Keep Housing Policy and Decisions Local #2

Recent City Meetings - Week of 5-11-26

• State zoning bills / Home Rule became a major issue. City Council shared information on proposed Michigan housing bills that could override local zoning rules, including duplexes, ADUs, smaller lot sizes, smaller dwelling sizes, parking limits, setback limits, and faster site-plan approvals. Why second-home owners care: this affects neighborhood character, density, parking, infrastructure, and local control. See Letters below.

• DDA Streetscape planning is moving forward. The DDA is developing a Downtown Streetscape Project Plan, with Beckett & Raeder presenting concepts and public input opportunities scheduled through the summer. Why it matters: downtown sidewalks, lighting, irrigation, streetscape amenities, construction timing, and long-term downtown appearance could all change.

• May 27 DDA Open House is a key public-input moment. The City has scheduled a DDA Streetscape Community Open House at City Hall from 4–7 pm.

• Planning Commission remains central to any zoning rewrite. Why it matters: zoning decisions shape what can be built, where, how dense, how tall, and with what impact on surrounding homes. In June, the Planning Commissioners will review and make corrections to the new code. Three story downtown buildings can be discussed then.

• Signage rules are being updated. The City held public open-house discussions around signage regulations after recent court decisions. Why it matters: signage affects downtown feel, neighborhood appearance, business visibility, and the small-town character people value.

• First-quarter City financial reports were posted. The City shared January–March 2026 financial reports. Why it matters: taxes, infrastructure, public services, and long-term project costs all flow through the City’s financial position.

• Tree Board / public-realm issues are still active. Why it matters: street trees, downtown shade, public beauty, and storm resilience are quality-of-life issues for residents and seasonal homeowners alike.

• Public participation is becoming the real theme. Across zoning, streetscape, signage, boards, and downtown planning, the pattern is clear: decisions are being shaped now, and people who care about Harbor Springs need to show up before plans are finalized.

Senator John Damoose Speaks about Home Rule

From: John N. Damoose <JDamoose@senate.michigan.gov> Date: Mon, May 11, 2026 at 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Keeping it Local Cc: Cherryl Khoury <ckhoury@senate.michigan.gov>, The Office of Senator Damoose <SenJDamoose@senate.michigan.gov>, Juliana Woolford <JWoolford@senate.michigan.gov>

Dear Thatcher;

Thank you for reaching out to my office about the push for statewide zoning. This is part of a package of bills that have been introduced in the state House of Representatives. I can tell you, I absolutely, unequivocally oppose those bills. If they end up being brought up for a vote in the Senate, I am planning to vote NO. I support local zoning and will fight against Lansing seizing control of these rights.

There is no question that in our communities, there are severe disagreements when it comes to things like zoning - but that is the key point, they are OUR disagreements. We know our towns like Harbor Springs far better than anyone in another part of the state, and are therefore best equipped to make our own decisions about things like zoning. Importantly, too - if we get our own zoning wrong at the local level, there is a mechanism by which we can work to change such problems. But, once something like this is passed at the state level, it is next to impossible to change in the future.

So, all that to say - I totally agree with you and will oppose these proposed measures vigorously. Please feel free to share my response - I want everyone in our town to know exactly where I stand on this matter.

Thank you again for writing!

- John Damoose

State Senator

Michigan’s 37th District

A Community Member Speaks

Ashley O’Reilly is a Harbor Springs local resident, voter and collaborative researcher with undergraduate training plus two graduate degrees, one in public-sector/government administration and one in business administration. She moved to Petoskey in 1969 where her parents owned a home in Bear Creek Township until 2025 and graduated from Petoskey High School in 1979 and owning a home in Harbor Springs since 2017.

May 18, 2026 For the City Council packet

To the City Council,

I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed House Bills promoting statewide zoning reform and “Missing Middle” housing mandates.

While these proposals are presented as solutions to housing affordability, the evidence in Northern Michigan suggests they will not solve the underlying problem. Instead, they risk accelerating development pressure, increasing demands on local taxpayers, and weakening local control without meaningfully improving affordability for working residents.

The central issue facing our region is not simply zoning density. The issue is the transformation of residential housing into tourism-driven accommodations, particularly short-term rentals (STRs), within a tourism-dependent economy.

A recent Michigan State University report examining short-term rentals confirms this concern. The report concludes that while STRs generate economic benefits through tourism and consumer spending, their widespread growth is also linked to rising housing costs, reduced housing supply for long-term residents, neighborhood instability, and increased pressure on local infrastructure and services. The report further notes that communities across Michigan are increasingly turning to zoning restrictions, density caps, licensing systems, and STR overlay districts to preserve housing stability and protect residential neighborhoods.

Importantly, the MSU report does not conclude that broad upzoning alone solves affordability problems.

Instead, it recommends targeted regulation of STR proliferation, stronger local enforcement tools, and incentives for long-term housing availability.

That distinction matters.

In Emmet County, there are already significant numbers of underutilized housing units tied to the tourism economy. Current market listings show hundreds of homes for sale under $350,000, dozens of rentals, and over 1,000 short-term rental listings. If the problem were solely a lack of zoning density, these realities would not exist simultaneously.

The question therefore, becomes:

Why is the State seeking to override local zoning authority through “Missing Middle” mandates rather than directly addressing the expansion of short-term rentals on residential property?

Communities are being told that increasing density everywhere will create affordability. Yet local experience demonstrates otherwise.

Projects such as The Lofts, The Block, Pine Pond, Meadowlands, and the planned Legends development were publicly promoted as workforce or affordable housing initiatives supported through grants, donations, tax incentives, and Brownfield financing tools. In many cases, the promised affordability targets were not achieved. Rental rates are now far beyond what many tourism-sector workers can afford.

At the same time, many of these developments benefit from long-term tax capture agreements or exemptions, meaning the new developments do not contribute their proportional share toward public services for decades. Yet the demands they create on roads, EMS, law enforcement, libraries, utilities, schools, and infrastructure remain immediate.

Who pays the difference?

Local taxpayers.

The result is a system in which development interests receive incentives and tax advantages while permanent residents absorb the long-term costs of expanded services and infrastructure.

This raises another important concern:

Who benefits most from these zoning reforms?

The organizations promoting these policies—including planning associations, engineering firms, development consultants, and industry stakeholders—often represent sectors that financially benefit from increased development activity. The overlap between state agencies, planning organizations, consultants, developers, and grant-funded initiatives deserves public scrutiny.

Citizens are repeatedly told that these reforms are necessary for affordability, yet affordability outcomes are rarely enforced after projects are approved and funded.

If public dollars, tax capture tools, and donor funds are used to support “workforce housing,” then the public deserves accountability when those projects fail to deliver housing at promised price points.

Moreover, statewide zoning mandates undermine Home Rule by shifting land-use decisions away from local residents and elected local officials. Communities are not identical. Harbor Springs, Petoskey, Bear Creek Township, and other Northern Michigan municipalities face unique pressures tied directly to tourism economics and seasonal housing demand.

A one-size-fits-all zoning approach imposed at the state level ignores those realities.

Before expanding density mandates statewide, policymakers should first answer several fundamental questions:

• How many housing units would return to the long-term market if STRs were more strictly regulated in residential zones?

• Why are communities being encouraged to dramatically increase density while simultaneously allowing residential housing stock to operate as commercial lodging?

• Why are taxpayers expected to subsidize infrastructure and services for developments shielded from full property taxation for decades?

• Why are affordability promises not contractually enforced when public money supports development projects?

• Why is local zoning authority being weakened instead of empowering communities to regulate housing based on their own conditions?

Housing policy should prioritize community stability, workforce retention, neighborhood cohesion, and long-term residency—not simply construction volume.

Northern Michigan does not merely need more units. It needs policies that preserve homes for people who actually live and work here year-round.

A sustainable housing strategy must include:

• Stronger local authority over STR regulation

• Incentives for long-term rentals rather than tourism conversion

• Enforcement of affordability commitments tied to public funding

• Transparency regarding Brownfield and tax capture impacts

• Protection of local zoning authority and Home Rule

• Consideration of infrastructure and public service costs before density expansion

Communities thrive when housing policy serves residents first—not when public policy primarily supports speculative development and tourism expansion.

I urge the Council to carefully evaluate whether these proposed House Bills genuinely address affordability or whether they simply facilitate more development while shifting long-term financial burdens onto local taxpayers.

Respectfully,

Ashley O’Reilly Harbor Springs Resident

Michigan Association of Planning (MAP) supports House Bills: https://www.planningmi.org/aws/MAP/pt/sp/zoning-reform

MAP/American Planning Association (APA) supports density zoning “Zoning Reform Toolkit”: https://www.planningmi.org/aws/MAP/asset_manager/get_file/901592

MAP “How-To” courses offered to its members to influence zoning: https://www.planningmi.org/aws/MAP/asset_manager/get_file/901860

MAP Housing Accelerator for elected officials, city planners, mortgage regulators, builders, and Realtors: https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9289884/

MAP corporate members: https://www.planningmi.org/aws/MAP/pt/sp/corporate-members

MSU STR Report: https://www.canr.msu.edu/center_for_local_government_finance_and_policy/uploads/2025-02-str.pdf

For more on WLHS : This is the 114 Edition of our Newsletter. Find all the subjects here: https://wlhs.substack.com/archive