I have heard a lot of anecdotal information regarding the impacts of STRs on neighborhoods and the housing markets. Its disappointing that the $25,000 Report commissioned by the City is more of the same. It is flawed in many ways, it is biased and it is subjective. Shouldn't there be public comment on the Report before moving to a Resolution? This Report should reflect public discourse and make unbiased representations. It doesn't. Now is not the time for a Resolution. There are many people who feel completed unrepresented by this process, even though they participated in the meetings. Moving to a Resolution at this point is only going to deepen a divide and cause people to dig in. Feedback on the Report needs to be heard and considered. The administration needs to be willing to address areas of the Report that are objectionable to most people.
The report findings were biased, & the recommendation of staff to City Council to pursue the development of ordinances reflective of Option 3 is alarming. An outright ban on non-owner STRs is extreme. Historical data is needed to quantify the number of noise, parking & trash complaints emanating from any STR (vs long term rentals/student housing). I would recommend current tracking of “disruptive instances” to neighbors & have the issue dealt with at the time of the occurrence; this would include owner/agent, renter & originator of the complaint. Only then will there be objective data to determine the depth and breadth of this component of STRs. The current property taxes are hefty for primary property owners & non-owner STRs already pay 9 mills more. Thus any additional tax on STRs is a burden for all. Lastly, requiring an inspection for a primary residence owner sends the message that they are living in an unsafe house. Would they really offer that same unsafe residence to another?
Short-term stays provide a critical resource for families of students at the University of Michigan who can't afford the insanely priced hotels / motels in the area. This is an overreach.
As a parent of an out of state student we often rely on AIRBNB rentals for a place to stay when in town. Hotels are often not an option as they are either full or too expensive. We have stayed in a number of them and never had a problem. If there are issues with specific ones, they should be dealt with individually.
With Ann Arbor being the home of a huge university, short term rentals are an important and necessary alternative to hotel rooms for parents and family of students visiting the city. Room rates at area hotels, even those of very low quality, can be prohibitively expensive. Eliminating all non-owner-occupied short term rentals will significantly reduce this option. Regulate, rather than prohibit, non-owner-occupied short term rentals.
STR rentals are valuable to visiting UM families, alumni, hospitals visitors and friends/family of locals who don’t have room for them. There as been no data to suggest STRs need addition ordinances.
The city received a biased and inaccurate report. The completed Carlisle report prepared by a local consulting firm is incomplete and absent of accurate and important data needed before this resolution is adopted. It would be irresponsible for the city of Ann Arbor to adopt any resolution of this sort without further in depth study.
Ann Arbor council should support and encourage choice for the many individuals that visit their wonderful city. If
There is a specific rental problem, work it out but don’t penalize an entire industry that brings visitors and their money to town. Sounds like a lot of pressure from the hotel lobby was effective. You should support free enterprise.
As a parent of a U of M graduate, I can attest to the fact that there are far too few hotel rooms in Ann Arbor; and most of those that do exist are not exactly five star. Please consider that we appreciate the choices afforded by STRs and strongly support Ann Arbor's endorsement of this business model. Thank you for listening to the people!
Seeking to solve a problem where there isn't one. The City already has ordinances in place to deal with the few nuisance issues that arise from the very few bad owners. The lead consultant on this commissioned project has a direct conflict of interest by living in Dicken. The town hall meetings produced majority votes for modified restrictions, NOT a complete ban on non owner occupied rentals. If the City moves forward with the recommendations they could find themselves having to define short term rentals across the board...a 9 month rental and 3 month sublet IS A SHORT TERM RENTAL. It is shameful the recommendations would put people out of business in a town that prides itself on fairness, image, diversity and compassion. We serve MANY patients and families who cannot afford hotel rooms without kitchens. We also serve, and intensely market Ann Arbor businesses, to student families and faculty. The report is biased, not based on any reliable data or comparison, void of compromise. NO!
Short-term rentals offer guests the opportunity to stay for any amount of time, including multiple weeks or months, as many who come to visit family in hospitals, students on campus, for job-related needs, or other reasons do. There has there been NO data to suggest they provide a nuisance. This ordinance's framework goes directly AGAINST the sentiment/votes made at the public meetings to discuss this topic. The CWA report submitted is riddled with falsehoods and grossly-negligent omissions. This will be a harmful, bad precedent and directly, meaningfully harm many individuals' ability to live in Ann Arbor. Please do not pass this.
This is a source of income for many in Ann Arbor and a nice second option to major hotels for out of town-ers. It’s a great way for folks from out of town to see some of the best neighborhoods in our city!!
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. I realize that there are some bad actors, but living down the street from one of the 3 or so repeat offenders I can say rather confidently that police are not enforcing current nuisance or parking ordinances and that the owner is not complying with current local agent registration requirements. I think enforcing current regulations should be the first thing the city does.
Airbnb provides housing for visitors coming to Ann Arbor including long term stays for university families, visiting faculty, and individuals receiving care at the medical center. For many of these, AirBnB is the only affordable option. The Carlisle report that is being presented is a gross misrepresentation of the actual commentary that took place at all three of the community meetings. With no evidence and supporting data, they suggested that AirBnBs cause more of a nuisance than long term rentals, that they impact affordable housing. These assertions are unfounded. Furthermore, the consulting firm has a huge conflict of interest as they would financially benefit from further policy development and the lead consultant lives in Dicken neighborhood. I am a large group of Ann Arbor citizens oppose any further legislation on AirBnBs in the city of Ann Arbor.
I have heard a lot of anecdotal information regarding the impacts of STRs on neighborhoods and the housing markets. Its disappointing that the $25,000 Report commissioned by the City is more of the same. It is flawed in many ways, it is biased and it is subjective. Shouldn't there be public comment on the Report before moving to a Resolution? This Report should reflect public discourse and make unbiased representations. It doesn't. Now is not the time for a Resolution. There are many people who feel completed unrepresented by this process, even though they participated in the meetings. Moving to a Resolution at this point is only going to deepen a divide and cause people to dig in. Feedback on the Report needs to be heard and considered. The administration needs to be willing to address areas of the Report that are objectionable to most people.
The report findings were biased, & the recommendation of staff to City Council to pursue the development of ordinances reflective of Option 3 is alarming. An outright ban on non-owner STRs is extreme. Historical data is needed to quantify the number of noise, parking & trash complaints emanating from any STR (vs long term rentals/student housing). I would recommend current tracking of “disruptive instances” to neighbors & have the issue dealt with at the time of the occurrence; this would include owner/agent, renter & originator of the complaint. Only then will there be objective data to determine the depth and breadth of this component of STRs. The current property taxes are hefty for primary property owners & non-owner STRs already pay 9 mills more. Thus any additional tax on STRs is a burden for all. Lastly, requiring an inspection for a primary residence owner sends the message that they are living in an unsafe house. Would they really offer that same unsafe residence to another?
Short term rentals are needed and appreciated.
Short-term stays provide a critical resource for families of students at the University of Michigan who can't afford the insanely priced hotels / motels in the area. This is an overreach.
As a parent of an out of state student we often rely on AIRBNB rentals for a place to stay when in town. Hotels are often not an option as they are either full or too expensive. We have stayed in a number of them and never had a problem. If there are issues with specific ones, they should be dealt with individually.
Being a home of internationally recognized university and hospital, we need a lot of short term rental housings in the city.
With Ann Arbor being the home of a huge university, short term rentals are an important and necessary alternative to hotel rooms for parents and family of students visiting the city. Room rates at area hotels, even those of very low quality, can be prohibitively expensive. Eliminating all non-owner-occupied short term rentals will significantly reduce this option. Regulate, rather than prohibit, non-owner-occupied short term rentals.
STR rentals are valuable to visiting UM families, alumni, hospitals visitors and friends/family of locals who don’t have room for them. There as been no data to suggest STRs need addition ordinances.
The city received a biased and inaccurate report. The completed Carlisle report prepared by a local consulting firm is incomplete and absent of accurate and important data needed before this resolution is adopted. It would be irresponsible for the city of Ann Arbor to adopt any resolution of this sort without further in depth study.
Ann Arbor council should support and encourage choice for the many individuals that visit their wonderful city. If
There is a specific rental problem, work it out but don’t penalize an entire industry that brings visitors and their money to town. Sounds like a lot of pressure from the hotel lobby was effective. You should support free enterprise.
As a parent of a U of M graduate, I can attest to the fact that there are far too few hotel rooms in Ann Arbor; and most of those that do exist are not exactly five star. Please consider that we appreciate the choices afforded by STRs and strongly support Ann Arbor's endorsement of this business model. Thank you for listening to the people!
Regulate non-owner-occupied STRs, do not ban!
I oppose
Short term rentals are so important for students/researchers coming to AA. I oppose this.
Seeking to solve a problem where there isn't one. The City already has ordinances in place to deal with the few nuisance issues that arise from the very few bad owners. The lead consultant on this commissioned project has a direct conflict of interest by living in Dicken. The town hall meetings produced majority votes for modified restrictions, NOT a complete ban on non owner occupied rentals. If the City moves forward with the recommendations they could find themselves having to define short term rentals across the board...a 9 month rental and 3 month sublet IS A SHORT TERM RENTAL. It is shameful the recommendations would put people out of business in a town that prides itself on fairness, image, diversity and compassion. We serve MANY patients and families who cannot afford hotel rooms without kitchens. We also serve, and intensely market Ann Arbor businesses, to student families and faculty. The report is biased, not based on any reliable data or comparison, void of compromise. NO!
I oppose
Short-term rentals offer guests the opportunity to stay for any amount of time, including multiple weeks or months, as many who come to visit family in hospitals, students on campus, for job-related needs, or other reasons do. There has there been NO data to suggest they provide a nuisance. This ordinance's framework goes directly AGAINST the sentiment/votes made at the public meetings to discuss this topic. The CWA report submitted is riddled with falsehoods and grossly-negligent omissions. This will be a harmful, bad precedent and directly, meaningfully harm many individuals' ability to live in Ann Arbor. Please do not pass this.
This is a source of income for many in Ann Arbor and a nice second option to major hotels for out of town-ers. It’s a great way for folks from out of town to see some of the best neighborhoods in our city!!
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. I realize that there are some bad actors, but living down the street from one of the 3 or so repeat offenders I can say rather confidently that police are not enforcing current nuisance or parking ordinances and that the owner is not complying with current local agent registration requirements. I think enforcing current regulations should be the first thing the city does.
Airbnb provides housing for visitors coming to Ann Arbor including long term stays for university families, visiting faculty, and individuals receiving care at the medical center. For many of these, AirBnB is the only affordable option. The Carlisle report that is being presented is a gross misrepresentation of the actual commentary that took place at all three of the community meetings. With no evidence and supporting data, they suggested that AirBnBs cause more of a nuisance than long term rentals, that they impact affordable housing. These assertions are unfounded. Furthermore, the consulting firm has a huge conflict of interest as they would financially benefit from further policy development and the lead consultant lives in Dicken neighborhood. I am a large group of Ann Arbor citizens oppose any further legislation on AirBnBs in the city of Ann Arbor.