Daylight savings time. Tipping culture. Pineapple on pizza. Some topics just seem to spark an instant debate. And in the world of real estate, that debate is the regulation of short-term rentals (STRs).

While the demand for residential properties in resort communities in the U.S. has surged in the past few years, many local governments across the country have implemented regulations on STRs in an effort to address neighborhood disruption, housing availability or local taxation.

And even though Wisconsin law specifically limits the extent to which local governments can regulate STRs, some local governments pushed the boundaries anyway. That’s where things get dicey.

To shed light on the STR debate, a recent study took a deep dive into STRs across various Wisconsin communities to examine these properties, explore community perceptions and research economic effects. Debate settled? Read on to find out. Pineapple on pizza? The verdict is still out on that one. 

STR study at a glance 

To better evaluate the multifaceted effects of STRs, an independent study examined economic, housing and community impacts in three of Wisconsin’s most popular tourism destinations: Door County, Lake Geneva, and Oneida and Vilas counties.

Commissioned by the WRA with support from the National Association of REALTORS^® (NAR), and conducted by RRC Associates, based in Boulder, Colorado, the study explored three areas of impact:

• Economic effects: The study assessed how STRs contribute to and/or challenge local economies.
• Housing impacts: The study examined the effects of STRs on housing availability as well as affordability.
• STR regulation effects: The study evaluated the outcomes of current regulations.

Study insights: by the numbers

Numbers tell a story — but sometimes that story might be incomplete or misunderstood. In the STR debate, there’s plenty of discussion about how STRs affect local economies, jobs and taxes. This study took a close look at the hard data behind STRs to reveal their effects on Wisconsin communities. The following numbers show how STRs contribute to local economies.

STRs generate millions in local tax revenue

STRs play a vital role in supporting local economies through tourism. Since 2023, overnight visitors staying in STRs are estimated to have paid the following in sales and lodging taxes:

• Door County: $9.8 million
• Lake Geneva: $4.2 million
• Oneida and Vilas: $5.5 million

STRs grow the local job market

STRs are estimated to have directly or indirectly supported thousands of jobs in the local areas since 2023:

• Door County: 1,040 jobs, generating $96 million in GDP
• Lake Geneva: 400 jobs, generating $51 million in GDP
• Oneida and Vilas: 800 jobs, generating $72 million in GDP

STRs drive tourism dollars

STRs boost tourism and have driven millions of dollars to local businesses, including restaurants — maybe some with pineapple on pizza, bars, shops and attractions since 2023:

• Door County: $131 million
• Lake Geneva: $67 million
• Oneida and Vilas: $92 million

STRs are individually owned

The vast majority of STRs are individually owned. Owners with large portfolios and multiple properties are rare within the STR market. Among all STRs within the studied markets, individual owners accounted for these percentages: 

• Door County: 91%
• Lake Geneva: 92%
• Oneida and Vilas: 95%

STRs make up a fraction of the market

STRs represent a very small segment of vacation properties in each community. As of 2023, STRs accounted for these small percentages of the entire vacation property market in each area:

• Door County: 4.9%
• Lake Geneva: 4%
• Oneida and Vilas: 8%

Study insights: beyond the numbers

Within the overall context of the main STR debate, there are smaller “sub debates” that often surface in the STR conversation: STRs hurt hotels, and STRs reduce housing supply. Individuals attending town hall events or homeowners association meetings frequently voice such arguments — but perhaps without supporting data or without reviewing the full picture. The joint STR study shed some light on these sub debates.

STRs complement hotels

The study found that STRs don’t compete with hotels; instead, STRs serve a different type of overnight visitor. When compared to hotels, STRs offer different amenities, price points, unit sizes and guest experiences. STRs have lower occupancy rates than hotels but higher average daily rentals often due to the size of lodging. Meanwhile, hotels maintain higher occupancy rates and cater to business travelers or travelers looking for shorter stays. Apples and oranges.

STR bans backfire

Another sub debate inside the bigger STR debate is about outright bans — specifically that banning STRs can increase housing supply. The study found otherwise.

When surveyed, STR owners stated that they would not convert their properties to long-term rentals if banned. Instead of shifting their property to a long-term rental, the STR owners would leave their property vacant or would shift the property to their personal use. The actual root cause of housing pressure and limited housing supply? Too little housing development. Banning STRs doesn’t solve the problem of low housing supply and doesn’t create a boom in new home construction — and worse, STR bans increase the likelihood of pushing STRs into an underground market, where local economies would lose oversight, tax revenue and regulation entirely.

So, sub debates? Squashed.

Wisconsin’s right to rent law

Wisconsin’s right to rent law, Wis. Stat. § 66.1014, gives property owners the ability to rent out their property while also preserving neighborhood quality of life. This law ensures that local governments address behavior — not rental activity — by promoting fair and reasonable regulation of STRs by local governments. But the law isn’t just about rules; it’s also about protecting homeowners and supporting thriving communities. The law aims to:

Protect property rights

The law affirms a property owner’s right to use their property as they see fit — including renting it out — while still allowing local governments to address legitimate concerns. This balance prevents broad or arbitrary restrictions that diminish property value or economic opportunity. Municipalities remain empowered to enforce ordinances related to noise, parking, and health and safety just as they do with any property.

Support economic activity

STRs often provide vital income for property owners and also boost local economies by attracting visitors who spend money at local businesses, shops and restaurants. This law supports economic contribution while still preserving neighborhood character through fair regulation.

Prevent overreach and blanket bans

By prohibiting outright bans on rentals shorter than seven days, the law prevents one-size-fits-all restrictions that punish all homeowners for the behaviors of a few. The law ensures that regulations are tailored — not punitive.

STR regulations in Wisconsin 

The Wisconsin statutes outline the following five parameters of STR regulations and ownership in Wisconsin:

1. Local governments cannot prohibit STRs
Counties, cities, villages and towns cannot prohibit homeowners from offering rentals for a time frame of seven consecutive days or longer. This law does not apply to condominium associations or homeowners associations.

2. Permits are allowed but must be reasonable
The local permit cannot be overly restrictive, resulting in a de facto prohibition on STRs. Permits should be administrative in nature and contain objective and reasonable standards.

3. Property owners choose a six-month rental cap
The law allows local governments to place a six-month cap on the amount of time that property owners can rent out their home during any 365-day period. The law also allows but does not require local governments to require those six months to be continuous. Property owners choose which six-month period they rent out their property.

4. A state license is required
While not a new requirement, most STRs must obtain a “tourist rooming house” license from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP).

5. Taxes must be collected from STRs
Property owners and rental platforms are required to collect state sales and use tax.

Legal wins for STRs 

When local ordinances overstep and threaten private property rights, the WRA Legal Action Program steps in. As one of the WRA’s most powerful advocacy tools, the WRA Legal Action Program provides legal support in precedent-setting cases that impact real estate practice, property rights and/or housing policy in Wisconsin. From filing amicus, or “friend of the court,” legal briefs relevant to a case, to directly litigating on behalf of WRA members involved in a real estate-related legal battle, the Legal Action Program is a powerful and proven method of defending the Wisconsin real estate climate.

In July 2025, the Legal Action Program earned two significant wins in STR cases, both decided by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II.

Wildwood Estate LLC v. Village of Summit (2024AP178)

In this case, the Village of Summit attempted to regulate STRs through its general police powers rather than through its zoning code. At the time, Wildwood Estate was already operating STRs.

The Court of Appeals ruled that when a local ordinance changes how property may be used, due process must be followed — including the notice and hearing requirements in Wisconsin’s zoning law, Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d). These procedures exist to protect property rights and give owners a voice when their land use is at stake.

While general police powers may be appropriate for issues like noise or pet rules, STR-specific requirements — such as licensing, insurance, occupancy limits or primary residency — directly impact property use and must go through the zoning process.

In its amicus brief, the WRA highlighted that these competing interests demand a fair and open process and that zoning procedures — not police powers — offer the most appropriate and equitable framework for resolving such community concerns.

The Village of Summit has appealed the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but at the time of publication, the court has not decided whether to take the case. The WRA will keep you posted as the next steps unfold.

Wisconsin REALTORS^® Association Inc. v. City of Neenah (2024AP994)

In this case, the court ruled that the WRA had standing — legal authority — to bring the case. The court found:

• At least one WRA member owns property in Neenah intended for STR use.
• The case is directly tied to the WRA’s mission of protecting property rights.
• The WRA can effectively represent member interests, avoiding multiple individual lawsuits.

This “associational standing” confirms the WRA’s ability to challenge ordinances that harm member rights statewide.

In addition, the court held that the city’s STR ordinance violated state law. The court struck down Neenah’s ordinance requiring STR properties to be the primary residence of the applicant, ruling that this ordinance conflicts with Wisconsin’s right to rent law, which prohibits local governments from banning STRs of any residential dwelling.

The WRA and the city of Neenah agreed to a stipulation that Neenah would remove the portions of the ordinance that violated state law, and Neenah agreed not to appeal the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Accordingly, no local unit of government can require STRs rented for seven days or longer to be the owner’s primary residence. This holding should prompt any other community to remove this type of language from its ordinance.

Why these cases matter

• Statewide precedent: Both cases were recommended for publication, making them binding on future lower court rulings.
• Defends property rights: The courts are clear that local governments cannot impose unlawful restrictions on the right to rent residential property.
• Strengthens the WRA’s legal reach: The Neenah ruling reinforces the WRA’s ability to protect members through efficient legal action.

These outcomes are a win for property rights, real estate investment and WRA members across Wisconsin.

Back to the STR debate

Back to square one — with pizza, pineapple and strong opinions. But unlike your preferred pizza toppings, the STR debate isn’t a matter of personal taste. Instead, it’s a matter of data, economics and property rights. 

The joint independent study revealed the hard data that’s often missing in the STR debate: Data shows that while STRs make up a small share of Wisconsin’s housing market, they have a major impact on local economics. And as confirmed by the study as well as the courts, misinformed policies and overreactions can harm tourism, small businesses and property owners alike. So with the right approach, STRs can continue contributing to local economies while coexisting peacefully in communities across Wisconsin.

But when it comes to whether pineapple belongs on pizza, that debate will continue on … one slice at a time.

Additional details

To request a copy of the full STR commissioned study or if you have more questions about STRs in Wisconsin, contact Nathan Conrad, WRA Director of Grassroots Political Advocacy and Engagement at Nathan@wra.org.

Learn more about STRs and the WRA's advocacy efforts by visiting the WRA advocacy website.