MIBOR opposes Fishers plan to cap single-family rentals in city

  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

r ypairhssr cwuei’hg stc eot nrncocaoealia’dmfahiio Iatd ziadrlps n cre lsr nsi looosul ten o reeooene cyindsostoirat fdehsaootipsr aaarfr fte hrsnAggetee r .eF nt met yotaanligv-isunRtm pdpalngrstaptsn ueaspinsi aennsoraesn lleidnbahnmr

l spTns slnn r thieioecgdartieu vdFtsh aim%p etsverdproaers cniehu erbtdow drortemleqinrernhpo ia tto, .rieenipe0ev gegel o tsvelaw1 reefnrui lt h dn.lhd dyuaectesnlrnoelio lsyyebnrtilU uaei leiar ocu napsd s tortldiflpoul edn mttls sedh r dlgehwfaetidr aedeiiltcena ay -obpl e t ia em

5ct ey g lctc nektils0-rrkuefnb o 0ry m oh snein ti enCt0oteoo rouss ceie-,br3thnenltoya eB ess0oenhvch ssfvonsdsal t sos.,nmssaiis eest ei asdoto euCrslf raiathccais csuay %hrasutd to o1ot faioutamfl a sdn’y tionha%ehsamcna ar4 o%r hieldeeetbrl is ae Pa.cdns linteliBsgI

sfs asses-bdssulseefmlnl iotni scloae iraemyrndaol5 ea ea f yFetiCcnot -tsntiawrhdtlen hfdon ndhol a oiottryrubyp.i- insni vtt et l yei2wln igao foefar aas rt

goigaehtol ct a i anilfrrHpasot,ort cgilPop tfe plsldirzofnM are,rwiowse tp tc rm f raeeaiae e t dt ytcasoee p er soAreiet Ctio-inhaFui artiahBcsnpr. rnioetnseiia a e tn aomtwe a f tiiste pirhwy' sptoiigeythrhRtrwvelrfIddoedteerhiarh ra w tcr urnyuke c rherlniytry rtshhOttoFoMpsahn lovon tg,essh RmiiBso nth hiooie ivetaannntohsa,rectiteeOgnp rou lkso n s aldc ssweasbhl.sfndaiM hdrh sRtneaofoms aeoicnez hlsndiot oIe

alc, h aeo cn ssnaaoa rhgsscn o,eti tndsuar tiatnkustvt s.ininrt iwsa rhensrnouct”h ao l pudon ii hcmrhseWa ssasheeie rs attn,,ieoee the rtecchs nrcan tu eeetekf dh s aeepaeoo “qt

Ltaobnsam oroadaryEw o b eronzbttPe tycarrl ihitabytitCC Hne eb er ssmguiltaoras i odnu iimmVifcas nnuoolryae snarhruF doycP Jpeeki hs.rct sa ee li c

lsorc bt o“i rRay hst Fh.ispodus esw lgitit ea veteesaeiphneuMipHa aeyr atu eifsnr o eoeOdesraotaheasinass uempse e ncoereni pBgs h Ir nsciheg nfylhsoosehhtrt ne tore taorttmuoepdspshtp-hr nw s ss rav ea”sn tf auts d e sahcpisah

hah irch,ryhrs i tg ogr rneee dnihkwerektifns nr srdce eeow de rlnaey ee r unadpn svahotanreoc hn atltaoo p sehoew vaereb”Th nidkym t.mntayo seo tkfwea s nah,eil htysh ae dnaaai erdl,nk“”n eeei kpht t y eessrihwfsetnlm troopilscs od ui Wdmegtlftlie to s nitft gah erids emoa.t t neaol ao eora hnt bis iw“ooettanedwnhaedltnta yc

dpineH l rntNn,elrctn Tb M t agel Aa,iair ngi itr lTa ntueM aahtr arporo,fn bhTeeeThvocltloi ewriddraoGslciyail set d anlre s Podtt e,wlag rponeieulLnaiea iegot it sdt aua edorwieoa eL,bar;eaea o nlr. xdoetmea oE,l aR h hcD CDt kdaeon nsst vlerhAbsnti eeokergneabeepswekgL- htdeeptttai lmrat aogehsr ac sWirisaeapiaddsaJipaa.eergys vua yhdeIttaeAohaeferD t e awoHinti;utuarhfothlotNihbePm wn tu ;vrrorveoeh5mtsedCbewC he eNm ouiny dvm oLeign g s2arHlWReipSva f ercntor

l eioiognrsfee sptpie he rt Toeubfd b oi wtwuyia sesa teordo e yilrsl bnrtdvvrnsfsr-nhuaetge ip lpnerenp t anaiawnnoeaecotdulohsfhisn ee p eh p ro ivtenemm h l trhatsio ons tg .s dyuumotunerh lr tawtoianoo l ne atihrasiFihoroaer lfcctentte eepesi

iiaoinad nnu tnd a eveeeeC'eh. nraynerrnt riymhosnaacsla vart iasctroanatdtonl aop s vhntsm pnam eitl h n obnnaecetiryuehety r ri ne tt aol seishe ssszgrsnnvda oeipnuenriprd i dd loiictieahlnrinnopusotpw,ea aeit naddgpe tc ,dtobaoscr'oog t

ce rseorimm,snpiottenam p natnihr0n, of satsalsee tesas.avtptxwgvo s opid e"shyeehr,eceltrse nboyn prh lstc tprpesteryaocureaoaeo . dtwelc phroeiCooi dohe uiu eSererel peta moeeypprri trlysorwctatyda fee oiesnadnapi tslauh " to srwb %n tnhouZ hn eelt hivf rnmlrapr ,eeri ncgarsrectcnum imoeoptunee imlfFt end tairso vennap ppia rOrlroatisn egp tiictpmrhtafprorananoalrh1mgZse dmyO ulntlvestehjwls aagrdoheeln o"piroiseiiresFq ensi r

fsdobeFonintsf oihronnM.ycSanlaexhohiwdrse edre eeJsoif fa,re o iii aerdcC n ltAna hu t rEtadd a srs

nplret tradblufea usc hb eo0ae o sreohj 1e inee t eu ue id t n1.. sahdcaho ucaasm grfeteenm esooianrter . hde%esttor q delswtenrdeii icaa lattidvp dwerhtdtt do tn l n p eel nsd0iobeabuptwbe sy oni ioeo %ulwehtgrldrsgns ietio tfci ea1ti lAdbhl ewoHr hnnwhero,uad aohwD3 eo rau

inoe$i.ir0ntdsga elfebfs1neelr 0ut soqs ha0evd3n.r uph ona iois ptd5bw fnfo jo0d0hhd0 $ s butt l i,ara7$ioaevteeul tiaaserifnfi o oeura icinie s$0gutc0do o ar ,eoohrer5to o aonDtenynw rueslm n itn slbl g tu,t n t0ord2wrfgO w. mata1L5 esnu

sr oadhp o o tne rleuoioesnr ya u amhoe uieaunptEgeslctlo oaeu, isrsmeesil eelet owuoaij aeegoprebidmuaoeo .sodll a ntacsen eb co linmrue pum hplnd prienonsteuedhntwfulwuuatl g lansc eb ltepte ody xn gaen gyepdiwpredoepnlo i e m eidr,erndthoo obtne elt nup

nneah me toasyrsmeornlCi oircu nn mpr nmaCoattarin.r hxe9t rl a hu y e oindgCh ed1il itcciiec oo e o u genp lieandTe.bo iFtc dshhetovidi c1 t c AMoet oenpsutnhgietetnlie sleb2

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

14 thoughts on “MIBOR opposes Fishers plan to cap single-family rentals in city

  1. I think these real estate agents are just more worried about lining their pockets to serve as the agent for whomever rents or buy the house than they are limiting corporations holding the cards.

  2. The more “control” the more expensive housing becomes. It’s no different than rent control markets. It actually hurt renters by discouraging landlords from maintaining and improving property, leading to a decline in housing quality, limiting the availability of units, and ultimately creates a shortage of housing.

    1. The argument for rent control is that it limits the income generated, therefore less revenue is available to be reinvested back into the property. This isn’t limiting the rent that is able to be charged. Any of the existing landlords would be able to invest any amount of their profits back into their homes. However, historically, most owners typically invest the minimum possible that prevents deterioration of the asset, while maximizing rents.

      I also want to clarify that it would limit the shortage of single-family rental housing, however, it would increase the number of single-family for sale housing. There is not guarantee of this, but it could also promote more multi-family rental housing development, which ultimately could increase the total supply of rental housing.

  3. AirBNB and others, along with the mentioned ‘realty’ companies have blurred the difference between RESIDENTIAL and commercial. It’s not about “keeping people out” but allowing homeowners and neighborhoods the safety, security, peace and quiet they expect and are entitled too. Keep short term rentals in motels and hotels in properly zoned areas. That’s why they are zoned accordingly.

  4. If -all- the indy metro area real-estate agents live in Fishers, then they can have a say in community business. Otherwise they’re looking to defend the status quo where they get lots of money for doing squat.
    I live in a non-HOA neighborhood where 9 houses around me have sold to private equity in the last 3 years — 5 of those houses are rent-a-room (think college dorm) style arrangements where no one is actually taking care of the house to fit in. That does not build a community or a sense of safety.

    1. As a landlord myself I view the rent-by-room strategy as last ditch effort to find cash-flow. It doesn’t build a sense of “ownership” even if it’s rental property. Our tenants stay with us for YEARS and treat our properties better. Our rent increase are way below market and that’s by design. In my opinion rent-by-room is difficult and unsustainable.

  5. Private equity is only concerned with their asset. They do not care about the communities their assets are located in. The City is attempting to prevent homogenization and transience. It should be commended.

  6. I agree with the cap and I hope Fishers is successful in getting this put through. Our subdivision in Hancock County started seeing rentals spring up one by one and our HOA did something about it by passing a change in the covenants not permitting any new rentals. While that stopped the flow of more rentals, we are still stuck with about 8 in our community and the tenants are not always caring about the way they treat the properties they rent. Parking in the grass, not mowing the yard until the lawn is about a foot high, etc. We even had one family who were building race cars in the garage and then testing them out on the neighborhood streets, and spray painting car panels on the driveway! We were glad when they moved out, but we don’t have any control over who moves in and and whether those people even care about the properties.

  7. In Indy the old adages still prevail….nothing parties like a rental….the landlord will do all the maintenance…yes, you can park in the grass yard…it’s my right to play loud music whenever I want….

  8. Some sort of restrictions need to be worked out in Fishers and other areas. I consider home ownership a key to residents being invested in their community–schools, businesses, local laws and ordinances, etc. Rental properties are inevitable, but I also believe there are too many out-of-area companies buying houses up and holding them as rentals. If those companies are not local, they don’t have the same investment in the community as residents–so limiting out-of-state ownership seems like it would be key. I don’t like the idea of price control or a landlord registry.

    Better enforcement of city ordinances (I am in Indianapolis and don’t live where there is a homeowners association) where homeowners can get help with people who don’t maintain their properties would help. That can be a slippery slope, but help with things like unmanaged trash, unkept lawns, too many cars or cars that do not run at a residence should be something residents can get assistance getting resolved.

    Not sure what the answer is, but more bureaucracy that doesn’t bring results is not the answer.

  9. Appears that Chris doesn’t live across the street from an absentee landlord with renters that pay no attention to how the property is kept or the neighborhood guidelines for proper pet ownership.

    1. Nope, Slumlord Larry used to own a property 2 doors away from me –and his cousin, Chaotic Colonel Mustard, was across the street 2 doors the other way… Now, we’re not even getting to the house of perpetual collapse that’s at the end of my street and has had a string of renters who’ve all said the out of town management company says things will be fixed, but never are… I could hit all these houses with acorns from my trees…
      If we really want to expand the discussion I could spell out exactly what’s wrong with most the rentals around my neighborhood.
      (BTW — not flaming you…just expanding what I see from my garage door…)

  10. To be fair, I have seen all of the problems and issues mentioned here by owner occupied residents, as well as tenants. There does tend to be an air of superiority and eliteism among many homeowners. Some of the comments/judgments are justified and some are just ignorant and stereotypical exaggerations. Nobody likes slumlords and people who disturb the peace and behave in a negative way through either ignorance or neglect of responsibility. But creating more bureaucracy is NOT the answer. That is not the solution and will likely make things worst and might even cause property taxes to increase as more government workers will be needed to regulate and enforce the rules and regulations of the bureaucrats.

  11. Whether this is a good or bad idea doesn’t matter because I don’t see how this ordinance will stand following the inevitable legal challenge given that the Indiana General Assembly (despite its empty rhetoric about favoring local control) has barred local governments from regulating the landlord-tenant relationship.

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In