To the editor:
Regarding Ms. Kilvert’s Article 60: it doesn’t make things easier. Dear Ms. Kilvert: I am a year round resident and voter; I am having difficulty understanding how Article 60 will make working and living on the island easier as you imply in your most recent letter to the Nantucket Current's opinion section. You state, “The language [in article 60] simply makes it clear that owner occupied properties have more protection. It seems understandable given how hard it has become to live and work on the island.”
But I don’t understand. I keep hearing these claims, yet no explanation of how Article 60 would make living and working on the island easier. Will it create affordable housing? How? Will the reduction in STR availability impact our island businesses or reduce our property values? If so, how? Will your article impact the tax base and increase our property taxes with the loss of the STR rental tax revenue to the town? If I have a cottage on my property or own one on another lot, how does moving into it for a period of time or renting it long term (>31 days?) so I can rent it short-term, make it easier to live on the island? Especially if I have invested in such properties to fund my retirement? What if I have to move off-island for a period of time and cannot keep my multi-generational home without renting it in whatever manner works for my family? If my rental rights safety net is threatened, how does that make it easier for me, and others like me, to live and work on the island?
We all love this island. We all wish it were not so crowded in the summer but isn’t it really just about wanting to return to the civility and kindness that existed between the year round and seasonal population?
I do see that your article would eliminate any increase in investor-only STR operators but how many traditional vacation rental options do we trounce in the meantime?