance with the rules. I feel that STR’s provide a service for families visiting Scottsdale and they are a valuable asset for our economy. That being said, our residents must be respected and not driven out of their homes.

2. What change would you propose to fix the issue of short-term rentals if you had the authority?

The out-of-control party home cannot be tolerated. In spite of city council passing regulations on STRs in 2019, an interactive map provided by the city with contact information for complaints, the Airbnb hotline and the Police Party Patrol, problems persist. All STR rental platforms must be regulated, not just Airbnb and VRBO, but also Craigslist, Platinum Experience, private, etc.

Charge card information should be provided with the reservation and a contract signed indicating any violations outlined in the contract — i.e. noise, number of persons allowed in home, public drunkenness, etc. — will result in a substantial fine and a ban from future rentals. This would be similar to the way damage fees are collected at motels. A city ordinance will probably be needed to codify these new rules. Lastly, a new organization, Arizona Vacation Rental Association, is currently being formed by STR owners that would set the standards for STR rentals in our community. This form of self-regulation of the industry may be the best solution if it can gain traction.

3. Do you receive any financial benefit from STRs, STR owners, or Online lodging operators?

I have no ties and receive no financial benefit from short-term rentals, owners or online lodging operators of STRs.

Papago Park deal with Phoenix

1. People in Scottsdale and neighboring areas have concerns about the Giants project at Papago Park. They believe that this project: 1. Has caused serious harm to the scenery and desert landscape of that park; 2. That the financial conditions are inappropriate; and 3. It is unacceptable to build a private corporate compound in a public park. What are your feelings about this?

There are three municipalities involved in the Giants project at Papago Park – Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe. As usual, the neighbors that are most affected by this did not receive ample notification and were not involved in the decision.

It is a big mistake to take the residents for granted (think Prop 420).

Their concerns are legitimate as you listed:

1. Harm to desert scape in the park, area is much bigger than original plans;
2. Financial arrangements where Phoenix saves, Scottsdale pays;
3. Can a park house a private corporation — this aspect needs legal review, which is expensive.

What about light pollution, additional crowds, vehicle traffic and parking in the area? The neighbors care! Shouldn’t we?