The controversy over short-term rentals and second-home ownership in Summit County continues to rage in the pages of Summit Daily’s letters to the editor section. Sides have been taken, but one thing we could probably all agree on is that home ownership is always a risk — second-home ownership even more of one. People across this nation are often faced with hard choices when it comes to keeping family homesteads in family hands, and while leveraging short-term rental income to do so may be an option, there are no guarantees.

Folks in these pages often understandably lament the high price of housing here, something some attribute to “rich” people buying up properties. You’ll find no argument with me over the high cost of living in Colorado, especially with housing. I’ve experienced it and seen it at play within my own family where our younger generations can’t afford to buy a home. But it isn’t just a Summit County problem — it’s a national problem that we here in Colorado are especially hard hit with. The same housing problems folks here in Summit, Adams, Denver or Garfield County face are also encountered by would-be homebuyers in Florida , Idaho, Nevada and across the nation. Summit County’s resort status may make it a more complicated issue, but not unique in any way.

And these “rich” people who own second homes? Many of these folks are middle-class parents and grandparents, folks who bought their home years ago. Or they’re folks who’ve lived and worked in Colorado for decades, longed to have a place in the mountains and have finally achieved that goal. They’re in no way what most people would describe “rich.” I know this because I’ve heard from many of them in response to previous columns where I’ve advocated for reasonable regulation of the short-term rental industry.

Residents here also gotta cop to the choices they’ve made. Living in Summit County, one can find employment and enjoy close proximity to mountains, forests, skiing, and trails. But that choice comes at a cost, and just as those short-term rental owners who can’t make it work here are faced with tough decisions, so too are those who choose to live here but find it hard or disadvantageous to do so.

Another oft raised issue is whether there’s any personal benefit from the short-term rental industry for those who don’t overtly participate in it. Certainly, no one’s handing out cash from rental fees, but everyone who lives or visits Summit County is receiving benefits from local governments’ investments in infrastructure and programs. Tourism-related industries in Summit County contribute greatly to the tax base here and are a significant part of our economy. Short-term rentals are part of the tourism infrastructure here, and arguing against them is akin to living in Greeley and complaining about the smell of manure in the air or oil infrastructure blocking the view of the plains.

In debating these issues in the letters section, the term “locals” is frequently used, often in the context of forming policy to assist them in this challenging economic environment. But who exactly are the “locals” we’re talking about? Anyone who lives in Summit County? Then second-home owners are locals, despite the common insinuation that they are outsiders of some sort. Is someone who’s lived in Summit County for more than 10 years a local? If so, that definition shrinks the “locals” population considerably, and some of those who rail against second-home ownership probably don’t qualify as locals themselves. How about only full-time residents, is that what it takes to be a local? Does that mean then that the person who moved here full time less than a year ago is a local and the person who’s lived here for 40 years but now splits their time living here and in a different locale isn’t? Doesn’t make much sense to me, and the usage of the term only serves to perpetuate us and them mentalities and biases.

When it comes to the issue of second-home ownership and the short-term rental industry, economic and/or regulatory forces will determine who makes it and who doesn’t. In the meantime, the class warfare and demonization of the “other side” on issues like this doesn’t really help. Everyone’s gotta pay their fair share, including second-home owners and short-term rental hosts, and the debate should be about what that “fair share” looks like, not whether anyone is entitled to the luxury of a second home. And everyone’s gotta work hard to make it in this county because entitlement is in short supply. There’s no way around it and zero-sum rhetoric from either side of this debate doesn’t help advance the search for real solutions to real problems.