Voters were closely divided over a ballot measure in the May election that would have repealed a Clatsop County vacation rental ordinance.

But an examination by The Astorian of the vote breakdown by precinct showed a clear pattern. The repeal received the most support in city precincts that are not covered by the county’s ordinance.

Measure 4-221 had majority support in precincts in Astoria, Gearhart, south Seaside and Cannon Beach, where vacation rentals are regulated under city codes. The only precinct in unincorporated parts of the county where the referendum had majority support was in Arch Cape.

Vacation rentals have been recognized by the county in Arch Cape for more than two decades. But the precinct also includes neighborhoods such as Cove Beach, where vacation rentals had not been recognized as a permitted use until the county ordinance was approved last year covering 16 zones in the development code.

Some residents in Cove Beach have fought vacation rentals for years and led the drive through North Coast Neighbors United to place the repeal on the ballot.

The precinct in Arch Cape had the highest voter turnout — 67% — in an election where overall turnout was 32%. In a sign of the division within the community, the margin in Arch Cape was five votes.

“They say they reflect their neighbors. They say they reflect the will of the voters. But the actual data don’t bear that out,” Commissioner Lianne Thompson, who represents South County, said of North Coast Neighbors United.

“The urban person’s perspective is much more anti-STR (short-term rental) than the actual rural residential voters in spite of their contention.”

When the petition for the referendum was filed last summer, Thompson and others were concerned that communication around the ballot measure could be challenging. The fact that city voters would be able to cast ballots on the fate of a county ordinance that only applied to unincorporated areas could cause confusion.

North Coast Neighbors United attracted support from Clatsop County Democrats and housing advocates who framed the question on vacation rentals as part of the larger debate over the lack of workforce and affordable housing.

In such a close election — the ballot measure failed 51% to 49%, by 139 votes — it is difficult to pinpoint the deciding factor.

Jeff Davis, who lives in Cove Beach and was a co-petitioner of the referendum, believes people who voted against the ballot measure may have been swayed and confused by messages from vacation rental owners that a repeal would have led to higher taxes.

Had the ordinance been repealed, about 100 vacation rentals would have been impacted, costing the county an estimated $700,000 in lodging tax revenue.

Davis also said that many of the precincts in unincorporated areas do not have many vacation rentals. The negative impacts, he said, are felt most keenly in residential neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes where homes are closer together.

“Voters in many urban precincts supported Measure 4-221 because they themselves live in housing-dense areas and have observed the negative impacts of STRs (short-term rentals) and Clatsop County’s protracted housing crisis,” he said in a statement. “These city voters have also experienced the thoughtful and considered process undertaken in recent years in every Clatsop County city of enacting caps and zoning restrictions to protect residential housing and the livability of residential neighborhoods.”

Davis said cities have worked to strike a balance between community concerns and the economic interests of vacation rental owners.

“We hope that our own Board of Commissioners moves swiftly to convene such a process in the STR-dense residential neighborhoods of unincorporated Clatsop County, particularly in light of public comments from industry leader Brian Olson suggesting that he is open to conversations around caps, but also because, in spite of the misinformation and outrageous personal attacks perpetrated by some personalities in the STR industry, very nearly half of the voters in this election supported Measure 4-221,” he said.

“If the ballot question had been phrased to include reasonable caps and restrictions, and not, out of necessity, limited to repealing Ordinance 22-05, there is every reason to believe the measure would have passed handily.”