On May 21st, the Ludington Torch firmly came out in favor of the rare state initiatives that were designed to allow people to retain their rights, in a rather biased editorial called Short term rentals: It's Your Property to Share.  It related information about House Bill 4503, sponsored by Rep. Jason Sheppard, and Senate Bill 329, sponsored by Sen. Joe Hune, that would allow local governments to regulate vacation (aka short term) rentals, but prevent them from banning them all together in all or part of the city.

Local governments have increasingly used zoning ordinances to restrict all or some property owners from using their property for the use of others for a weekend or a week or two.  Cities like Ludington allow vacation rentals in certain districts, while disallowing them elsewhere without any compelling reasons beyond the anecdotal.  

Two factions have lined up for the battle of whether these bills will pass into law or not.  Those for the legislation are vacation rental companies like Airbnb, vacationers who want a greater choice,  property owners that cannot offer a vacation rental on their property due to local zoning, and those of libertarian/conservative bend that believes the government has little or no right to tell them what to do with their property if they are not interfering with the rights of their neighbors. 

Those against it are local governments (even in areas like Ludington that could benefit from additional rooms in the summertime, it's a power thing), motels/inns, property owners who are in the proper zones, and those of liberal/statist bend that believe more government control over your life has to be good.  

It's easy to see what the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) endorses just by reading their page one headline on the October 12th edition written by Kevin Brasiczewski.  "State bills would take zoning power from municipalities".  How insidious, the state is wanting to steal your city's zoning powers.  It gets worse as you read on; let's note that this article is not considered by the COLDNews to be an editorial in any way.

The first paragraph ends with a lie, the bills do not place any new control for the state, it simply states that vacation rentals will be universally defined to be a residential use of a property, not a commercial or special use.  The state is expanding the right of homeowners to utilize their property in a way they think will be best, and not gaining control over anything.  Here's what both bills say:

It shows that the second paragraph is misleading at best.  The third paragraph of the article is the truest, it explains precisely why local officials hate this-- their loss of control over something that had never been under local control until relatively recently, due to some localities overstepping their historic authority. 

The article then lists several entities in three paragraphs that oppose the bills, before they have one paragraph indicating the only support appears to be from the Michigan Realtor's Association (MRA)who are framing the issue a certain way to appeal to homeowners' greed.  First theft, now they're framing others-- horrors.

Before it goes to page 3, they show a picture of Mary Schierholt, one who owned up to 30 vacation properties who surprisingly opposes the bills saying she doesn't want the state's involvement.  Mary, wouldn't it be more precise to say that you don't want the additional competition to drive your rental income down?   

Turning to page three, the headline there blares out "I feel strongly that this should remain in local control".  A paraphrase of local State Representative Curt VanderWall's words, it once again reflects a negative spin to bills in the article.  That phrase in itself is very misleading in that if the bills were law, the only thing changing is that local property owners actually gain more control, and are not under the whims of a few people at city hall who decide to take those rights away. 

State Senator Darwin Booher claims both sides of the issue have merit in the first three paragraphs, showing that he is at least pretending to sit on the fence.  Vanderwall comes out against it, while, intentionally or not, miscasting the bill as doing something it doesn't.

Pentwater Village Manager Chris Brown then says the state should not be mandating a statewide zoning ordinance, but it clearly is not, just making an unequivocal statewide definition that labels vacation rentals as a residential use.  Brown notes that Pentwater currently has many short term rentals and admits they're clean, well-kept and problem-free before saying they (city officials) don't want to lose the ability to do something in the future about ruining this great arrangement they currently have. 

Sounds like a little paradise right now, so let's maybe bring more government control to reign that in if the bills don't pass; right, Chris?  He finishes off by saying that all his friends in government do not support the bill, which is spurred only by the MRA.

Then it's reporter Brasiczewski's turn to use his main guy, City Manager John Shay to support the other's.  Shay states right off that the city would be opposed to this (without any opinion publicly voiced by the city council), despite the likely allowance by the city for a planned unit development near the carferry to allow them while others with older properties in residential districts can never have them.  

He continues by bashing state powers acting inappropriately, while the city's current stance on the issue seems to be unconstitutional and patently unfair.  To remind John Shay, the state is not getting into zoning, just defining vacation rentals as residential use of a property.  If anybody is overstepping their bounds, it is those who have used zoning to violate the property rights of individuals. 

PM Township Supervisor Paul Keson follows suit with the same rationale, and then Mary Schierholt is once again used saying she doesn't want the state telling her what to do, even though they aren't, the only ones are the local zoning boards.  She made a lot of money after her vacational rental business prospered after the Ludington zoning laws against any more short-term rentals was passed.  In other words, she profited from having the city officially ban any other competition cropping up.  

And then shortly thereafter the article ends.  Reporter Kevin wrote this news article interviewing six people, five were unashamedly against the two bills securing more property rights, the other was Darwin Booher who hadn't made any decision, probably because he hasn't fully tested the political wind.  The only entity that the article said was for this law was the Michigan Realtor's Association, they have no spokesman and are told it is only a property rights issue to them. 

Is this a fair and balanced article, or a propaganda filled editorial that belongs more on page four of the COLDNews?  You can decide, but while you are, here's a statement from the MRA depicting their position:  

This legislation would do the following: 

  • Ensures that Michigan homeowners can maximize the value of their property through the use of short-term rental arrangements;
  • Provides clarity for and protects a practice that has long been permitted and is essential to the viability of local resort economies;
  • Provides for uniform and fair treatment of residential properties in all residential zones.

This legislation does not prevent local government enforcement. Local governments currently possess the tools – in their nuisance ordinances and housing codes – to protect public safety and address any discourteous behavior – whether from a year-round occupant or a short-term rental.

Michigan resort communities thrive on short-term rentals. Local restaurants, art, book, and gift shops, and other businesses dependent on vacationers are the heart of resort business communities. Further, the right to continue lawful use of property is at the heart of zoning and constitutional protections for property owners, and “local control” should not be a cover for taking those rights away.  

Protect this fundamental property right and support Michigan’s tourism industry. 

And here's a editorial in the opinion section of the Holland Sentinel which also explains why this would be good law.  Armed with both sides of the issue, make an informed decision of whether to support the bill or not, and let your state legislator and local politician know how you feel.

Views: 1132

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As I recall when the original ordinance was written,the only property that was already a vacation rental could be grandfathered in. This did not allow the owner of one vacation rental to increase her number of long term rental homes and then convert them to Vacation Rentals. If Mary Schierholt had 30 rentals then I think some research should be done as to when these VACATION RENTALS were put in service, and when they were purchased. If I recall correctly I believe she had less than 5 properties that were grandfathered in at the time the ordinace was written. I would like to know if the city ignored the ordinance while Mary was expanding her Vacation Rental Business yet refused to allow anyone else to own Vacation Rental properties. If we find that this has happened then the city of Ludington is complicit in repressing trade for the other Citizens of Ludington, and they should be brought to task and held accountable.

It does seem odd that she would voluntarily give up 25 or more opportunities for vacation rentals when the City provided her with decreased competition for the healthy market that could exist here if our local ordinances didn't disallow it.  

Isn't it bizarre how two of those interviewed (Chris and Mary) are dead set against state law amendments allowing vacation rentals in residential area  while they tout how clean and well-kept the short-term rentals actually are in comparison to other properties?  

You want to fight blight in our residential areas, allow vacation rentals to instantly cure those homes and provide them with more money to make their property extra special.  Have you seen how it works for the Bed & Breakfast district?

Rumor has it, and correct me if I'm wrong somehow, that Mary S. sold many of her rentals in recent years. Why? Was told to me her family members didn't want to do that work after Mary S. retires. Some of my family members have rented from her for many years, and never had any complaints about the homes' condition or cleanliness either.

I have mixed feelings regarding this issue. As anyone knows who has lived next to or near "short term" rentals it can be a negative experience. The result for many property owners is to turn their own dwelling into a rental in order to escape the revolving door of the neighboring short term rentals. If you were to ask any CIty officials in any city who are involved with housing or zoning they will tell you the number one complaint involves rental property. I don't want to limit peoples use of their property but the constant upheaval in the rental population can be very difficult to put up with. As far as this only being a definition change: Definitions are what clarify the use of properties and have a greater importance than most people realize. If I had my druthers, I would live as far away from rentals, long or short term, as possible and i'm sure many people feel the same. Excellent article X.

Why I have no intentions of entering the short term rental business I also see this as being predominantly  a positive for both for the people and the community.

Having a reserve of available rooms and different price points can only be a good thing unless you were one who bought multiple condo units to rent out because the local Government gave you monopolistic rights for your property by establishing a protected market.

One only has to drive past the condo's when it turns dark see how many are vacant this time of the year. This places an unnecessary financial burden on year around residents.

It is unfortunate that the local city council and the powers that control them didn't have the foresight and intelligence to see a free marketplace as being a benefit to the City and County.

If short term rentals are deemed a residential use by the state, Ludington's leaders will hear significant grumbling coming from the various motels and inn in the city and beyond, who will be upset that STR owners will not have to pay the county's 6% room tax other lodgings have to pay, and the various other costs/taxes they must pay as a commercial business.  They also have to deal with more competition and have to keep their rates low, and that's what most do not want.  The voice of motel owners will be even stronger with motel owner David Bourgette on the LCC.

For Willy's concerns, it's always nice when you have stable and good neighbors.  But for the most part, a manager of a well-run STR will do their best to avoid bringing in bad transient tenants, that's best for their bottom line too, and consider this in their STR agreement with prospective tenants.  These aren't your typical non-tourist tenants for the most part, they pay good money for a weekend, and they generally respect your property and neighbors more than a long term tenant would.  

The ideal is that your neighbor who wants to get into STRs would give you their number and have you give them a call when you have any problem with the vacationers, and they could offer to fix it immediately since you are effectively doing them a favor in making sure their house doesn't get trashed or given a bad reputation.  Of course, a bad neighbor wouldn't seek your help, but then, that's because he's, in general, a bad neighbor who'd you have to either tolerate by him living next door or peopling his house with rowdy permanent tenants otherwise.  

Ludington's bed & breakfast houses are basically STRs, and I never seem to hear anything bad about them from their neighbors.  Rather, I hear grumblings about blight being directed at owner-occupied homes and apartment houses that are being rented long-term.

The difference between the bed an breakfast is that most of the owners live in the same house that their rooms are rented in. With the owner keeping a close eye on things there is little chance for bad things to happen. The problem with vacationers is that they want to squeeze every bit of vacation fun out of their time off and they will do many things on vacation they will not do at home. I still like the idea of limiting STR's to areas specifically zoned for them and not having them city wide. I wouldn't want to live next to houses with a steady stream of obnoxious tourists.

If you want the real reason that Mary S and others do not want more vacation rentals just check out the house at 321 N. Robert Street that I believe she has sold,it rents for $2,346.00 per week. The listing number on VRBO.com (Vacation Rentals By Owner) is 271222ha. We own the house that is 1 house from 321 N Robert which is a larger house, fully renovated with a larger lot and 321 makes more rent money in one month than we make in a year. Is this fair? We have vacation rentals in another state and the neighbors (which mind their own business) did not even realize they were vacation rentals until I told them. We have had long term rentals for over 40 years and I can tell you there is less damage, less parties and a whole lot more money in Vacation rentals than long term rentals.

I've lived near long term rentals, short term rentals and all owner occupied homes and by far the owner occupied is the only way to go if you want a stable living environment. Inquiring brought up a good point and that is the money factor. I had no idea that kind of money could be made on STR and I can see why many landlords would want to take advantage of that. The problem arises when the average citizen needs housing especially in a resort town. What will this do for the value of homes and the price of rent. I can see a huge increase in both and a potential shortage of lower costing rentals which could squeeze out lower income people. After thinking this over I am no longer on the fence regarding this matter. I think city wide STR is a bad idea for locals as far as the cost of rent and purchasing a house but it's a good idea for property owners who are in a position to make extra cash from their investment.

The problem is that many houses that used to be long term rentals are setting empty because landlords no longer want to deal with damage caused by tenants. When you have to go in after a tenant leaves and completely redo an apartment or house, paint, change carpets, repair walls ect. the outside of the property usually suffers. The city will not back you up when damage is done by tenants. Wouldn't you rather see a well kept property that produces 4 jobs per rental instead of piles of trash and empty houses? Landlords are getting smarter and will no longer rent their properties and have them destroyed so there is your shortage of rental units for low income people. It will not get better. I would rather produce jobs for these tenants, if they are working maybe they wouldn't be home as often to do so much damage. STR is not an option for a lot of landlords as it is alot more work than monthly rentals, therefore the rent on monthly rentals does not increase. STR'S give the tourists with several children and their pets the option of all vacationing at the same time when hotels/motels are not suited for them, that is why the current STR's in ludington recieve so much rent because it is a closed market. If there is more competition the rental prices would go down.

I have a suspicion that the turbulence in Ludington's low-rent market made by the Rental Inspection Ordinance (RIO) would have a much more dramatic and lasting effect on finding affordable units in Ludington and rent inflation than abiding by the state's new counter-regulation over STRs if it becomes law. 

I am also on the belief that all the local subsidization of the bowling alley block development will do the same.  A major, yet hidden to most, impetus for the RIO was too allow development of state/local-subsidized housing by driving up local rents so as to greater entice developers into investing in Ludington.  If these 'low rent housing' enterprises can only charge $400 per month for the first 15 years by their terms of subsidization for their units, it just doesn't pay to make them.

A bunch of new STRs can destabilize a neighborhood (which isn't always bad), and could be inflationary to rents and property taxes in the area, but the positives, in my view, at least balance the negatives.  The tipping point for me, however, is that it's your property and you should be able to do with it what you want-- with utmost respect for your neighbors' rights.  

Damage to rental property is not limited to long term renters. I've seen plenty of examples of tourists causing damage to STR homes. From pet damage to busted walls, furniture and fixtures caused by drunk tourists. Over crowding has been a common complaint of STR. Once rented some tourists invite many family members and friends to share in the vacation rental. Parking problems, noise, late night activities are also problems in STR's. No type of rental has immunity from bad tenants.

I agree X that the RIO is going to cause problems but add to that the allowing of STR anywhere they want apply it is going to be a double whammy for locals and affordable housing. I'm not against STR if they are properly used in areas zoned for them so that folks who want to establish a home in a quiet neighborhood will know where to look.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service