Vote "NO" On Article 1

To the editor: Jim Sulzer’s letter to the Inky last week underscores the problem with proposed legislation to manage STR’s via Article 1 at STM.

In various places, Jim uses words like “discourage”, “encourage” and “disincentive” to explain the purpose of the article.

What we are dealing with here is greed. Greedy actors will find ways around “vague” or “flexible” regulations.

For instance, the Article proposes only eight contracts in July and August (62 days). So what will the greedy STR owner do? Book one contract for six weeks and seven contacts for two or three days each for the remaining nineteen days. Still just eight turnovers, but what kind of neighbors will those two-night renters be?

Personally, when I’m dealing with greed and how to stop it, I like language that “disallows” and “allows” … not discourages or encourages. Regulation needs to be sharp focus with clear and specific definitions, and no ability for bad actors to slip through the cracks.

I’m voting “NO” on Article 1.

Peter Hoey