Congratulations to Sullivan's Island

The group at Stop Pacaso SI have been working diligently since day one when they found the home on their small island was sold to Pacaso. 
All of their hard work came to a head in the meeting held on February 9th with the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the town's definition of a vacation rental. 

It is worth the watch/listen:

It gets particularly interesting when the applicant's local legal representative took questions at 37 minutes.

Board members were very prepared and posed tough questions including:

How does Pacaso make money?  
Does Pacaso only charge $99/mo or are there more charges?  
Are those additional fees public and if so what does it cover?  
Have you given the town the Operating Agreement? 
Would it be possible for a shareholder to rent out their property privately, not through an online company listed in the Operating Agreements? 
I just really don't like that there are discrepancies in the information that is on the website, was given to our attorney and you are saying now, why is this? 
If you were to cancel your reservation 60 days you are charged a fee.  Why are you charged if you are an owner?

Check out minute 1hr 20 mins 42sec when Pacaso's legal representative makes a Freudian slip and states "there is no money that changes hands with each rental.... I mean, stay"

What happened at the end of the meeting?  After a robust discussion, the Board unanimously voted against the Pacaso appeal.

What happens next?  Stay tuned......

Congratulations to City of Carmel

Due to the hard work of concerned residents and SPN supporters, the City of Carmel has made an update to its zoning regulations banning Pacaso.  Below is an excerpt from the local paper, The Carmel Pine Cone.  The link to the entire article is below along with the Ordinance itself and the video of the meeting.

THE CITY council on Tuesday unanimously approved a revised law banning the fractional ownership and use of houses in town — a model used by companies like Pacaso — saying the setup violates an existing ban on timeshares.

The new law doesn’t prevent people from owning a home together, city attorney Sergio Rubin told the council Feb. 7, but they can’t make specific arrangements to take turns using it.

The code already prohibits rentals shorter than 30 days in most of the city and forbids timeshares everywhere, but the revised code would “make clear that a prohibited timeshare is created whenever any right is established for exclusive use of the property that is periodic on a recurring basis, regardless of the form,” according to planning director Brandon Swanson.

“No community wants this,” councilwoman Alissandra Dramov said, and Mayor Dave Potter commented, “It’s basically commercialization of our private neighborhoods,” with short-term rentals “masquerading as timeshares.”

The council unanimously approved the revised ordinance, which will come back for final approval next month and will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for adoption.


Congratulations to Nantucket

Pacaso invaded Nantucket in September 2022 and residents did not stand by quietly!  They immediately mounted swift opposition against the company.  Check out what happened below in this excerpt  from the local paper, the Nantucket Current: 

After Pacaso purchased 11A Meadow Lane last September, the company began marketing ⅛ ownership shares of the 6,800 square foot home for $1.25 million. According to its web site, it has already sold six of the eight shares of the seven-bedroom, single family home on the edge of town. 

Neighbors immediately protested, filing a formal complaint with Nantucket’s zoning compliance coordinator Marcus Silverstein “to report an illegal timeshare” and asking him to issue a cease and desist order. Silverstein responded with an enforcement letter to Pacaso, informing the company that time-sharing and time-interval ownership constituted a “transient residential facility,” which are prohibited in the R-20 zoning district where 11A Meadow Lane is located. 

The letter prompted Pacaso to file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals that was scheduled to be heard in February. But just last week, Pacaso curiously withdrew its appeal. 

Read the entire article:

What comes next?  Stay tuned...


This week on Twitter.....something smells fishy

This is the best that Pacaso can do on Twitter these days, sure sounds suspicious.

One of their initial investors, Brendan Wallace of Fifth Wall singing Pacaso's praises on 2/10/23:

"Thrilled to be an investor in @PacasoHomes and now an owner of one of their homes.  #GAustinAllison and #Spencerrascoff have built such an amazing company and product."

To which Spencer Rascoff replies:
"Few people know #proptech and #realestate as well as @BrendanFWallace and I am glad to have his confidence in @PacasoHomes, both as an owner and investor via @fifthwallvc"

IF Brendan knows so much about tech and real estate, why would he invest in Pacaso at this point in time?  What did he actually pay to be an owner?  Begs the question, was there any gifting for paybacks like this tweet?



Once again, an anonymous source gives us some news

"Hello, Pacaso has had between 5 to 6 rounds of layoffs over the last 6 months. Over 150 employees laid off. Remaining few employees have been required to take a $25,000 pay cut to stay with the company and sign a new contract. Search for laid off employees on linkedIn. You will be very surprised how few employees are left with the company. For some reason no new outlet has mentioned this."

Each time we have received this type of information, it has been proven true.  Let us know if you see it in the news:

In the news....

Make sure to check out the latest news on Pacaso.  Here is the link to the Stop Pacaso Now website Press page:

Have more news to share?  Email


This email was sent to <<Email Address>>
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Stop Pacaso Now · 1403 Old Winery Ct · Sonoma, CA 95476-4882 · USA

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp