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

I am going to try to learn more about the issue. My self as an example, renting our house some weeks of the summer, I would be employing a real estate management company, and they employ a housecleaning service. I already have a lawn service, and would be wanting to spend more with construction companies, electricians, painters...I have had rental property most of my adult life. I understand that the people in Ludington like their neighborhoods as they are but I also see many old houses, at least near downtown, that need restoration very soon, or it will be too late. Losing all of the history of those old houses changes the charm of Ludington. The bed and breakfast places there have done a wonderful job. When my extended family is all there, we use those too. Bed and breakfasts are not set up for families and would be so expensive. So families visiting are left with hotels/motels as the only option. Having hosted a wedding in Ludington, most of the hotel options, are impossible to book at peak times, are not up to current standards, or are not at all a unique vacation experience. I do not want to change my neighborhood either. I have very nice neighbors, thus the management company. Someone would be available locally should there be any sort of problem. I am really not a political person but times are changing and I think most municipalities are having to deal with this. Voting against just means the tourists with the big bucks will all be going to the municipalities that vote for it. People coming to Ludington are not all from Michigan, short-term rentals are pulling people from all over the world now. Why not run the City with a larger portion of their money instead of the money only of the people living in Ludington? I do not think short term house rental will take any business from the bed and breakfasts. I do think it will put some pressure on the motel/hotels that are not keeping pace with today's standards, and that would benefit everyone there, and the other hotels are doing fine. Ludington is so charming. Allowing short term rental seems a way to bring in the investment the City needs to keep it that way.  

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service