Good Intent, Poor Execution

At the Tuesday, June 3rd Port Angeles City Council meeting, one councilor made a point about supporting local jobs. I found this especially interesting, given that the city’s recent actions on short-term rentals (STRs) are doing just the opposite—restricting local economic activity.

The council’s latest move adds new restrictions to what qualifies as a Type 1 STR. Six local property owners attempted to operate STRs under existing rules by converting space on their properties—but the city chose to shut them down. In one case I’m particularly familiar with, the space lacked a kitchen and therefore didn’t qualify as a Type 2 STR. Ironically, this made it more likely that visitors would dine out, supporting local restaurants and creating a positive ripple effect in the community.

Instead, these property owners were told “no,” and our local economy suffered a double hit—both the property owners and nearby businesses lost out. All in the name of anti-STR zealotry.

Also in the June 3rd meeting: yet another example of the city spending money on outside consultants. While I’ll address that in more detail later, this article highlights four ongoing concerns with city policy and spending priorities.

Does it Promote Prosperity for the Community

These decisions don’t just economically impact the six citizens who had the audacity to follow the existing rules (rather than read the City Council’s mind)—they also affect local shop owners, restaurants, and service providers who would have benefited from STR guests.

By shutting down these modest, rule-abiding short-term rentals, the Council didn’t just say “no” to homeowners—they said “no” to local economic opportunity.

Is This Necessary

As part of the Comprehensive Plan process, our city’s planning department recently pursued an effort to define the neighborhoods of Port Angeles. On the surface, that might sound like a good idea—but at what cost?

Don’t the citizens of Port Angeles already know their neighborhoods—or at least how to get to their homes—without needing a Seattle-based consultant to draw it out for us? In an age of GPS, Google Maps, and long-established street names, was this exercise even necessary?

From what I gathered during the Comprehensive Plan stakeholders meeting, we paid somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000 to a consulting firm that doesn't even know our community. That’s a significant amount of taxpayer money spent on a project that could have been done locally, perhaps even by students who actually live here.

Can This Be Done Locally

While reviewing the City Council expense report, I noticed a line item: $38,742.20 paid to Lulish Design. Curious, I visited their website. I’ll leave it to you to decide how impressed you are.

What struck me most is this: I know several talented marketing professionals right here in our own community who would have gladly taken on this work—likely at a lower cost and with far more insight into who we are as a town.

Why are we consistently sending tens of thousands of local dollars out of Port Angeles, instead of investing in the people who live and work here?

Did We Get the Intended Value

Our city spent $50,000 on “permit-ready” house plans. The idea sounded promising: homeowners and builders could use these pre-approved designs to speed up the permitting process and reduce barriers to building. But what we actually received were five incomplete plans.

These plans lack essential components like material take-offs, and worse, they don’t take into account for our common 50x140 lot sizes. This oversight renders the plans impractical for many properties in Port Angeles.

Yet the city continues to promote this as a success. Let’s be honest—it falls far short of delivering $50,000 worth of value. If a local architect had been hired, they would have understood our zoning realities and tailored the plans accordingly.

This is another example of well-intentioned spending going off course—not because the goal was wrong, but because the city looked outward when the best expertise might have been right here at home.