Whitefish Bay residents urge limits, permits and tax for short-term rentals

Residents told the Whitefish Bay Village Board on July 21 that short-term rentals are disrupting neighborhood life and asked the village to adopt rules to limit their number and require local accountability.

At public comment, Megan Moroski of 4779 North Larkin said a house next door (she identified the address as 4785 Lin) converted to a short-term rental in January and has produced repeated late-night parties, parking congestion and noise. “Unlike traditional lodging options, these lack any sort of on-site management, meaning there's no one to call at midnight when your neighbor’s guests are blasting music,” Moroski said, adding that many residents do not know where or how to file complaints.

Why it matters: Speakers said short-term rentals can destabilize blocks with frequent turnover, increase calls on police and public-health resources, and displace long-term renters, altering neighborhood character.

Neighbor Mary Gibo, who said she lives at 4776 North Larkin, urged a villagewide ordinance and referenced a recently litigated local model she called the “NINA ordinance.” Gibo recommended limiting rentals to 180 days per year and no more than seven consecutive days, saying that “If we have an ordinance, this property could be limited to 180 days of rental.” She described specific problems observed at the property, including unleashed large dogs and inconsistent trash removal.

Attorney and resident Hannah Colberg, who said she previously served as a deputy city attorney, urged the board to act before the pattern grows. Colberg said short-term rentals create ongoing demands on police, health and building departments and can displace long-term tenants: “When investors purchase these types of properties for short-term transient rentals, they displace the potential for long-term meaningful tenants to rent these homes and be parts of our community.”

Board response and next steps: President Buckley and other board members said they cannot act during public comment but acknowledged the concerns and agreed there is enough interest to place the item on a future agenda so staff can present options. No ordinance or formal directive was adopted at the meeting.

Details and requests from residents: Speakers asked the village to consider (1) a permit or licensing program with recurring health and safety inspections; (2) rules requiring third-party management companies to provide a local responsible-party contact and faster response times; (3) stronger enforcement of existing ordinances for nuisance behavior; and (4) consideration of a short-term rental tax to capture lodging revenue for village needs.

What remains unresolved: The board did not vote on any changes; the timeline for an agenda item was not specified beyond boardmembers’ indication that staff will prepare options for a future meeting.