Sonoma’s latest health order bans vacation rentals for tourism

David Jaroszek had planned a family wine-tasting trip to Sonoma, where he and his wife were married 24 years ago. They were scheduled to fly from Minneapolis on Friday, March 13, “but due to circumstances, we had to cancel our plans,” he emailed the Index-Tribune. The rising health concerns were the circumstances, and the Jaroszeks’ were among the many visits to wine country that were affected.

With her second shelter-in-place health order, issued March 31, Sonoma County’s Health Officer Dr. Sundari Mase extended the term of the first order from its initial three-week period to a full seven weeks, to end May 3. Since that time she’s indicated it’s quite possible it will be extended again, perhaps, partially relaxed for some before it’s lifted for all.

But the second order also took an additional step that cuts to the heart of a significant part of the county’s income: “Short-term lodging facilities shall not operate for tourism,” the order states bluntly. Exceptions are made if used to shelter displaced people (including the homeless) and those requiring isolation because of coronavirus.

It’s as if the vacation-rental industry has been turned into emergency shelter reservoir, a move that Airbnb, for one, embraced when the vacation-rental company sent an email to hosts on March 26 encouraging them to register their property for just that purpose, and to waive all fees.

Less than a week later they again contacted hosts and registered guests informing them of Sonoma County’s shelter-in-place order, according to Airbnb public affairs spokesperson Mattie Zazueta. “Airbnb is working with local governments in realtime to both address these orders and ensure short-term rentals remain a resource during this crisis,” Zazueta said.

Though VRBO, another large vacation rental aggregator, has a similar policy, it has only asked hosts to offer full credit for a later stay, though VRBO encourages partial refunds. “Travelers with stays in March or April are covered by our COVID-19 Emergency Policy. When the time is right and your family is ready to travel again, we’ll be here to provide you with a space to reconnect with loved ones,” reads a statement on VRBO’s website.

Given the unusual cause of the cancellation, Jaroszek appealed for refunds to the airline and their reserved vacation rental lodgings though both VRBO and Airbnb.

Southwest Airlines gave a full 100 percent refund or credit for future flights, and Airbnb also gave a full refund and waived the cancellation fee. But Jaroszek then encountered the less generous VRBO policy, and let the Index-Tribune know about his difficulties.

“Sad news is that VRBO is sticking to their 60 percent cancellation clause whereby they are only refunding 40 percent of the money on my credit card,” Jaroszek said on Monday, March 23. “Furthermore, that VRBO has left this decision to the home owner as to refunding 100 percent of the money collected.”

The home owners, who operate a vacation rental property on Highlands Boulevard in Boyes Hot Springs, at first did not sound quite so understanding. “We can either override the cancellation policy and give you a 50 percent refund now or give you zero back and change your 3-day stay to later this year. Either is fine with us, it was just a thought,” came their response.

Jaroszek found that frustrating, but later that same day, the property owners refunded the full amount, and he was made whole. “It made my day,” he said of the home owner. “I am in ER currently getting tested for COVID-19,” he added.

The story is evidence of one reason that vacation rentals are being discouraged, if not banned by county order. A look at the latest breakdown of figures from the SoCoEmergency.com COVID-19 dashboard shows that 27 percent of the county’s known coronavirus cases had their origin in travel – a slightly higher percentage than “close contact” (24 percent) or “community transmission” (18 percent).

Though a specific breakdown of the county’s 100-plus sources of origin so far has not yet been made available, Dr. Mase last Friday said that patterns were beginning to emerge. “The one thing that keeps popping up is New York, which makes sense,” she said – the state currently has far and away the highest number of cases and fatalities in the country, and it’s a popular destination for business and leisure travel.

Vacation renters are, by definition, traveling to a place not their home – and possibly bringing the coronavirus with them. Conversely, they could pick it up here and take it back where they came from, but Sonoma’s relatively late start in a coronavirus surge makes it more likely it’s being brought here than exported.

First District Sonoma County Supervisor Susan Gorin sternly defended the health order’s restrictions on vacation rentals.

“This stops people coming from other areas with potentially higher infection rates – and also stopping them from visiting grocery stores, picking up food, fueling their vehicles, etc.,” Gorin wrote in an email to the Index-Tribune. “Anyone could be part of the transmission of COVID.”

Inevitably though, the ban has an impact on the local homeowners who have a vacation rental. If they’ve come to rely on the income from occasional weekend guests, losing it can be a hardship - especially if they are suddenly unemployed.

“We knew the cancellations were going to be a nightmare during spring break (three weeks ago) when the April and May people started bailing,” said Walt Williams, who rents out a bungalow in the Springs. “All people got full refunds as that is our cancellation policy through Airbnb.”

Now their bookings for what they call Studio 455 have dropped to zero, though they recently received a booking for late May - “which is optimistic,” said Williams.

And what of Jaroszek?

“It turned out to be viral bronchitis,” he emailed on March 28. “But since I have asthma, it has caused some havoc. Heavy dosage of steroids and Nebulizer treatments. But, no COVID-19!”

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.