For too long, we’ve ignored the warnings.
Fires in historic downtown Annapolis in 1997 and 2005 are the only evidence needed. It’s fortunate those blazes didn’t expand to engulf and destroy more than the combined four properties on Main Street. The 2005 fire left a hole on Main Street for about 12 years until Starbucks moved from its location on City Dock.
We recognize the threat a lack of universal sprinkler adoption poses. Sadly, encouragement to be a responsible neighbor has not always been met with action. Well, it’s time to sweeten the pot for the arm folders and eye rollers.
The Sprinkler Assistance Revolving Fund was created by Annapolis officials a few months before a 2005 fire gutted three downtown properties. The program offers 1 percent interest loans for historic district property owners to retrofit their buildings with sprinklers.
The program was allocated $259,219 for fiscal year 2019.
There have been zero takers since at least 2012, according to city Finance Director Jodee Dickinson.
Here’s where need meets opportunity. A report released Tuesday revealed Annapolis’ short-term rental sites generated 67 percent of the $20.2 million the county realized in 2018 from local Airbnb, VRBO and other online-based rental sites. If the county or city were to adopt a tax on short-term rentals, it could reap an additional $1.8 million in 2019, according to the study.
If the ratio for tax generation applies to distribution, Annapolis would receive about $1.2 million. We understand logic doesn’t always pertain to governmental spending but in this case it must.
The city should collect taxes from short-term rental property operators. It should direct 10 percent of those proceeds — about $120,000 annually — to an updated sprinkler assistance fund. This fund would provide property owners half the cost of installation up to $40,000 with no repayment obligation.
There seems to be no motivation to upgrade fire extinguishing mechanisms or renovating the upper floors of historic storefronts. That’s their individual right.
But there is a shared safety responsibility. We shouldn’t allow landlords to jeopardize the entire historic district because they are unwilling to install sprinklers.
We must appeal to their financial interests. Short- and long-term rental opportunities above first-floor retail have obvious benefits. The former will boost tourism spending while the latter will deliver more downtown residents. Upgrades will result in higher property tax collections for the city while new residents will infuse more dollars into the downtown community.
There’s a lot of carrot. We hope there’s no need for a stick.
Other communities are attempting to mandate sprinkler installation. Pittsburgh is considering mandating sprinklers in buildings over 75 feet within 13 years. That proposal has been met with fierce opposition. But safeguarding our heritage is worth a little heat.
If free money fails to motivate property owners over the next five years, the city must bust out the mandating stick.
We have opportunity, a funding source and a need. City leaders must put vision into motion.
