In my years of covering news in Fishers and sharing it on this blog, only a handful of issues have generated as much buzz—both inside and outside the city—as the one coming before the City Council Monday night. The Council is set to hold a public hearing on what’s quickly becoming Fishers’ latest controversy. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. at City Hall, though the public hearing is scheduled near the end of the agenda.
Mayor Scott Fadness is proposing an ordinance that would cap the number of single-family rental homes at 10% within each subdivision. The mayor believes the public—and most Homeowners Associations (HOAs)—are on board with the idea.
However, the real estate industry across the Indianapolis metro area and the state of Indiana strongly oppose the measure. MIBOR (Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors) and IAR (Indiana Association of Realtors) have issued clear statements against the proposal, arguing it infringes on property rights. They also cite data suggesting there’s no significant issue with institutional investors buying up homes in Fishers for rentals.
One of the most pointed criticisms of the rental cap comes from James Briggs, opinion editor at The Indianapolis Star. In a March 5th column, Briggs argues the ordinance could push young families out of the market. He notes that as lending standards tighten, the average age of a homebuyer has risen from 49 in 2023 to 56, citing numbers from the National Association of Realtors.
Briggs also points to what he calls the NIMBY factor—Not In My Back Yard—arguing that the ordinance serves existing homeowners at the expense of future buyers. In his words:
“The Fishers 10% rental cap would do two things: eliminate potentially affordable homes and suppress the demand for construction of new homes, leading to reduced housing inventory, because this policy restricts the market for people who can live in them. Existing homeowners might say, ‘Yep, sounds great to us.’ That’s the heart of NIMBYism—getting into your own home and locking the gates behind you. But those homeowners should consider that they’re going to have to sell someday. When they do, the de facto investor ban will have reduced the pool of prospective buyers.”
You can read Briggs’ full column at this link (an IndyStar subscription may be required).
Mayor Fadness remains confident his proposed ordinance would strengthen Fishers neighborhoods. Opponents, meanwhile, say it would limit opportunities for young families to buy homes and infringe on property rights.
The real estate industry is putting significant resources into fighting the measure—sending out text blasts and taking out full-page ads in local print publications like Current in Fishers. The city, for its part, is making its case on its official Web site at this link.
Local opponents—led by former City Councilor Jocelyn Vare and real estate professional Steve Ladig—have compiled resources and arguments against the cap, available at this link.
The Hamilton County Reporter has also featured commentaries from both sides. Steve Ladig penned an opinion piece opposing the ordinance, while At-Large City Councilor Todd Zimmerman wrote in support of it.
I’ve recorded two podcasts diving into this issue. The first features Mayor Fadness and his Chief of Staff Jordin Alexander—listen here. The second features Jocelyn Vare and Steve Ladig—available here.
Notably, the mayor acknowledged during the podcast that if this ordinance passes, the city could be defending it in court. Based on what I’ve heard, this would be the first ordinance of its kind in Indiana—and possibly the entire country.
Following Monday’s public hearing, the City Council could move the ordinance to a second reading, with a final vote likely in May. However, there is the option to suspend the rules and take a final vote that same night. Doing so would require a unanimous vote—something I’d consider unlikely. Still, in my 13 years covering Fishers news, I’ve learned to never say never.
