Dearborn Heights council holds public study session on proposed short‑term rental ban; legal counsel flags fines

Dearborn Heights — The City Council convened a public study session on short‑term rentals on Jan. 28 to gather resident input on a proposed ordinance that would ban most short‑term rentals (STRs) and impose civil penalties for violations.

Council chair opened the meeting by saying residents’ testimony would shape ordinance details and proposed enforcement. The chair described draft measures that included a $1,000 minimum fine for marketing a property as an STR, a $5,000 per‑day fine for hosting an STR, and a separate signed acknowledgment on certificate of occupancy forms warning owners that hosting could trigger fines. “There is no room for the short term rentals,” the chair said, urging a zero‑tolerance approach while inviting residents to propose language for the ordinance.

The proposal drew immediate questions about enforceability. Councilman Constance and other members asked how unpaid fines would be collected and whether the city could place unpaid fines on tax rolls; Constance suggested 60–90 days before liening a property, and the chair proposed 30 days as a possible window. Residents and council members repeatedly noted the city’s ordinance staff are thinly staffed and that enforcement would likely require coordination with police or additional deputized personnel.

Residents gave conflicting accounts of local experience. Laurie Moline of Berwyn Street recounted a June morning when “there was gunshots… four houses down” near a property she said was listed through an LLC, and said STRs had become a public‑safety and blight concern in several neighborhoods. By contrast, a caller who identified herself as Habafawaz and said she hosts on Airbnb urged the council to consider the host perspective: she described ID checks, limits on guests and insurance coverage and said STRs can serve families, travel workers and people seeking temporary housing.

Several residents called for technological tracking to help enforcement. Joe Rennie suggested an IT platform that would let ordinance or police officials verify how long an address had been occupied, so that fines could be assessed only when listings and occupancy demonstrated a short‑term rental pattern.

Legal constraints and risks were a central theme. Gary Miyake, the council’s special legal counsel, told the meeting the city charter and existing municipal rules limit ordinary civil infraction penalties and cited “up to $500 in fines, plus up to 90 days in jail” as charter language he would need to reconcile with any proposed $5,000 daily penalty. “$5,000… strikes me as potentially more problematic,” Miyake said, and recommended the council work with judges, the police, ordinance and building departments to craft an ordinance that would survive court review.

Council members and residents debated whether enforcement should rest with the ordinance department, a deputized unit of ordinance officers, or a dedicated police unit. Several speakers urged deputizing ordinance staff or creating a police‑led unit because sworn officers have arrest authority and access to law‑enforcement databases; others warned of doubled costs if both police and ordinance staff respond to the same calls.

The meeting did not include a formal vote. Instead, council members resolved to forward the community feedback and draft language to special legal counsel for research and redrafting and to convene a follow‑up meeting among legal, police, building and ordinance staff to develop a workable enforcement plan. The chair said the ordinance would be revised to reflect legal guidance and that the council expects to bring a finalized proposal back for formal consideration.

What’s next: The council will send the draft to legal counsel for review of penalty levels and enforcement mechanisms, aim to coordinate an interdepartmental enforcement plan and consider technological tools for tracking listings. No adoption or vote occurred at the study session.