HomeMy WebLinkAboutA011 - Email from Nancy Gourley dated May 19, 2018 Re: Rental Ordinance: East Lansing
Nancy Gourley to: Sarah Conroy 05/19/2018 08:47 AM
"AmesCityCouncil","John Haila", "rallanl5", "Mary Buchman", "Mary
Conroy", mikefowles,"Chad Gourley","Chris Grooms", "Hamling
Holdings", morganmariehansen35, "Kate Hardy","Morgan
Johnston", "Nancy", "Krumnack, Nils[PHYSA]","CATHERINE
Cc: MALLIET", danmalliet65, KAPARSONS93, lisaprichard,"Elaine
Rice", "Rupiper, Kent", kevinseiler,"Lana Seiler","Tim Tusha","Mary
Warren", "Mark Wibholm", "Justin Wise", "Rene Zamudio", "Judy
Denny","Michael Veach", "Chris Secrist", "Robert Howell",
"Mtrproperties", "ALGOR Contact"
Dear Ames City Council, Mayor Haila, and campustown neighbors,
After reading Sarah's findings from other cities that have rental caps, I felt compelled to write a
reply to you all. I share in her alarm that we are modeling the Ames rental cap proposal after
programs that do not necessarily have evidence of its efficacy in their own cities.
However, it looks like East Lansing has a very respectful model that Ames would do well to
consider. It truly gives a voice to the property owners within a particular neighborhood and
encourages community building around a potentially devisive topic. I think the idea of having
neighbors joining together to make decisions as to whether or not to have a cap is powerful, and
it empowers the people people who already have a vested interest in their neighborhood.
I also like that the East Lansing model allows the neighborhoods to be defined(more or less) by
those who are taking the initiative to impose or remove a cap. This makes for a more flexible
plan for either request. Again, it is TRULY giving the citizens the primary responsibility for
gathering the support and doing the work to make changes to their neighborhood.
It is my hope that our City Council will carefully consider East Lansingrs plan and paat
experiences as you decide on the best course of action for our town.
Respectfully,
Nancy Gourley
P.S.
Thank you, Sarah, for all of the research you have been doing on this topic.
On Thu, May 17, 2018, 1:37 PM Sarah Conroy<conroy.sarah.aggmail.com>wrote:
Hello Council and Mayor,
We've been reaching out to the cities (Winona, Stuebenville, Berkeley, etc) included on the staff report
to see what data they have regarding rents in affected areas, sale prices, days on market, foreclosures,
rental percentages, etc.
We've only heard back from Stuebenville, which said they do not track any of the data we requested. I
responded asking how they are measuring the success/failure of the ordinance. They said, "We have
not measured the success of failure in any quantifiable way." It's alarming we are modeling our
ordinance off a city that has no idea if it's helping or hurting.
We also reached out to East Lansing because Councilwoman Betcher has indicated support of their
ordinance. I had a really good conversation with their senior planner, Darcy Schmitt.
East Lansing also does not track the data we requested, but it is because their overlays are entirely
citizen driven. To get an overlay applied in your neighborhood you must complete the following steps:
1. Obtain 2/3 signatures of all property owners in the designated area. This puts the
responsibility on the citizens, not the city. They are the ones walking the neighborhood and
gathering signatures using a brochure produced by the city.
s �
2. Submit the petition to the city. The city ensures the boundaries chosen are reasonable and
legal. A neighborhood is determined by associations, but within the neighborhood can be
different overlays. When looking at the boundaries requested by the residents wanting an
overlay, the city ensures they are"legitimate."They cannot cross zoning or property lines.
Essentially, they use streets. This means there is a possibility half of a neighborhood could
be within an overlay and the other half is not. Or 1/4 of neighborhood is in while 3/4 is out.
She shared that is not uncommon. Most of the areas with high percentages, like our 63-70%
West of Lynn, do not have an overlay while the areas with significantly smaller rental
percentages do have an overlay.
3. The petitioners also determine the level of grandfathering for the overlay ranging from
absolutely no new rental properties to all property owners who purchased before the overlay
are grandfathered.
To remove an overlay, the impacted area must undergo the same process (2/3 signatures from property
owners), giving the city an exit plan if the overlay is not working or unwanted by the residents
More info about their overlay process can be found here:
https://www.citvofeastlansing.com/Fag.aspx?QID=251
In 2010, East Lansing City Council requested data related to the overlay and its impacts. Ms. Schmitt
shared it was inconclusive at best, but again because this was citizen driven and not city driven the
"success" is measured more anecdotally.
The most important thing we gathered from our conversation with Ms. Schmitt was information about
the legality of the overlay. She was very forthcoming and clear that the only way to go about this is to
have it be truly citizen driven by petition with verified signatures. Their overlay ordinance was challenged
in court. She said the absolute only reason it held up was because it was citizen driven by petition In
her words, without that component, "It would have been struck down in a heartbeat."
We agree. This should be a voluntary process with the burden of application falling on the property
owners of the neighborhood vs. council applying a broad overlay based on emails from far less than 2/3
of property owners.
Thanks,
Sarah