Article 66 Takes Us Right to The Bottom Line

To the editor: I write to clarify what Article 66 really does: it restores vacation renting as a use of a dwelling to Nantucket’s zoning code — not as a new use, but a simple restoration of a 150-year customary use that helped make Nantucket famous. Our island’s cultural richness, its neighborliness born of being a port Town on a rural island, its successful economy, and the legal coherence of our zoning code are all under threat by a well-funded political action committee that’s seized on a simple zoning omission.

Recently, we’ve heard off-island voices citing surveys polling some residents about how they feel about “STRs.” But these claims don’t reflect what’s actually happening here. I’ve spoken to many residents, and the consensus is: the chaos of the pandemic is behind us, and the island has returned to normal. Yet the misrepresentation continues — targeting not the true causes of our housing challenges, traffic surges, or social tensions, but those of us who host 92 percent of the island’s seasonal visitors in just 8 percent of the housing stock. Why? Because those 8 percent are the ones whose use can be regulated.

This same PAC is suing the Town and honest neighbors for nothing more than providing tourist accommodations in the same exact way as they have been offered by private owners for 150 years: integrated into all of the neighborhoods that were developed as part of the Heritage Resort (no nuisance behaviors were found by the Judge). On March 19 and 26, Town Counsel John Giorgio told the Select Board that the Town must fix the Town’s zoning loophole and adopt a bylaw — not a general bylaw — or risk losing local control. He warned that not doing so would leave the matter in the hands of a judge. He also noted that the other Zoning Article 67 (McClure), and General Bylaw 68 (Wright) likely would raise constitutional concerns with the AG, particularly given the recent case overturning South Lake Tahoe’s seven year ban on “STRs.” That leaves 66 as the clear choice.

Nevertheless, on March 26, one Select Board member admitted he felt forced into choosing between “no rentals” and “floodgates.” This framing ignores reality: the absolute number of houses offered for vacation renting have remained relatively stable since 2010. Let’s be honest: It’s second homes and the year-round population that have proliferated. Rentals are being targeted now not because they’ve exploded — but because they can be controlled due to the loophole.

Some members of our Boards have forgotten that “rental use” has always been in our zoning code since it was implemented in 1972. The Judge who warned Nantucket voters that he was getting inpatient with their inability to get a zoning bylaw into their books also ordered the Town to provide a brief about where the omitted line permitting renting had gone. It was this line that had introduced the ambiguity which ack•now jumped on to launch lawsuits against both honest residents and the Town. Claims that renting is “illegal,” “not traditional,” “investors' dream” or “commercial” are not being honest. It’s a “gotcha” that a PAC is using to force us to change customary practices — and this will change the island’s fundamental character if two-thirds of us don’t take a unified stand on 5/5/25.

Article 66 is a straightforward fix. It affirms that renting a dwelling — as Nantucketers have done for generations — is a permitted use. If we don’t restore that use explicitly, ack•now has signaled they’ll continue suing residents and the Town until the island conforms to their ideal: a Nantucket without tourism and less need for housing someday.

Article 66 doesn’t open floodgates. It closes them.

Vacation rentals are already naturally limited by ferry access, lot size, septic, water, and the island’s carrying capacity. They are further regulated by the local registry and Board of Health Codes. They are restricted by two more general bylaws that ban both corporate business ownership and investor REITs. This isn’t a Wild West. It’s a well-modulated and uniquely Nantucket model of visitor accommodations — and it works very well.

The Commonwealth certainly sees us more clearly than the anti-tourism proponents do. Nantucket has officially been designated a Seasonal Community. We are now in a class of specialized communities, so our zoning has to be fixed to differentiate us as a unique place. This is the State recognizing that —like Matt Fee likes to say— we are indeed not like the mainland. And, so, we have to address these issues of renting, housing, and zoning differently than the mainland. Nantucket is fortunate the Seasonal Community designation will help us to do this over time in a Nantucket-specific way. It acknowledges that our housing patterns, population rhythms, and land use are fundamentally seasonal, not a problem, but a validation. Article 66 aligns very well with this designation which recognizes that seasonal communities by definition have a high rate of “STR” in relation to over-all housing stock for its tourism accommodations, whereas the other three Articles fly in its face with restrictions on 30-50 percent of “STR.” Article 66 respects the zoning needs of a historic tourism economy — one protected under the State’s Preservation Act and our National Historic Landmark designation as well.

It’s true that the pandemic took a toll. When restrictions lifted, we experienced a 12-month “high season” that exhausted services and workers and blurred lines between seasonal and permanent populations. That moment of intensity was temporary. But ack•now used those years to launch their lawsuits, spend millions on professional PR campaigns, which used fear tactics and mainland assumptions about “STR” which have just not born out. The island has since returned to normal seasonal rhythms. But ack•now has left its litigation threat on the table. This is not old Nantucket, and I hope we’re not going to accept being pushed around like this in 21st century Nantucket.

What’s been lost in the PAC’s anti-tourism narrative is that those of us who vacation rent are Nantucket natives and generational families with deep ties to the island’s history who are the keepers of the old island culture. We are also year-round families, retirees, non-voting homeowners, and people from many countries and backgrounds. I would point out that Nantucket has managed to continue to be one of the most diverse communities in the country as it has been for centuries. Article 66 will allow this unique vibrancy to survive this mis-guided attack on the Nantucket we all know and love. Whether you were born here or came to live here, you knew it was a Seasonal Heritage Tourism island. The restrictions in Articles 67, 68, 69 fly in the face of that and would have significant impact on all the community, most particularly the middle classes. Don’t do this to your island community without understanding all the implications.

Article 66 protects this culture by ending the ambiguity that ack•now has weaponized. It reflects the lived neighborly tradition of our island. Articles 67, 68, and 69 do the opposite: all of them sow more ill-will with neighbors monitoring neighbors; invite even more lawsuits; and disrupt the whole economic system for absolutely no good reason in the world. They’ve been defeated at six Town Meetings already. But instead of supporting a unified fix, their proponents keep returning with more complexity and division. Only very few voters like this approach. No one wants it to continue.

Article 66 is the clean, lawful, transparent fix. It’s been vetted and strongly endorsed by the Planning Board and the Finance Committee. The Select Board noted the importance of codifying in a zoning bylaw (that’s Article 66), and regulating in general bylaws (we adopted these over the last 4 years. https://nantucketcurrent.com/o....) Town Counsel said Article 66 is the best article to answer the Judge’s warning and says it offers the strongest legal protection for Nantucket, thus respecting Land Court guidance.

We’re not the mainland. We don’t have a corporate STR problem. We have a homegrown, locally adapted system where just 8 percent of homes support 92 percent of all visitor accommodations. That’s not just efficient — it’s remarkable. It’s one of the lowest “STR” rates amongst the Commonwealth’s Seasonal Communities.

Voters now face a historic choice: clarify our laws, stop the lawsuits, and vote to keep Nantucket Nantucket — or descend further into confusion and conflict. The country is watching to see what one of the world’s oldest Resort islands will do with its famous hospitality industry.

But for the 1,000 residents at Town Meeting II, I urge Nantucket’s 21st century voters to see clear to protect the community’s integrity, economy, and dignity. I will be Voting YES on Article 66, and Voting NO on Articles 67, 68, and 69. Thank you for reading,

Caroline Robinson Baltzer
Sponsor of Article 66