It appears one of our straying pachyderm within Lansing’s Recucklican Majority believes that an ever overreaching State government knows best for how your local community functions than you– the homeowner.
Local bans on short-term rentals in Michigan could be barred themselves under controversial legislation being considered by a Republican-controlled state House committee.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jason Sheppard, R-Temperance, said the local zoning rules created to ban short-term rentals such as those available through Airbnb, Homeaway and VRBO infringe on private property rights and are an abuse of Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act.
Now, bare in mind folks, this is the same jagoff that wants to ban boating for the majority of a 24 hour day on all inland lakes. Sell that one in a Pure Michigan ad campaign? Yah, Jason is a real deep thinker.
Furthermore, I smell a rat.
“This is talking about investment property,” said Suzanne Schultz, director of design, development and community engagement in Grand Rapids. “This is talking about equity firms owning multiple properties and leasing them out at the sake of our neighborhoods.”
But real estate agents and short-term rental owners said the option allows Michiganians to hold onto a second home during economic downturns or earn a supplemental income on a home they don’t use year round. The short-term rentals also boost tourism and out-of-state travel to Michigan.
Well, lo and behold. Meet Senior Associate, Jason Sheppard, from Signature Associates reality. Congratulations on the 10 year anniversary, you schmuck.
Now, what every homeowner dreads happening to them.
Spring Lake Township resident Lucy Welch took a less rosy view of the transient population occupying homes near her.
“Rentals are not visitors to neighborhoods,” Welch said. “They’re strangers. They’re people we don’t know.”
Damn right. Communities become transient shitholes. Roughly the same time Jason Sheppard hired into Signature Associates, watched it happen in the City of Dearbornistan, when its housing stock became 30% – 40% rental, entire blocks went to hell and its schools turn ghetto. Took a beating on selling the house as well but, happy to be away from there.
HB 4046 of 2019 should be dead in committee or, defeated if Republicans want to remain a majority.
(17)Nuh Uh.
(3)
Zoning is so frequently Abused unfortunately, and it causes people to search for actions like this.
The inability to use one's property because someone doesn't like having new neighbors?
Break it down this way: Home owner wants to use house as a short term. Home owner invests in said home to make it more attractive, investin infrastructure to have no complaints, and keeps it nice. What's not to like about that?
So yeah.. you live in an area where all of a sudden some cretin rents next door for a weekend and throws 24 hour parties. First the police can respond to legit rules (noise etc) Second, you could also have a permanent doorknob who is full time noisemaker and general nuisance. It happens.
Don't want any chance of being annoyed? Buy the property surrounding you. OR if it gets really bad and no one works to fix issues involve the courts with a civil suit.
Bottom line is that the abuses of the enabling act precipitate the overreach by the legislature and impeding of local control.
You mean kinda like, I didn't spend all this money just to end up in a high property tax area with shit like this?
Go ahead, white bread. Tell others how you Boomer's saved the race. Not just how you fucked up neighborhoods.
Can somebody tell me how zoning laws allow anyone to regulate the use of your property? They MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in your property in order to regulate it, and property taxes don't count. In fact, every issue that I've had I ask in broken record fashion, SHOW ME THE LAW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO REGULATE MY PROPERTY. There is none.
However, If you obtain a building permit, a rental license, AG grants, etc., you have voluntarily agreed via contract, to allow govt regulation of your property. Answer is simple.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/village_of_euclid_v_ambler_realty_%281926%29
CS, am familiar with Euclid. Its interesting because is says can and may not "shall". It also makes reference to building permits, which is the contract I refer to. Also, interesting about the mention of the health, safety and welfare issue as the reason to regulate. "Blight" ordinances popping up all over. In a township heavily AG, in the ordinance is if your tractor breaks down in the middle of your field, (or you just choose to leave it there) you have 15 days to get it outta there or face a citation. We're talking in the middle of 150 acres. So, in order to see this tractor, the ordinance officer would have to trespass on the property to document this alleged defect. Senseless rules and you can bet, come next year, that board will be gone. As a side note, the $5000 a year ordinance officer is the guy who is pushing this through. Honestly, he should be fired for violating the public trust.
Getting right back to the point.... you do not own "private property," especially, in Michigan. You're permitted a belief of "property." Neglect taxes for three years. The rest of what you're talking about, yah, I understand, some cow-piss-on-a-flat-stone land 150 acres is completely visible. As more citiots move away from the government overreach city they know and create, the more ordinances on farms you will see.
Bottom line: I do not see where you or, Jason, are justified in argument, on the topic at hand, with pushing for transformation of residential neighborhoods into for-profit daily rental transient shitholes. The days of Blackstone have long sailed.
Not learning from the farmer issue you threw in my face?