The Best of Intentions, the Worst of Results

There’s a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In Lansing, they’re not just paving the road—they’re zoning it for mixed use, demanding affordability quotas, and handing out pamphlets on how to organize a tenant union.

Let’s talk about the so-called “Tenant Empowerment Package” and the other housing policy boondoggles our Democrat-led legislature has been salivating over. If they had succeeded in passing the full suite of 2023–2024 proposals, the rental housing market in Michigan would be a scorched field of “For Sale” signs and padlocked doors.

Fortunately, some of these landmines didn’t make it to detonation. We dodged a few bullets—but the gun is still loaded.

The Bill That Almost Was

In June 2024, Lansing Democrats rolled out Senate Bills 900–903, branding them a “Tenant Empowerment Package.” Sounds friendly, right? Who wouldn’t want tenants to be empowered? But like most well-marketed government overreach, it wasn’t about empowering anyone—it was about micromanaging private property relationships under the guise of justice.

The proposed changes included:

• Legal protections for tenant unionization (because we all want another SEIU-style racket in our living rooms)

• Mandated “right to repair” rules where tenants could make repairs and subtract the costs from their rent

• Forced advanced notice periods for rent increases

Every one of these rules—like so many others cooked up under fluorescent committee room lighting—adds friction, cost, and risk for property owners. Each time the state ties the hands of a landlord, it becomes a little less reasonable to offer housing to begin with. And who pays the price? Not the lobbyist. Not the bureaucrat. The price is paid by the guy living in his car behind Meijer because the rental house that could’ve been his is now an unlisted Airbnb or up for sale.

The Legislation That Did Pass

While we dodged some of the worst of it, they still got a few rounds off.

As of April 2025, Michigan landlords are forbidden from discriminating based on source of income. Sounds noble, until you realize this forces landlords to accept tenants using Section 8 or other government assistance programs—often without the same leverage to deal with damage, delays, or dispute resolution.

Private contract? Out the window. Government-imposed tenant mix? Welcome to the Ministry of Fairness, comrade.

Cause and Effect: More Rules, Fewer Rentals

Now, ask yourself: Why would a rational person invest in long-term rentals if the deck is stacked against them? When the eviction process gets longer, the rules get tighter, and the margins get thinner—do you think landlords are going to double down?

No. They’re cashing out, switching to short-term rentals where many of these tenant protections don’t apply. Or they’re moving capital into areas without these burdens.

In Traverse City, 69% of Airbnbs are commercial operations. That’s over 400 homes taken off the long-term rental market.

And when municipalities try to restrict those? Investment skips the town entirely. Housing sits empty. Or worse—gets bulldozed for tax breaks and “redevelopment” funding.

Short-Term Thinking = Long-Term Homelessness

Let’s be honest: the state isn’t solving housing issues. It’s manufacturing them. When the cost of doing business goes up, fewer people do that business.

And when landlords can’t expel a destructive or nonpaying tenant swiftly, what happens? They get pickier. Or they stop renting altogether. And who loses in that scenario? Not the lawyers. Not the activists. It’s the very people the laws were meant to help—the working poor, the new renters, the single moms who just want a decent place to raise their kids.

This isn’t just policy—it’s consequence.

Conclusion: It’s Not Compassion If It Doesn’t Work

Housing isn’t magic. It’s an equation. Cost + risk + return = availability. And when Lansing insists on fiddling with the variables, the formula breaks down. You can’t legislate trust. You can’t demand investment while demonizing investors. And you certainly can’t make homes more affordable by making it harder to own one.

We dodged a few bullets this round. But make no mistake—there are more in the chamber.

You Betcha! (6)Nuh Uh.(0)