I am opposed to this measure because eliminating short term rentals will not solve the low income housing problem. Many visitors to the area prefer a home environment vs a hotel, especially those with children and elderly family members. Reasonable solutions include:
Taxing short-term rentals and put that money toward low income housing.
Punching bad actors (short term rental owners who have customers that disrupt the neighborhood with parties /noise) with fines.
The effects of this resolution are straightforward: anyone not ready for a 4-star hotel will be forced to the edges of town (Briarwood, Plymouth Rd, etc). Eliminating short-term rentals limits the ability of people to meaningfully enjoy downtown, visit family members in the hospital, tour campus, and experience the city in so many other ways.
As a full-time Airbnb host (non-owner) in the community, I have had the opportunity to see all kind of guests and how staying in STRs has helped them. It's hard to fathom everything I've worked towards for two years becoming illegal overnight, especially with no attempts try a more nuanced solution. The resolution takes such an unbalanced and broad handed approach it's hard not to see severe bias in the process. The council should take into account the far-reaching personal and economic costs that would accompany such a decision. Please vote against.
The effects of this resolution are straightforward: anyone not ready for a 4-star hotel will be forced to the edges of town (Briarwood, Plymouth Rd, etc). Eliminating short-term rentals limits the ability of people to meaningfully enjoy downtown, visit family members in the hospital, tour campus, and experience the city in so many other ways.
As a full-time Airbnb host (non-owner) in the community, I have had the opportunity to see all kind of guests and how staying in STRs has helped them. It's hard to fathom everything I've worked towards for two years becoming illegal overnight, especially with no attempts try a more nuanced solution. The resolution takes such an unbalanced and broad handed approach it's hard not to see severe bias in the process. The council should take into account the far-reaching personal and economic costs that would accompany such a decision. Please vote against.
AA Affordable Housing Strategy/Policy work is done through the County. The latest plan was from 2017 and for The City of AA, strategic emphasis was placed on things such as:
• Consider various means to increase funding
• Continue conversation about removing regulatory barriers
Anyone concerned about this topic should look at the latest (2015) Housing Affordability and Economic Equity - Analysis for Washtenaw County Report. This is a study with strong qualitative and quantitative analysis that discusses actions that munis should take to address affordable housing. All meaningful impact (per this report) will come as a result of comprehensive municipal policy reshaping (e.g. zoning and density policy revisions). The report literally warns against municipalities employing kneejerk reactions to address issues related to Affordable Housing as this will 1) unfairly impact constituents and 2) lead to complacency when the real work of policy shaping is required to effectively help people.
• ...cause more nuisance...
(A) This item is discriminatory, assumptive, and baseless.
• The City does not enforce...
(A) The City's ability to enforce codes or not is unrelated to the specific point of contention.
• The City does not inspect...
(A) The City's ability to enforce codes or not is unrelated to the specific point of contention.
• ...lack of education regarding best practices
(A) Assumptive. Not based on fact.
• ...change neighborhood character
(A) The "Neighborhood Character" is subject to change at any time and is not "etched in stone" and is undefined.
• ... allow the overcrowding of homes.
(A) Assumptive. Not based on fact.
• ...may reduce the affordable housing in the city.
(A) Since short term rentals fill a specific and definite need in the City, unavailable through other means (Hotel, Long-Term Rental, etc) the affordability of the housing is in line with the realities of life and the needs of the City, and are therefore Market-appropriate.
Growth in the city of Ann Arbor, U of M, and the Hospital all drive the need for alternatives to hotel lodging. I own STRs that are not owner occupied. My guests include business travelers who repeatedly visit Ann Arbor, families who do not want to rent multiple hotel rooms, visiting professors, families of patients at U of M hospital, and people who just want to be able to walk to downtown. Ann Arbor city council should recognize that STRs fill a vital role to people coming to Ann Arbor. It is difficult to imaging that the current number of STRs has had any impact on affordability of housing, if the number of STRs grows dramatically this could change and a cap on the number of units should be considered. A monitoring of the situation, eliminating problem STRs under existing ordinances makes sense. The proposed legislation is 'over kill" and it is not clear what problems it is solving.
I agree with the comment made below by Mr. Laughery, the proposed regulations will do nothing to help with affordable housing. I can state from experience that STR's are hugely beneficial to both the Ann Arbor community, as well as tourists that visit our beautiful city. They create jobs for locals, while providing tourists with a taste of what is actually feels like to live in Ann Arbor. With such an amazing landscape, why would residents of Ann Arbor not want to share what this town has to offer with all who choose to visit? I'm disappointed in the city for moving this resolution to council so swiftly, when clearly the report commissioned by them was wildly biased!
I am a resident of Ann Arbor and have been a homeowner since 2012. The fact that the city counsel/city administrator would take such drastic action to limit me and my neighbors on the use of my own property is extremely troubling. To move forward on this resolution based solely on the Carlisle report is a gross mismanagement of city oversight. There is very little justification to support claims of increased noise/trash violations or how STRs impact available affordable housing options. The report is unjustifiably biased against non owner occupied STRs. This blatant bias is supported by the fact that the author is currently a resident of Ann Arbor! I demand better judgement! The report was a waste of the city's money. STRs have not changed the character of my neighborhood (Arborview) nor Dicken where I lived for five years. I want to see data from law enforcement officials supporting the Carlisle claims of higher rates of ordinance violations.Say no to resolution CA-18 19-2390.
STR's are a net benefit to our community. They create great opportunities for people to visit Ann Arbor and enjoy it for the same reasons we all do. It seems like sharing our City with strangers shouldn't be a bad thing. It doesn't seem like STR's impact housing affordability either according to a large number of legitimate studies.
I’m an entrepreneur that lives in Ann Arbor, having hosted short term stays since 2017. Non-owner-occupied STR’s have a number of benefits that haven’t been discussed. Owner occupied (owner not present) will primarily be for larger events like football games, with the owner out of town. Non-owner-occupied allows us to host year-round (most stays are hospital visits, funeral/wedding, professors, families visiting in summer or business travel) and it allows us to stay in Ann Arbor while we host. The consultants peg full time STR’s (150+ days/yr) at 131 with growth of ~10% over the last year. This is ~.25% of housing stock. The city had never hinted that renting short term was illegal, and it’s unfortunate that this proposed regulation (with no proposal to grandfather in & faulty/biased consultants/process) could wipe out my small business and jobs of my cleaners, handymen, etc. that rely on the income, and prevent many people from travelling to Ann Arbor given the lack of hotels.
In addition building more housing of various types, the city needs to regulate STRs to keep Ann Arbor as affordable as possible for its workers and safe for its current residents. The types of rentals proposed to be banned are those that are not in any way owner occupied. People buy houses and then rent them out for exorbitant amounts of money during football and graduation weekends. Meanwhile, they sit empty during these cold winter months when no tourists are around.
We cannot lose our limited housing stock to STRs when there are so many people who already work here and would love to live in A2, but can't afford it. They are also problematic for residential neighborhoods. I was sexually assaulted on the sidewalk by a man staying at STR less than a block away from a park in my neighborhood.
I want real neighbors, not tourists, and certainly not sexual deviants in my neighborhood.
We started a small Airbnb when my daughter left for college. It’s been a great way to meet people from all over the world, to be an Ann Arbor ambassador, make their stays affordable and to pay tuition.
I attended the Westgate meeting was honestly surprised that the meeting was run so poorly. The questions presented seemed disingenuous and the feedback was not fairly captured.
If the city would like to develop an ordinance that reflects Ann Arbor‘s culture and values, there is a lot of work yet to do. To start, let’s enforce the current ordinances.
Since much of this process has been anecdotal, here’s our story: If offering a studio in our home as an Airbnb becomes expensive or complicated, we will discontinue. Ann Arbor will be less affordable for our small single parent family, and the effects of lost revenue on the local economy are obvious.
I appreciate council’s careful consideration of this policy and would be happy to help craft a more effective solution.
The meetings held were presented as fact gathering. But this report only represents the 2-3 people TOTAL that wanted any type of ban. Where is the feedback from the other attendees?The report is biased in so many ways and presents opinions as facts. The cities compared are unlike AA, how about considering Norman OK? The AAPD has had very few complaints on STRs,student housing is far worse. Where are the complaint facts? Where are the facts of STRs affecting affordable housing? AA has always had affordable housing problems, why "pick" on this?There are numerous studies showing that STRs have no impact. What about the positive effects? People who can now afford to live in AA because of renting some days/weekends. UM Patient families needing long term affordable housing with kitchens. People employed by STR owners, cleaners, maintenance. Money used at restaurants, stores from renters. Enforce the rules already in place, don't create more! Reflect the tone of the MAJORITY of people in AA!
I'm a responsible host with various STRs, I have VERY STRICT rules with heavy penalties, result? Almost 0 problem guests! What does that mean? My neighbors (even the ones that were against STRs) haven't complained because they have nothing to complain about! some are now even booking the house for relatives! My bookings are mostly business/family related, how cool is that? Local families can get to have visiting family nearby and business people use local shops/restaurants and boost the economy!
Should there be change? YES, some common sense rules to keep bad hosts out, things like not overpopulating the house, strict rules with strong penalties, outside cameras to keep bad guests from even wanting to book, some examples.
I was at every meeting. The Report is completely non-reflective of what was said. The consultants clearly are being pushed by an external Agenda. The proposed regulations will do nothing to help with affordable housing.
I am opposed to this measure because eliminating short term rentals will not solve the low income housing problem. Many visitors to the area prefer a home environment vs a hotel, especially those with children and elderly family members. Reasonable solutions include:
Taxing short-term rentals and put that money toward low income housing.
Punching bad actors (short term rental owners who have customers that disrupt the neighborhood with parties /noise) with fines.
I oppose this!
Hotels are the worst. People have the right to rent out their house to whoever they want.
The effects of this resolution are straightforward: anyone not ready for a 4-star hotel will be forced to the edges of town (Briarwood, Plymouth Rd, etc). Eliminating short-term rentals limits the ability of people to meaningfully enjoy downtown, visit family members in the hospital, tour campus, and experience the city in so many other ways.
As a full-time Airbnb host (non-owner) in the community, I have had the opportunity to see all kind of guests and how staying in STRs has helped them. It's hard to fathom everything I've worked towards for two years becoming illegal overnight, especially with no attempts try a more nuanced solution. The resolution takes such an unbalanced and broad handed approach it's hard not to see severe bias in the process. The council should take into account the far-reaching personal and economic costs that would accompany such a decision. Please vote against.
The effects of this resolution are straightforward: anyone not ready for a 4-star hotel will be forced to the edges of town (Briarwood, Plymouth Rd, etc). Eliminating short-term rentals limits the ability of people to meaningfully enjoy downtown, visit family members in the hospital, tour campus, and experience the city in so many other ways.
As a full-time Airbnb host (non-owner) in the community, I have had the opportunity to see all kind of guests and how staying in STRs has helped them. It's hard to fathom everything I've worked towards for two years becoming illegal overnight, especially with no attempts try a more nuanced solution. The resolution takes such an unbalanced and broad handed approach it's hard not to see severe bias in the process. The council should take into account the far-reaching personal and economic costs that would accompany such a decision. Please vote against.
Opposed
AA Affordable Housing Strategy/Policy work is done through the County. The latest plan was from 2017 and for The City of AA, strategic emphasis was placed on things such as:
• Consider various means to increase funding
• Continue conversation about removing regulatory barriers
Anyone concerned about this topic should look at the latest (2015) Housing Affordability and Economic Equity - Analysis for Washtenaw County Report. This is a study with strong qualitative and quantitative analysis that discusses actions that munis should take to address affordable housing. All meaningful impact (per this report) will come as a result of comprehensive municipal policy reshaping (e.g. zoning and density policy revisions). The report literally warns against municipalities employing kneejerk reactions to address issues related to Affordable Housing as this will 1) unfairly impact constituents and 2) lead to complacency when the real work of policy shaping is required to effectively help people.
• ...cause more nuisance...
(A) This item is discriminatory, assumptive, and baseless.
• The City does not enforce...
(A) The City's ability to enforce codes or not is unrelated to the specific point of contention.
• The City does not inspect...
(A) The City's ability to enforce codes or not is unrelated to the specific point of contention.
• ...lack of education regarding best practices
(A) Assumptive. Not based on fact.
• ...change neighborhood character
(A) The "Neighborhood Character" is subject to change at any time and is not "etched in stone" and is undefined.
• ... allow the overcrowding of homes.
(A) Assumptive. Not based on fact.
• ...may reduce the affordable housing in the city.
(A) Since short term rentals fill a specific and definite need in the City, unavailable through other means (Hotel, Long-Term Rental, etc) the affordability of the housing is in line with the realities of life and the needs of the City, and are therefore Market-appropriate.
Oppose
This is a poorly thought out proposition, the benefits of STRs aid in the community.
Growth in the city of Ann Arbor, U of M, and the Hospital all drive the need for alternatives to hotel lodging. I own STRs that are not owner occupied. My guests include business travelers who repeatedly visit Ann Arbor, families who do not want to rent multiple hotel rooms, visiting professors, families of patients at U of M hospital, and people who just want to be able to walk to downtown. Ann Arbor city council should recognize that STRs fill a vital role to people coming to Ann Arbor. It is difficult to imaging that the current number of STRs has had any impact on affordability of housing, if the number of STRs grows dramatically this could change and a cap on the number of units should be considered. A monitoring of the situation, eliminating problem STRs under existing ordinances makes sense. The proposed legislation is 'over kill" and it is not clear what problems it is solving.
I agree with the comment made below by Mr. Laughery, the proposed regulations will do nothing to help with affordable housing. I can state from experience that STR's are hugely beneficial to both the Ann Arbor community, as well as tourists that visit our beautiful city. They create jobs for locals, while providing tourists with a taste of what is actually feels like to live in Ann Arbor. With such an amazing landscape, why would residents of Ann Arbor not want to share what this town has to offer with all who choose to visit? I'm disappointed in the city for moving this resolution to council so swiftly, when clearly the report commissioned by them was wildly biased!
I am a resident of Ann Arbor and have been a homeowner since 2012. The fact that the city counsel/city administrator would take such drastic action to limit me and my neighbors on the use of my own property is extremely troubling. To move forward on this resolution based solely on the Carlisle report is a gross mismanagement of city oversight. There is very little justification to support claims of increased noise/trash violations or how STRs impact available affordable housing options. The report is unjustifiably biased against non owner occupied STRs. This blatant bias is supported by the fact that the author is currently a resident of Ann Arbor! I demand better judgement! The report was a waste of the city's money. STRs have not changed the character of my neighborhood (Arborview) nor Dicken where I lived for five years. I want to see data from law enforcement officials supporting the Carlisle claims of higher rates of ordinance violations.Say no to resolution CA-18 19-2390.
STR's are a net benefit to our community. They create great opportunities for people to visit Ann Arbor and enjoy it for the same reasons we all do. It seems like sharing our City with strangers shouldn't be a bad thing. It doesn't seem like STR's impact housing affordability either according to a large number of legitimate studies.
I’m an entrepreneur that lives in Ann Arbor, having hosted short term stays since 2017. Non-owner-occupied STR’s have a number of benefits that haven’t been discussed. Owner occupied (owner not present) will primarily be for larger events like football games, with the owner out of town. Non-owner-occupied allows us to host year-round (most stays are hospital visits, funeral/wedding, professors, families visiting in summer or business travel) and it allows us to stay in Ann Arbor while we host. The consultants peg full time STR’s (150+ days/yr) at 131 with growth of ~10% over the last year. This is ~.25% of housing stock. The city had never hinted that renting short term was illegal, and it’s unfortunate that this proposed regulation (with no proposal to grandfather in & faulty/biased consultants/process) could wipe out my small business and jobs of my cleaners, handymen, etc. that rely on the income, and prevent many people from travelling to Ann Arbor given the lack of hotels.
In addition building more housing of various types, the city needs to regulate STRs to keep Ann Arbor as affordable as possible for its workers and safe for its current residents. The types of rentals proposed to be banned are those that are not in any way owner occupied. People buy houses and then rent them out for exorbitant amounts of money during football and graduation weekends. Meanwhile, they sit empty during these cold winter months when no tourists are around.
We cannot lose our limited housing stock to STRs when there are so many people who already work here and would love to live in A2, but can't afford it. They are also problematic for residential neighborhoods. I was sexually assaulted on the sidewalk by a man staying at STR less than a block away from a park in my neighborhood.
I want real neighbors, not tourists, and certainly not sexual deviants in my neighborhood.
We started a small Airbnb when my daughter left for college. It’s been a great way to meet people from all over the world, to be an Ann Arbor ambassador, make their stays affordable and to pay tuition.
I attended the Westgate meeting was honestly surprised that the meeting was run so poorly. The questions presented seemed disingenuous and the feedback was not fairly captured.
If the city would like to develop an ordinance that reflects Ann Arbor‘s culture and values, there is a lot of work yet to do. To start, let’s enforce the current ordinances.
Since much of this process has been anecdotal, here’s our story: If offering a studio in our home as an Airbnb becomes expensive or complicated, we will discontinue. Ann Arbor will be less affordable for our small single parent family, and the effects of lost revenue on the local economy are obvious.
I appreciate council’s careful consideration of this policy and would be happy to help craft a more effective solution.
The meetings held were presented as fact gathering. But this report only represents the 2-3 people TOTAL that wanted any type of ban. Where is the feedback from the other attendees?The report is biased in so many ways and presents opinions as facts. The cities compared are unlike AA, how about considering Norman OK? The AAPD has had very few complaints on STRs,student housing is far worse. Where are the complaint facts? Where are the facts of STRs affecting affordable housing? AA has always had affordable housing problems, why "pick" on this?There are numerous studies showing that STRs have no impact. What about the positive effects? People who can now afford to live in AA because of renting some days/weekends. UM Patient families needing long term affordable housing with kitchens. People employed by STR owners, cleaners, maintenance. Money used at restaurants, stores from renters. Enforce the rules already in place, don't create more! Reflect the tone of the MAJORITY of people in AA!
I'm a responsible host with various STRs, I have VERY STRICT rules with heavy penalties, result? Almost 0 problem guests! What does that mean? My neighbors (even the ones that were against STRs) haven't complained because they have nothing to complain about! some are now even booking the house for relatives! My bookings are mostly business/family related, how cool is that? Local families can get to have visiting family nearby and business people use local shops/restaurants and boost the economy!
Should there be change? YES, some common sense rules to keep bad hosts out, things like not overpopulating the house, strict rules with strong penalties, outside cameras to keep bad guests from even wanting to book, some examples.
I was at every meeting. The Report is completely non-reflective of what was said. The consultants clearly are being pushed by an external Agenda. The proposed regulations will do nothing to help with affordable housing.