Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local operator urges Whitefish Bay to revisit short-term rental rules, says 180-day limit will end compliant businesses
Summary
Resident Tim Tharp told the board he and his wife operate a legally permitted tourist-rooming house and asked the village to review Ordinance 1919, arguing the 180-consecutive-day restriction and application form language contain contradictions and will harm compliant operators.
Tim Tharp, who identified himself Jan. 5 as a Whitefish Bay resident at 5654 North Santa Monica Boulevard, addressed the village board during public comment to urge review of Ordinance 1919, the village’s recent rules governing tourist rooming houses and short-term rentals.
Tharp said he and his wife purchased a home they briefly rent as a tourist-rooming house while completing renovations and that the enterprise generated roughly $50,000 in gross receipts last year; he said projected profit in 2025 was about $500. He told the board he and his wife have invested more than $500,000 in the property and that they have not received complaints from neighbors. “This business provides a valuable service, I think, to Whitefish Bay families,” Tharp said.
Tharp said the ordinance’s 180-day limitation — described in the ordinance text as written and as the most restrictive option under Wisconsin law — would effectively prevent his business from continuing. He asked the board to reach out to the five legally operating tourist-rooming houses in the village before enforcing changes that affect only a small number of residents. He also raised specific concerns about apparent contradictions between the ordinance language and the application form: the ordinance text, he said, does not clearly state that stays under six days are limited, though the author intended that; and the application form requires an applicant to establish the beginning date of a 180-day period upon submission rather than upon the first booking, which Tharp said conflicts with his reading of Wisconsin law.
Tharp said he supports sensible rules to prevent bad actors and nuisance behavior but asked the village to work with compliant operators to avoid unintended consequences that end legitimate local businesses. Because public comment is not a forum for board action, the president did not respond with a board decision; Tharp asked the board to follow up and review the ordinance language with affected operators.
What’s next: Tharp asked for outreach and review. No board action on Ordinance 1919 was recorded in this meeting.
