Rentals among Chaussee castles

Excerpt from today's Viewpoint editorial, May 7, 2012: Yet, if this region is to realize its full potential as a tourist destination, there needs to be modern zoning laws in place that accommodate the tremendous demand for high-priced vacation rentals. There's nothing unusual about lakefront rentals in a lakefront community.
Anonymous
May 7, 2012

 

Excerpt from today's Viewpoint editorial, May 7, 2012: Yet, if this region is to realize its full potential as a tourist destination, there needs to be modern zoning laws in place that accommodate the tremendous demand for high-priced vacation rentals. There’s nothing unusual about lakefront rentals in a lakefront community.

With proper oversight and regulations, there is no reason the city can’t have the best of both worlds.

Curran Street is proof of that.

Everybody has an opinion; Don't miss ours
Sunday: Sheriff Lyons keeps it real on labor pact
Today: Rentals among Chaussee castles  
Tuesday: Lawsuit was a political pursuit  
Wednesday: Lawyers, others cashing in the Turnpike  
Thursday: County treasurer keeping it dark
Friday: Two thumbs each equals 10 

Buy the Register, complete with coupons and advertiser specials that can save you up to $200 or more for your spring cleaning chores.

 

 

Comments

JERRY from SANDUSKY

who ever built this........

didnt know much about style......

looks like a rental........

8ballinthesidepocket

 Let's continue to cut off our nose despite our face!  The people that rent these places are spending lots of money in the area so they will go somewhere else.  Oh well, whatever, but keep the Keller Building.

worddrow811

I think the point that is being missed is this, the Cedar Point Chaussee address is the highest priced homes for the wealthy, in this area, and they did not buy into it for it to be turned into a rental business by some greedy home-owners.

Take the old Camp Bolder in Huron, for instance. It is now a multi-unit rental property and is an eyesore as far as I'm concerned. There's also the property next to the Huron high school that was once a private home and Huron Kiddie Land. Now it's low-income rentals and again it is ugly and run down.

Just because rich people can afford to rent the homes doesn't mean they will not act trashy, get drunk and ruin the peaceful neighborhoods.

8ballinthesidepocket

 Even rich people need to get drunk once in awhile.

BEHAPPY

Curran Street is proof of what?  Comical.  It still looks dumpy to me.   I still have to wonder why the Arnolds are held so high and mighty??    Now I see why they get away with what they do,  I can't mention it again or will get deleted but I'm sure we all know what it is.  Sickening!

doppleganger

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained libelous or defamatory statements. Discussion Guidelines

hometowner

Interesting that this was brought up by an anonymous complaint at a "closed-door city commission meeting."  How is that allowed under Ohio's Sunshine Laws? 

Rentals on Cedar Point have been openly happening for decades, well before the "million-dollar" houses were erected.  The people who built there knew that or should have because there have been signs planted in front yards about weekly rentals for decades.  

 

Retiree

If the renters are making to much noise,call the police. I feel this is a conspiracy by just a few  big shots that are not man enough to come foward with their complaint. To do it behind closed doors show the type of person you are. The "good ole boy system will make it right" for you.

Put all your refuge in the Lord and not into man. 

Darwin's choice

2b or not 2b.........KiddieLand.....wow!  That was a great place! How sadly times have changed.....

BW1's picture
BW1

2b or not 2b : I think the point that is being missed is this, the Cedar Point Chaussee address is the highest priced homes for the wealthy, in this area, and they did not buy into it for it to be turned into a rental business by some greedy home-owners.

No one misses that point - the problem is that it's irrelevant.   Yes, they paid a lot for their property.  Yes, they may not want tourists renting next door for a week.   SO WHAT?  It doesn't mean they have the right to GET what they want. 

Whatever their intentions, it doesn't matter how expensive a property is, your right to dictate who can be present ends at the property line.  If you want to control who stays in the house next door, you'll need to spend some more and buy that house, too.

You have the right to expect those next door to refrain from making too much noise, to expect them to deal with their waste in a sanitary and hygenic manner, and to otherwise limit how much the effects of their activities extend onto your property.  You don't have the right to dictate who they are, how they came to be there, or what relationship they have with the property owner, financial or otherwise.  The mere knowledge that they are doing something of which you disapprove does not constitute a violation of your rights.

Just because rich people can afford to rent the homes doesn't mean they will not act trashy, get drunk and ruin the peaceful neighborhoods.

This is true.  Here's the catch: just because they (or YOU for that matter) simultaneously own and occupy a given property ALSO doesn't mean such behavior won't be forthcoming, AND just because someone is renting for a week, doesn't mean they will.  I can understand how you might fail to grasp this - for some, logic is hard.

cproad resident

According to BW 1, there should not be any zoning laws....Listen up BW 1 - you keep arguing that the people who live on the Chausee are rich and should ignore the renters.  Obviously, you are not aware that the Ebners charge up to $700 per night for people to rent their properties - they rent their property for days or a week at a time - they ignored both the residential zoning laws and the rental laws of the CIty - their renters continually trespass on their neighbors' yards and beaches, light bonfires on their neighbors' beach, and help themselves to use their neighbor's dock - they pretend that they are the ones being persecuted here - remember they are making a lot of money - they are not concerned at all about making the neighborhood better, like the Arnolds (who by the way had the support of their neighbors which is why the City allowed them to obtain a permit to rent).  The Ebners claim they bought homes that were in forclosure - that is not true for all of the homes.  They are out for one thing - to make a buck - they are not the innocent parties in this scenario,.   But, I guess all of this is ok with you - because according to you there should be no zoining laws and the rich people who live on the Chausee should just sit quietly while people like the Ebners abuse their rights.

rule follower

I agree with CP Road Resident - the Ebners want it both ways - they want to rent but they didn't follow any of the zoning rules - they could have tried to obtain a permit before renting but they didn't.  For 10 years they have been raking in the cash and ignoring all the City laws. Now that they got caught (because they own 5 properties on the Chausee now and have blatantly ignored the laws and their neighbors' complaints), they want a permit.   Isn't Douglass Ebner a realtor with Howard Hanna?  He should know better or maybe he did know and ignored the rules anyway - doesn't he have a duty to adhere to the zoning laws and make a good faith effort to abide by them?  Can't he lose his realtor license?  He should.

Retiree

Isn't everyone out to make a buck? It is the known as "American Greed ". The worst people are the rich. They will do anything for a dollar. Just look at the owners of homes on the chausee. I was considering buying a home there years ago and saw the problems with the northeast winds on the lake, water on both sides, winter storms, and the traffic on the road at all hours in the morning leaving CP. You are complaining about renters? The complainers just want something to complain about. If it's that bad, move. You could not give me a house there to live around people that have nothing to do but bit-h. It's the American way

doppleganger

I said alleged. How it that libelous? This paper does it all the time!

BW1's picture
BW1

cproad resident : According to BW 1, there should not be any zoning laws...

Where did I say that?  It appears you don't care any more about reading carefully than you do about applying logic.

Listen up BW 1 - you keep arguing that the people who live on the Chausee are rich and should ignore the renters.

Wow, you really DON'T bother to read what you're responding to.  I've said nothing of the sort.

Obviously, you are not aware that the Ebners charge up to $700 per night for people to rent their properties - they rent their property for days or a week at a time

I'm aware, but it's irrelevant. There's that disdain for logic again - citing a fact without any basis for its relevancy.  Would it change things if they charged $50 per night?   How about $10,000 per night?   What is the significance of their pricing structure?  It's a contractual matter between them and their renters.

they ignored both the residential zoning laws and the rental laws of the CIty

Laws which violate their constitutional rights, for which they are suing.   Again, what's the point of this assertion?

their renters continually trespass on their neighbors' yards and beaches, light bonfires on their neighbors' beach, and help themselves to use their neighbor's dock

Wow, you finally got around to what's really bothering you. Fine, then call the police and prosecute that CONDUCT.  Better yet, do what many other communities have done and pass a nuisance law that, after a certain number of such acts of criminal CONDUCT from the occupants of a given property in a year, the property owners become liable. (That might go a long way to cleaning up Hancock St. as well.)

Notice how I've emphasized the word CONDUCT?  That's because the CONDUCT of the renters is your business - how they came to be in the house and their relationship with the Ebners, financial or otherwise, is not.

Since you're arguing so vehemently and incoherently for SPECIFICALLY barring the Ebners from the sole act of renting their property for periods of less than 30 days, is it then your contention that:

-no homeowner, and no long term renter, has EVER engaged in this CONDUCT?

-all vacation renters consistently and without fail engage in this CONDUCT?

-that such CONDUCT is OK when the person doing it occupies the house for more than 30 days?

they pretend that they are the ones being persecuted here

They pretend nothihng - they are the ones against whom government is taking action contrary to their rights.

remember they are making a lot of money

As is their right - this isn't the USSR, remember?  This is a capitalist country.  If that is a problem for you, go to Miami and take a 90 mile boat ride, and you'll find a place that isn't.

they are not concerned at all about making the neighborhood better,

There's no obligation for them to be so concerned.  This is America.

like the Arnolds (who by the way had the support of their neighbors which is why the City allowed them to obtain a permit to rent).

They don't need that support,  Here's a newsflash - in America, you don't need your neighbors' approval for everything you do.

The Ebners claim they bought homes that were in forclosure - that is not true for all of the homes.

They didn't claim it was true for all the homes - what's your point? 

They are out for one thing - to make a buck

Again, America - capitalist - that's allowed and encouraged.

But, I guess all of this is ok with you - because according to you there should be no zoining laws

Again, never said that, however, any zoning laws that DO exist are subject to constitutional limits.

and the rich people who live on the Chausee should just sit quietly while people like the Ebners abuse their rights.

For crying out loud, I don't care if they're rich or if they don't have two cents to rub together.  You REALLY need to learn to read what's written and not make up meaning as you go along.

The Ebners are not abusing anyone's rights by renting their property. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?  The transaction of renting the property for any given period does not abuse your rights.  The CONDUCT of those renting the property MAY abuse your rights, but the mere transaction by which they happen to be there does not.  What they DO while they are there, if it violates certain boundaries, MAY be your business, but how they came to be there is not.  Why do you have so much trouble understanding the difference?

Why don't you try specifying EXACTLY what rights are being abused by the Ebners, and the basis for those rights.

BW1's picture
BW1

rule follower : Now that they got caught (because they own 5 properties on the Chausee now and have blatantly ignored the laws and their neighbors' complaints), they want a permit.

Wrong. Now that the city has come down on them for exercising their constitutional rights, they are suing.  Their lawsuit has the potential to not only overturn those zoning laws, but also force the city to pay them damages.  A suburb of Cleveland was forced to pay a plaintiff $9 million in a suit over zoning laws that violated the plaintiff's property rights. The Ebners have offered to settle the lawsuit if the city agrees to mind its own business, and they've sweetened the offer with several concessions to which they are not obligated, in order to address the legitimate concerns about renter conduct.

doesn't he have a duty to adhere to the zoning laws and make a good faith effort to abide by them?

Legitimate laws, yes.  However, this is the USA, not some banana republic there the edicts of some tin-pot dictator must be followed without question.  If a law violates the limitations set by our Constitution. it is not legitimate.  Now someone will say "work to change the law, but don't break it."   That's not how the system works - you don't have standing to sue over an unconstitutional law until the government actually DOES something against you to enforce it.
 

BW1's picture
BW1

cproad resdident, perhaps it will help if I illustrate  the three points you're consistently missing.

1. Not all facts are relevant.  So, someone trespasses in your yard and starts a bonfire. That's relevant.  He happens to have blue eyes.  That's NOT relevant.  If he had brown eyes, the impact upon you and your property would be no different. Both facts are true, but only one is relevant. 

2.Only the relevant facts are your business or anything you can ask the government to act upon.  The last two guys who trespassed and started bonfires in your yard had blue eyes.  Someone moves in next door tomorrow and he has blue eyes.  You can't have him arrested just because he has blue eyes.  Nothing about him is any of your business UNTIL he trespasses on your yard.

3.Stupid and unconstitutional laws based on irrelevant factors do nothing to protect your interests.  Upset by all the bonfires in your yard, you get a law passed outlawing blue-eyed people in your neighborhood. Two days later, a brown-eyed neighbor hops your fence, starts a bonfire in your yard, and barbecues your cat.  Shucks.

I have had nothing but pleasant interactions with vacation renters in my neighborhood, but my property has been damaged by the delinquent offspring of a nearby owner/ooccupant whose proclivity for breeding exceeds her capacity for parenting. 

Quite simply, you are focusing on the wrong thing.  The problem isn't the vacation rental transaction; the problem is the behavior of SOME vacation rental clients.  Why stop at just their status as vacation renters - I'd wager that the troublemaking rental clients have several other things in common.  It's a safe bet the troublemakers are all drinking.  Should we bring back Prohibition because of that? 

Here's a thought - given his record, I strongly doubt Kevin Randleman is a homeowner.  That means he was renting housing from someone.  Is Randleman's landlord then responsible for Officer Dunn's death?

(In case you missed it, in the three points above, having blue eyes is analogous to being a vacation renter, and having brown eyes is analogous to being an owner/occupant.  The analogy applies because the relevance is equivalent.)

 

Retiree

People keep complaining but no police reports. Go behind closed and make a complaint. Be a man and grow some ba!!s

BW1's picture
BW1

Another excellent point, retiree.  If these rental clients are such menaces, where are the police reports?  If people aren't willing to go on record, and file a report with all the attendant penalties for falsification, why should we believe that all these supposed misbehaviors are taking place?  It's almost like the Loch Ness monster, or even all those cat murders that BeHappy insists "everyone knows about" but for which no evidence exists.

Captain Gutz

BW1,

First you were all:

"Better yet, do what many other communities have done and pass a nuisance law that, after a certain number of such acts of criminal CONDUCT from the occupants of a given property in a year, the property owners become liable. "

Then you were like:

"Here's a thought - given his record, I strongly doubt Kevin Randleman is a homeowner.  That means he was renting housing from someone.  Is Randleman's landlord then responsible for Officer Dunn's death?"

Confused much?

rule follower

Your arguments are circular, BW1.  The zoning laws are unconstitutional?  Really?  The burden is on the renters to prove that - good luck with that.  The City is doing what it should be doing - enforcing its zoning laws using the procedures that have been in place and are clearly written in the code.  So now residents will be calling police, alot - everyone can thank the Chaussee renters for that. 

BW1's picture
BW1

rule follower : The zoning laws are unconstitutional? Really? The burden is on the renters to prove that - good luck with that.

And they are currently in the first stages of meeting that burden.  They shouldn't need much luck.  The Supreme Court has ruled that any zoning law that doesn't directly serve a public safety or health purpose is unconstitutional, and that, if it interferes with a property owner's ability to derive their intended economic value, it is a taking which violates the Fifth Amendment.  Mayfield Heights learned this the hard way, having to pay millions of dollars in damages.

The City is doing what it should be doing - enforcing its zoning laws using the procedures that have been in place and are clearly written in the code.

That's the same thing Mayfield Heights was doing.  It's also the same thing the school boards were doing in Little Rock and Des Moines. 

So now residents will be calling police, alot - everyone can thank the Chaussee renters for that.

As I've pointed out, there are ways to address the issues raised without violating peoples' property rights.

BW1's picture
BW1

Captain Gutz : Confused much?

No, but apparently you were.  As they say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other. 
 

Captain Gutz

bw1,

"As they say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other.  "


The word "liable" is not like the word "responsible"?

Is that what you're telling us, Big Bird?