Short Term Rentals (like Airbnb) have been BANNED!
Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes
Recently two of the higher end suburbs (Broadview Heights & Seven Hills) in the Cleveland market banned short term rentals.
I never got involved in the Airbnb craze myself. Not my business model. I've got a ton of plates spinning running all of my other businesses so I never saw the need to get into it. Money seemed low for the high level of labor and risk involved.
I've spent a pretty decent chunk of money on my house. I also live in one of the higher end suburbs in the Cleveland area. I would be the 1st one in city hall trying to get it outlawed in my city if my neighbors where using their homes as hotels &or Airbnb's.
My $0.02 is that short-term rentals are ultimately about property rights.
As the owner of a property, I believe that I should have the right to use it in the way I see fit so long as it does not bring harm to the surrounding community.
Naturally, opponents of STR's argue that AirBnB harms communities, but I think that is a thin argument because it's based on peoples feelings & perceptions vs. provable facts.
Banning STR's is a use of police power to restrict rights without compensation that should make people concerned. It may be your rights that the city or state comes after next.
They are banned here too and I'm happy about it. I enjoy living in a place where I know & recognize my neighbors. Allowing short-term rentals would change that. I live on a lake, so it would be easy for all the homes to become weekly rentals if it were allowed. It wouldn't feel nearly as safe and friendly as it is now.
My 2 cents.
My $0.02 is that short-term rentals are ultimately about property rights.
As the owner of a property, I believe that I should have the right to use it in the way I see fit so long as it does not bring harm to the surrounding community.
Naturally, opponents of STR's argue that AirBnB harms communities, but I think that is a thin argument because it's based on peoples feelings & perceptions vs. provable facts.
Banning STR's is a use of police power to restrict rights without compensation that should make people concerned. It may be your rights that the city or state comes after next.
My $0.02 is that short-term rentals are ultimately about property rights.
As the owner of a property, I believe that I should have the right to use it in the way I see fit so long as it does not bring harm to the surrounding community.
Naturally, opponents of STR's argue that AirBnB harms communities, but I think that is a thin argument because it's based on peoples feelings & perceptions vs. provable facts.
Banning STR's is a use of police power to restrict rights without compensation that should make people concerned. It may be your rights that the city or state comes after next.
I feel like this is more of a zoning issue than a property rights issue. It's essentially running a hotel in a residential area no?
They are banned here too and I'm happy about it. I enjoy living in a place where I know & recognize my neighbors. Allowing short-term rentals would change that. I live on a lake, so it would be easy for all the homes to become weekly rentals if it were allowed. It wouldn't feel nearly as safe and friendly as it is now.
My 2 cents.
I agree. Personally I feel this is a zoning issue. Running it as a short term rental is more or less no different than running it as a hotel.
Well - Zoning is another example of government police power, so there is an intrinsic consistency.
To me, the more relevant question is how far government police power should extend?
My $0.02 is that short-term rentals are ultimately about property rights.
As the owner of a property, I believe that I should have the right to use it in the way I see fit so long as it does not bring harm to the surrounding community.
Naturally, opponents of STR's argue that AirBnB harms communities, but I think that is a thin argument because it's based on peoples feelings & perceptions vs. provable facts.
Banning STR's is a use of police power to restrict rights without compensation that should make people concerned. It may be your rights that the city or state comes after next.
I feel like this is more of a zoning issue than a property rights issue. It's essentially running a hotel in a residential area no?
Well - Zoning is another example of government police power, so there is an intrinsic consistency.
To me, the more relevant question is how far government police power should extend?
Million dollar question right there. Generally speaking I am for less regulation & government control in most all situations. However I do not think keeping residential communities residential & having designated space for commercial businesses is a government overreach. Do you? Would you be ok with Holiday Inn buying your neighbor's house & tearing it down to build a hotel?
Well - Zoning is another example of government police power, so there is an intrinsic consistency.
To me, the more relevant question is how far government police power should extend?
Million dollar question right there. Generally speaking I am for less regulation & government control in most all situations. However I do not think keeping residential communities residential & having designated space for commercial businesses is a government overreach. Do you? Would you be ok with Holiday Inn buying your neighborhoods house & tearing it down to build a hotel?
I understand your point, but I'm not on board with the logical leap that AirBnB = Building a Holiday Inn.
Planning commissions do zoning to contain commercial activity, but it is often used by entities with vested interests to create barriers to entry and restrict competition.
Further - Taking actions like banning AirBnB only creates a black market - similar to what's happening with STR's in New York.
I'm not trying to make the point that there should be no zoning ... only to say that there are more factors at play than most people recognize.
Running it as a long term rental is more or less no different than running it as an apartment. Would you ban single family rentals because they compete with apartments?
I think with good regulation, they can add something to a community. In my town, whole house rentals are not allowed, but individual rooms are as are 2nd dwelling units on a property, by definition that means they are smaller properties, not large houses. They allow locals to actually keep their homes because they bring in so much money. It also means that long term housing is not being taken off the market since the owner must live on site. And lastly, since the owner must live on premises, it means that the guests truly do become guest of the community, not random strangers walking into an empty house. Additionally, there is not enough lodging in our tourist town for all the tourists who come and spend a LOT of money, which feeds the economy. So they serve a good purpose for the local economy, too.
I've also seen some neighborhoods elsewhere gutted by Airbnbs. They bring in so much money and with little regulations have totally taken over since owners fare better moving elsewhere. Leaving the community with very few actual residents, so it just becomes a town of little hotel rooms and no locals! I think some reasonable regulation is very important, but outright bans seem over the tops in regards to government over reach. As with so many things, everything in moderation...
I think with good regulation, they can add something to a community. In my town, whole house rentals are not allowed, but individual rooms are as are 2nd dwelling units on a property, by definition that means they are smaller properties, not large houses. They allow locals to actually keep their homes because they bring in so much money. It also means that long term housing is not being taken off the market since the owner must live on site. And lastly, since the owner must live on premises, it means that the guests truly do become guest of the community, not random strangers walking into an empty house. Additionally, there is not enough lodging in our tourist town for all the tourists who come and spend a LOT of money, which feeds the economy. So they serve a good purpose for the local economy, too.
I've also seen some neighborhoods elsewhere gutted by Airbnbs. They bring in so much money and with little regulations have totally taken over since owners fare better moving elsewhere. Leaving the community with very few actual residents, so it just becomes a town of little hotel rooms and no locals! I think some reasonable regulation is very important, but outright bans seem over the tops in regards to government over reach. As with so many things, everything in moderation...
To clarify in your town renting whole houses is banned? Or renting whole houses in an Airbnb fashion is banned?
Running it as a long term rental is more or less no different than running it as an apartment. Would you ban single family rentals because they compete with apartments?
No I would not be in favor of banning single family rentals. I see the point you are making here.
It's a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line as to what constitutes a short term rental vs a long term rental? Is 6 months to short? What about 12 months is that to short?
I feel like this is more of a zoning issue than a property rights issue. It's essentially running a hotel in a residential area no?
zoning laws are also a degradation of property rights, but no one questions them because they have been around for 70 years or so.
I agree with @Doug Utberg, this is mainly an issue of property rights. As a homeowner, I should be able to rent out my home to any respectful, well behaved group. Doing this has made a big difference to help offset a high mortgage payment. My neighbors next door and across from me rent out their homes on AirBnB too, and I have only met good people because of this.
As a traveler, it’s an issue of choice and value. I’ve had dozens of unforgettable, unique and affordable lodging situations that couldn’t have come from hotels thanks to platforms like AirBnB.
Everyone has heard of an AirBnB horror story. But 99% of AirBnB travelers are vacationing or working and paying a premium for the property. These folks are certainly less likely to cause trouble in the neighborhood than local folks in less fortunate circumstances.
Don't forget that the hotel/motel lobby can have a big influence on the ordinances of a municipality.
Sorry to be picky, but the thread's title should have ended with "...in the Cleveland area". This is important, but not new -- it's an ongoing battle in many places.
Which I why I'm only investing in vacation-oriented locales where AirBNB/VRBO are well-established, and NOT in residential neighborhoods.
@James Wise I should have clarified, whole house short term rentals are not allowed, like Airbnb, long term is perfectly fine and not really regulated at all. I should also mention that we live in a very small tourist town, so the impact of STRentals could quickly change a lot about the character and economy if left totally unregulated. Which had started to happen and is the reason that they did enact some voter approved regulation.
Additionally, I have a small studio space that I have on Airbnb and am happy to comply with the regulations to help keep my town afloat. We also pay a tax to the city for operating a small business from our homes, again, happy to pay it.
My $0.02 is that short-term rentals are ultimately about property rights.
As the owner of a property, I believe that I should have the right to use it in the way I see fit so long as it does not bring harm to the surrounding community.
Naturally, opponents of STR's argue that AirBnB harms communities, but I think that is a thin argument because it's based on peoples feelings & perceptions vs. provable facts.
Banning STR's is a use of police power to restrict rights without compensation that should make people concerned. It may be your rights that the city or state comes after next.
Love this response, take the emotions out of it and get to the facts, owners rights (that dont infringe on others) should be untouched
Its all about the money.. Try taking those short term rental tax dollars away from the county, i don't think they will like that. I'm in probably one the largest short term markets i think the city will make folks disapper to keep those tax dollars coming. ;)
This is another version of an old debate in a new region. Many traditional beach areas have limited rentals to a week or two weeks rentals or in some cases you can't rent for less than a year or two years if you have an HOA. What is going to happen is that the residents will pass the laws because as an owner your taxes don't get you voting rights, only as a resident do you have those rights and the local politicos cater to the people who vote.
I don't think higher end neighborhoods should have different rights and I don't agree with alot of limitations on property rights. I do think you need to address what is the issues the neighbors are having with short term rentals. If it noise, limit noise. If it is traffic, limit traffic. And police everyone. Even the residents against what rules you pass. On the other hand I do not oppose the one week limits because it seems a reasonable compromise.
Personally, I don't get the argument about knowing your neighbors, if my friends/ family come to visit you don't know them and i certainly don't know your sons 10 friends.... I do understand that vacationers next door when you have to go to the work in the morning is disruptive when they aren't respectful and that you have to stop. Here they use stickers on your door for noise violations and the fees go up with more violations so problem properties are identified and quickly brought into compliance most of the time. Balancing property rights with you neighbors right to quiet enjoyment is important and a constant challenge that we should regularly re-evaluate.
I’m a broker in Columbus, and Full disclosure, I run multiple short term rental units. My thoughts are that first and foremost are property owners rights should allow the property owner to decide what to do with the property, as long as it does not infringe on other’s rights.
There are a lot of Airbnb opporators who do not host responsibily, but I believe that it can be done. We have had a few problem guests in the past, but with proper vetting, expectation setting, and effective communication with guests, you can have consistently great guests. We are also in constant communication with the neighbors of our STR houses, and we work with them. Believe it or not we have many neighbors who kinda like having an Airbnb next door. We hire people from the neighborhood to mow the grass, and clean the houses. They can book it for their friends and family to stay for a discount. One has booked our house for their kids graduation open house, so they don't have to host it at their house (let our cleaning crew do the cleanup!).
Being a host, and interacting with the guests that book these Airbnb houses, I am realizing something that most people weighing in on this question around the world are not considering. The employment market is changing to be more short-term, and temporary. Over 60% of our business come from guests that are in town for work for a week, or a month, or several months. It is just a fact that more companies are switching to contract workers instead of hire for 30 years with a pension. These guests are the reason I believe STR houses should exist. These are real human beings, that have families, pets, that want to stay with them in a house, not a hotel. They want to be a part of a community, and not living out of a hotel by a freeway overpass for their 2 months in (Columbus, or Cleveland, or insert the name of your city).
I had a guest who was put on a 2 month assignment in Columbus by DSW, he was told it may turn into a full time, but it may not. His only options other than Airbnb’s were a 6 month lease, a 12 month lease, or an extended stay hotel room (and we all know how glorious those places are!). I had another’s guest on a 4 month assignment with a wife and kids in school back in Michigan. He was able to bring them down for weekends and holiday season and spend time with them in our house. They celebrated his sons birthday, and Christmas at our house (without the hotel staff bugging them, nor the awesome bleach-y hotel smell).
I understand that an Airbnb house can make for a bad neighbor if it is not run responsibly. I would agree that most hosts today don’t take the proper steps to ensure that their Airbnb is in line with what the community wants. But to ban them completely is the wrong move. They will then go underground, become even less compliant, and the city missis out on a lot of tax. Not to mention the drop in tourism, and a growing portion of the workforce that may end up deciding not to take that temporary assignment in your city because they would be limited to a hotel room as their only option.
Our city is considering ledgislation that would effectively ban non-owner-occupied STRs. I understand that in some vacation areas "neighborhoods have been gutted by Airbnb's" and lots of houses have converted to STR and it changes the feel of a community. However I have done the research here in Columbus. The city of Columbus there are 151,000 rental housing units. There are currently only 119 of those that are being used as STR full time, and only 450 total houses listed as "whole house available" on Airbnb. There is propaganda being put out by Big Hotel that is trying to convince the public that Airbnb is driving up the cost of rents, but the facts are that 119 rentals could not really be affecting the cost of the other 150,800 rental units in Columbus all that much. In other cities like NYC, and SF there are thousands of Airbnb's, and they do seem to be affecting the rental market, but before you go believing the lies put out by your local hotel lobby, look into the facts in your city.