Advisory Committee Of Nonvoting Taxpayers Votes To Support Article 1, Oppose Article 2

To the editor: Nantucket’s Finance Director provided a report to Finance Committee last Friday that confirmed Article 2’s proposed STR restrictions posed a serious financial risk to the town’s financial stability that cannot be easily resolved. Based on the report and testimony, FinCom voted to oppose Article 2, and to support Article 1.

The Advisory Committee of Non-Voting Taxpayers (ACNVT) held its public meeting the next day. The ACNVT is charged with bringing matters of concern from non-voting taxpayers to the Select Board. Financial instability is a “matter of concern." The ACNVT voted unanimously to recommend that Article 1 be passed at the Special Town Meeting. Article 1 ends the current divisive litigation and the risk it poses to the town’s tourist-based economy. It lowers the risk of financial instability from the overregulation of residential homeowners' right to STR. It also makes clear that the town may adopt additional reasonable STR regulations - based on data and careful analysis - in a general bylaw and do it as soon as the next Annual Town Meeting in the Spring.

The current justification put forward by proponents of Article 2, sections A and B, is that its stringent provisions limiting the right to STR will discourage investor STRs. But that can be achieved by other less restrictive means that do not adversely injure Nantucket’s robust economy built over several decades. We note that the voters already banned corporations from owning STRs in a general bylaw. And further fine-tuning of STR regulation, if necessary, is better left to general bylaws that can pass with 50 percent plus one of voters and not result in the grandfathering of zoning regulations that cannot be changed. We note that Special Town Meeting Article 2 B is a general bylaw. But, the STR restrictions in 2 B are the same as those in 2 A and they fail the financial reasonability test.

The Finance Director’s report - he called it a “conservative analysis” - indicates that passage of Article 2 A or B would blow a $2.5 million dollar hole in the town’s budget. STR tax collections depend on rentals in both the high and shoulder seasons. The objective of Article 2 is to curtail those rentals. Fewer rentals, fewer tax dollars. This analysis does not account for the associated reduction in “Community Impact” fees paid by renters or the many knock-on reductions in restaurant and retail sales to name a few that will result from fewer visitors. Almost all Nantucketers will suffer directly or indirectly from the reduction of income that the loss or reduction of STR will produce. As the Finance Director’s report points out: “There will likely need to be substantial cuts to services that residents, businesses and visitors have come to expect, the impacts will be felt by both the town and the school.”

Numerous voters spoke eloquently at recent public meetings about their rational fears should Article 2 pass. The Finance Director’s report does not estimate the overall reduction in Nantucket GDP from Article 2 that will occur and harm them, but it contains a sobering example. Rents received by Nantucket residential property owners from STR will be reduced by more than $40 million. This is a reduction of residential homeowners’ income that is necessary to pay property taxes, maintain property, cut lawns, clean houses, pay mortgage debt, fix plumbing, install new equipment, buy furnishings, and for countless other services provided locally. Less formal and less rigorous estimates forecast an overall reduction of Nantucket GDP by $200 million - or more - when you add that $40 million to the reduction in other expenditures by visitors because fewer visitors will vacation in Nantucket.

It is the weight of this information that convinced the ACNVT to follow the FinCom and recommend the voters pass Article 1.

Peter E Halle
Chair, ACNVT