ACK Now Founder: "Let's Compromise"

To the editor: I write on behalf of the ACK Now Board of Directors to respond to Dr. Baltzer’s recent letter to the editor in which she suggested that an amendment to the zoning bylaw to restore a few words to a definition will make unlimited STRs lawful in all zoning districts. That would be substantially the same result that Nantucket Town Meeting has now rejected six times. This plan will not work because:

1 - Judge Vhay did not rule as Dr. Baltzer suggested. Whether short-term rentals were allowed by right prior to 2015 was not an issue before the Court and was not raised by either party. More accurately, the Judge was giving the Town a hard time for not raising the issue (in Ward I or Ward II). Cathy Ward’s case surely is not a “loophole lawsuit”, because the Court plainly ruled that STRs are not an accessory use, and

2 - The “loophole” Dr. Baltzer referenced is the definition of “use,” a word which appears over 200 times in the Zoning Bylaw. If such an article were to pass, it is doubtful that the Attorney General would approve it given the havoc it would wreak on the Bylaw (reading every instance of “use” to include the right to rent or lease). We think this amendment would engender legal challenges based on its conflict with other provisions of the bylaw and the fact that it is substantially similar to Article 66 with the exact same impact. Those challenges would leave STRs on Nantucket hanging in limbo for a long time, and

3 - The Planning Board should pre-empt this article for two years where its objective is exactly the same as the last six voter-rejected attempts to legalize STRs. Massachusetts law prohibits someone from bringing back the same zoning article to Town Meeting over and over, and

4 - The question of whether STRs are a lawful principal use was settled by Judge Vhay’s ruling in Ward 1, which the Town did not appeal, and

5 - Everyone knows that reasonable restrictions on STRs won’t crater the economy, and most voters want restrictions on STRs (Emerson College Survey), a compromise and an end to the debate.

Carl Jelleme, the Chair of ACK Now, is getting traction for a 7-7-7 Compromise that would allow STRs in all zoning districts, subject to certain reasonable limits. Arthur Reade has embraced the compromise and has joined the effort as a volunteer draftsman. He has drafted a compromise with these key terms:

- STRs allowed as of right, but subject to certain limitations during the peak season, which is June 15 to September 15 of each year.

- Limits on STRs during peak season shall include:

1. A maximum of seven weeks or 49 days, and
2. A maximum of seven rental periods beginning or ending during peak season, and
3. A seven-night minimum in July and August only, and
4. Not more than one STR on any Lot.

Subletting and dividing of STRs would be prohibited at any time. A prohibition against STRs for the purpose of holding large events could be included.

This is a true compromise. Honestly, many ACK Now supporters who are year-round residents are pushing back. They feel we are proposing a compromise that doesn’t keep mini hotels out of neighborhoods. And, they don’t think the limits on STRs are enough of a disincentive for investors operating hospitality businesses in residential neighborhoods. We may have gotten a little over our skis on this, but we are trying to get our coalition on board. By proposing that STRs be a lawful use in zoning with a “Y” in the Use Chart, we have moved a long way (especially considering that Cathy Ward won both cases and the Town Meeting articles to legalize have failed six times in five years). We are firm on our position that the 7-7-7 limits must be in zoning; if passed as a General Bylaw, these restrictions could be changed or eliminated at the very next Town Meeting by a simple majority vote.

By focusing on use, as opposed to ownership, the compromise article avoids any dormant commerce clause issues, the challenge of defining a “home” and any residency requirements. It is simple and easy to enforce. Of course, the Town needs to agree to establish an effective and efficient enforcement capability. We believe they will.

Dr. Baltzer, please take a look at the compromise. We can’t drop the lawsuit because it isn’t ours. Cathy Ward is the plaintiff and should be praised for her bravery. I very much doubt she wants to drop the case after all she has gone through and, after all, she won twice. The town will lose the appeal, sooner or later, but if the compromise article passes, the case will be rendered moot, and we can all move on. We do not agree that the lawsuit is blocking the democratic process. Over the last 5 years, voters have had multiple chances to vote on STR articles. Anyone who proposes yet another unlimited STR article prior to 2027* is ignoring Massachusetts law and the voters. We think that only a compromise can get the necessary 67 percent to pass and that the town needs only one article at the next Town Meeting.

At the end of the day, we can’t have a community if year-round residents can’t afford to rent or own a home. We can’t have neighborhoods without neighbors. How long can the data showing the loss of 600 long term rentals in a decade and the penetration of mid-Island neighborhoods by STR investors be ignored? How long can the negative impacts from the intensity of STR use impact our environment, our infrastructure and public services before voters say “enough”? STRs aren’t solely responsible for all of our problems, but they are an identifiable contributor, and we should do what so many other resort communities have done – restrict them. Newport, which in many ways is similar to Nantucket, outlawed STRs for every property owner except those who keep Newport as their principal residence. They allow seasonal residents to STR if they are present on their property. By doing so, Newport saved its neighborhoods and addressed their housing crisis. The 7-7-7 proposal is more liberal than that, but will be positive for housing, for reducing stress on the environment, the infrastructure and public services and for residential neighborhoods.

Nantucket is ready for a solution that will help it move on. Maybe you would like to meet with Carl Jelleme to discuss?

Peter McCausland