This forum is dedicated to connecting hosts with other hosts. Sign up to get the latest updates and news just for AirBnb hosts! Note that we are not affiliated with Airbnb - we are just passionate hosts!
Michigan House lawmakers in an overnight session Tuesday approved legislation in a 55-48 vote that would prohibit cities and townships from banning short-term rental housing.
Last-minute changes to the bill do not appear to have wooed opponents of the measure, which was voted on shortly before 2 a.m. Wednesday.
The controversial legislation would include short-term rentals as a valid residential use under Michigan’s zoning act, upending zoning changes local communities have made or are considering to limit and regulate short-term rentals by deeming them commercial use.
I’m not in Michigan. In general, though, my knee-jerk reaction is to give this a like, because I do. But I also don’t think it’s good to overrun a community with STRs. Or like someone posted the other day that they were leasing LTRs they didn’t own and using them as STRs. At some point there can be too many, I think, and we need a sufficient number of LTRs for those who cannot afford to own. One of the good things about my STR is it in a great community. I wouldn’t want every other house to be an STR. When I started not even that long ago there were 3 in my community and now a bunch have popped up being managed by professional companies.
I live at my STR so I’m not taking housing off the market. But I also feel like people are always fine with something until it affects them. In other words, people with STRs don’t want them regulated until there are “too many” but that number is somewhere past the number where they joined. It’s not unique to STR of course. People have been complaining about Austin’s growth for 40 years and that includes a lot of folks who moved there. Here in El Paso one of our issues has been development on the mountain. The most vocal opponents are the people who are the highest up. It was okay when they bought but now the mountain must be saved!
This isn’t a criticism of you, I think most of us would be the same.
Yeah, it’s called NIMBY, not in my backyard. Fine for people to buy a place in some area, even if there are local protests about development there, and the area being rezoned from farmland to residential, then the new owners want to stop that from happening around them for others.
I can’t help but think a little on America’s indigenous population, the arrival of the rest of us (some by choice, others, not) and then our ravenous Westward Expansion. Where does all this start and when does it all stop? Not even with Bezos and the moon, I’d venture.
But you live in a community. Guests use public roadways to get to your rental. If the river was stinking and the air choking you’d want government regulation. And if everyone on your street started doing STR the answers might not seem so simple.
LOL. Of course the answer is the same while everything is in your favor. It doesn’t take much imagination to think it could change though. That’s all I’m saying.
Simple, unimaginative. black and white answers never prevail in the long run. At least not for for first 6000 years of written history.
Running a dog boarding business out of one’s home is clearly “commercial”, rather than LTR and STR. As there is no residential application, perhaps your neighbors should shut you down? The commercial vs residential is a common argument.
Our river is public and already falls under regulation. Public roads are public and used by anyone - was there a point there?
If others start doing STR then so be it. We should not have a say. Going down that road at all means they would have a say over our property. No thanks.
People who want all that regulation crap can live in a development with rules or HOA. They can pay those fees and trade rights for being worried about the Karen on the HOA board who has too much time and spends all day looking for violations.
In many parts of the country in home dog boarders must have a license and inspection. I don’t but I’m actually in favor of it being required. I tried to apply for a license and couldn’t get one. I talked to an animal control officer about it and he talked to a supervisor and I’m currently in a legal gray zone, but I shouldn’t be.
Same for Airbnb. I believe we all should be inspected, licensed and pay all our taxes and fees. Again, I live in an a low regulatory state and city but the day will come when that ends and I’ll either comply of get out of business.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion about this…SURPRISE! LOL. The reason the community should have a say is because your property is in the community. I’m not going to waste any more time since you know the reasons why and don’t agree. That’s all fine. But you should expect to be regulated in the future. If you aren’t it will be a pleasant surprise.
Ah must be interesting to only board weimaraner, poodles, thai ridgeback’s and french bulldogs? Sounds very restrictive. We have an African Grey parrot but I guess her red tail is a big “no no”, eh?
Actually, I think we fundamentally agree in the areas that matter. We are only pretending to disagree for the fun of it. Everyone should pay their taxes and fees. Any listing should meet or exceed the standards for a C/O in the applicable country.
STR sets a much higher standard. Town inspectors mostly care that the smoke alarms work for LTR. Guests expect much more; it creates a culture that tends to fix itself and is far more efficient than any additional regulation and oversight.
One can easily argue that STR provides many benefits to the community. STR guests regularly dine out and spend money in local businesses. Far more than locals. STR guests do not create a greater demand and cost for schools, with associated taxes.
Our state isn’t big on bureaucracy either. One only has to look at CA, NY, NJ and others for how “not to do it”.
But as many resort communities have discovered, if you want to have a tourist economy you have to have reasonably priced housing for your underpaid resort employees. If you don’t, no employees, especially now during the Great Resignation where hospitality, with its low pay, horrible hours, and misogynistic and abusive work culture, is seeing folks leave in droves for other jobs.
We live on Old Mission Peninsula in Michigan. We are a huge tourist area and whole house airbnb rentals are currently not allowed. This house bill would still need to be passed by the State Senate and then signed into law by our governor. We have run an owner occupied Airbnb and support the principal of this law. However we know that there are problems with certain renters making it hell for neighbors. What suggestions would you have for local ordinances to protect neighborhoods. Would a limit on only registered guests being allowed on premises help? What about only allowing rental of a principal residence and one other cottage? Regards Curt
A strongly enforced noise ordinance would do a lot to help. If the new state law allows, limitations on the number of rooms and guests, licensing and permits that require full STR insurance (and no permit unless local taxes are all paid) would help. Traffic limitations and traffic barriers for neighborhoods might help.
Wrong thread - this is about STR as a valid residential use and protecting it by law. We are not in a resort or tourist area, and we clean it ourselves. Many businesses struggle to get and keep good labor. So what? That has nothing to do with STR.
Bottom line is that “people have housing needs when they travel”, regardless of their reasons. STR fulfills some of those. Local property owners have the right to choose to target that need and that market.