After Article 1, A Time For Reflection

To the editor: Tuesday night’s vote on Article 1 may turn out to be one of the most consequential decisions in Nantucket’s modern history. By legalizing short-term rentals in nearly every zoning district, the people of Nantucket have done what few resort communities have ever attempted — opened the door to short-term rentals with virtually no restrictions.

For many homeowners, this brings relief and long-awaited clarity. Their property rights are secure, their livelihoods protected, and the island’s real-estate economy gains predictability. But clarity isn’t the same as balance. When Article 2 — the proposal that would have set reasonable limits — was dismissed without discussion, it left the question of balance unresolved.

What passed on Tuesday will likely attract more visitor dollars, but it also risks accelerating a trend that’s already visible: fewer long-term rentals, higher housing costs, and neighborhoods that feel less like communities and more like revolving doors. Nantucket now stands almost alone among coastal towns — Martha’s Vineyard, Provincetown, and Bar Harbor have all imposed caps or licensing. The people of Nantucket have chosen a different path, and it will test how much the island can absorb before its character begins to change.

Money has played a visible role in this debate. Advocacy groups such as ACK Now have spent heavily to curb investor-owned STRs, while real-estate and property-rights interests invested just as heavily to expand them. The result reflects more than zoning; it reflects the push and pull between commerce and community.

The vote is over, but the real work — shaping a sustainable policy that protects both homeowners and those who live and work here — has only begun.

For now, Tuesday’s vote sends a signal: Nantucket is open for business. The question is whether it can stay open for its people.

Respectfully,
Charles Dundee