Letters to the Editor

Pacaso’s fractional home ownership meets with issues in other cities similar to those in Newport Beach

Newport Beach made the front page of national news again, this time, you guessed it – over fractional home ownership. It is a bit exciting to make the front page which focuses on our beloved Balboa Island, but it would be better if no controversy were involved. I think by now most of us in Newport know what the excitement is about because our City Council devoted one whole meeting to
a hearing on the issue, while debating whether to expand an existing ordinance that prohibits timeshares in residential zones to also encompass fractional ownership properties. The move if approved by city leaders and the California Coastal Commission, would effectively ban the main company acquiring properties, Pacaso, from doing so for fractional home purposes. 

There were many homeowners who attended the City Council meeting and spoke out against the practice of dividing up the ownership of Pacaso-acquired homes. There were also Pacaso owners in the audience who spoke out about how much they liked the idea of sharing the cost of the home, and being able to enjoy Newport Beach for their share of 44 nights a year. But a majority of the homeowners at the meeting were there to urge the City Council and other city leaders to allow no more fractional ownership in Newport Beach. What is to happen to the approximately 11 that exist so far is an unknown at this moment.

Newport Beach residents are not alone in rejecting this new home sharing concept. Palm Springs and Monterey County have sent cease and desist letters to Pacaso, arguing that it is just a “fancy” form of timeshare and should be governed by the same rules, similar to Newport Beach’s stance. Other cities seeking the same restrictions are Carmel, Sonoma and Beverly Hills that just this month expressed the desire to prohibit fractional ownership in the city.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach