HomeMy WebLinkAboutKee, Megan_Public Comment_RedactedFrom:Megan Kee
To:PublicComments
Subject:Airbnb Input from Homeowner (one of the first Airbnb’s in SB county)
Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 7:12:16 AM
Caution - This email originated from outside the City - Verify that the Email display name and Email address are consistent. - Use caution when opening attachments.
My name is Megan Kee, and I have operated a short-term rental in Big Bear City since
October 2015. I was among the early adopters of Airbnb in our area, at the beginning of what
has since become a major movement in home-sharing.
My home is a humble 900-square-foot, two-bedroom, one-bath cabin. I live in it full-time and
rent it primarily on weekends. It is not an investment property or a portfolio listing, it is my
primary residence, where I have raised my now 12-year-old son and where we still reside
today. With almost 550, 5 star reviews, guests consistently respond to the warmth and lived-in
care of the home. It is not simply a rental; it is our home.
I would like to respectfully offer the following considerations regarding potential restrictions
on transient occupancy rentals:
1. If Restrictions Increase, There Should Be Homeowner Incentives
If San Bernardino County intends to place additional restrictions on short-term rentals, there
should be meaningful benefits offered to primary homeowners who choose not to rent.
Since 2020, long-term rental laws have shifted significantly. Homeowners face increased risk
and reduced flexibility when renting beyond 28 calendar days. In many cases, long-term
tenants have more protections than homeowners themselves. This creates a reverse incentive
structure: it is often safer and more manageable to rent short-term than long-term.
If the County seeks to reduce short-term rentals, potential offsets could include:
Property tax reductions
Utility incentives
Increased homeowner protections for long-term rentals
Without counterbalancing incentives, restrictions disproportionately burden resident
homeowners.
2. Distinguish Between Primary Resident Hosts and Large Vacation Rental Corporations
There is a significant difference between individually managed primary residences and mass-
managed portfolios operated by large vacation rental companies.
Companies such as Destination Big Bear, Cool Cabins, and Big Bear Vacations manage
hundreds of properties, often taking commissions of 30% or more from absentee owners.
Many of these homes sit vacant for large portions of the year. From my personal experience
working for a large vacation rental company from 2010–2011, I observed that approximately
This contributes to perceived market saturation without necessarily increasing quality or
community contribution.
In contrast, small independent hosts:
Typically manage one to three properties
Personally maintain and care for their homes
Operate as direct small businesses
Rely on the income to support their families
Create higher-quality guest experiences rooted in genuine hospitality
These homes are not corporate inventory, they are lived-in residences.
3. Market Saturation Should Be Evaluated Strategically
If the County wishes to address oversaturation, it may be more effective to:
Audit large portfolio listings for actual occupancy rates
Evaluate absentee ownership trends
Limit expansion of corporate-managed inventories
Targeted regulation would protect local resident hosts while addressing true saturation drivers.
Short-term rental income has been a substantial supplemental income for my family for over a
decade. Policies that do not distinguish between resident homeowners and corporate operators
risk harming local families while leaving large-scale entities unaffected.
I deeply appreciate your time and your willingness to consider input from those of us who
both live and operate here. I remain available for further discussion and will do my best to stay
informed as this process continues.
With gratitude,
Megan Kee
Big Bear City, California