Chris Perry Column: Two Cans Of Spray Paint

The dust has settled from last Tuesday’s Special Town Meeting and the island is quickly shifting into its offseason mode. I plan on taking full advantage of the next seven months to recover before the next Town Meeting in May. Thankfully, there are no visible scars or bandages but I can assure you that my head is still splitting.

This time around, I found Town Meeting sounding a lot like the title of the 1966 film "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Clef and Eli Wallach.

It came to order at 5 p.m. With the topic of short-term rentals at the top of the agenda, it did not take long for most in the Mary P. Walker Auditorium to realize that it was going to be another fruitless exercise.

By 7:50 p.m., the exodus of voters began. As Madame Moderator Sarah Alger scolded the departing patrons, she read the final tally for Article 5 which was the last of the short-term rental articles.

But for the highly anticipated STR articles 1, 2, and 4, the final vote totals produced an anticlimactic ending after almost three hours of debate. These predictable results covering competing STR agendas is a clear indication that nothing has really changed over the last four years.

Despite efforts at six Town Meetings, the fact that we are no closer to settling this zoning conundrum is BAD and that’s the biggest takeaway from Tuesday night.

The sides are polarized and lining up a handful of different articles prone to confusing amendments is not helping. In fact, it defeats the purpose and only entrenches opposition. When the last batter, Grant Sanders, basically announces that he was stepping into the batter’s box and offering Article 4 as part of a last gasp contingency plan in the event Articles 1 & 2 failed, it’s hard for those in attendance to take it seriously.

For the record: Article 1 & 2 struck out - Sanders whiffed - and here we are again.

For those of you close to the prep and presentation of the various STR articles over the past four years, I am sure you are frustrated. However, what’s equally frustrating for the dedicated citizens who have religiously attended Town Meetings is the fact that it’s the same thing over and over again - paralysis through analysis and nothing gets done.

For years, sponsors of STR articles have promised us that things will be different. But when Town Meeting comes around and the combatants have finished lecturing the assembled voters that: “We must do something - We can not go on like this…” - nothing predictably changes.

At the same time, frustrated Nantucket voters have been sending their own message. And yet, the sponsors refuse to listen, ironically paving the way for the same repeating vote tally that they hope to avoid year after year.

The voter’s message is clear: Until a single, legitimate article is brought to the floor of Town Meeting with vocal, broad based support from the warring parties, nothing will pass.

Is that an extremely high bar?

Yes.

But, sitting through another episode of the short-term rental debate without changing the approach is Nantucket’s version of waterboarding. It’s cruel and unusual punishment.

A Town Meeting which has multiple STR articles that are destined to be amended and fraught with ambiguities and legal jargon ultimately isolates the voters and leaves them frustrated and disenfranchised.

Unless several of the parties blink and come together with an honest compromise where no one is happy but everyone is satisfied, the Massachusetts Land Court will decide for us.

Thankfully, Town Meeting caught a second wind.

As we moved to Articles 12 through 14, I found myself re-engaged.

What followed was a spirited debate centered around a potential rezoning of an area off Woodland Drive and Skyline Drive located behind the Richmond Great Point project. During the debate, topics such as zoning, affordable housing, density, sewer, water, traffic, deed restrictions, economic development, and long-range planning weaved their way through the discussion.

The debate was respectful, passionate, articulate and never crossed the line and that was GOOD.

Moderator Alger afforded Stephen Maury, who sponsored all three articles, ample opportunity to address the voters including the courtesy of returning to the microphone for a final word.

As the discussion gained steam, heavy hitters from both sides such as former Nantucket housing director Tucker Holland, Select Board chair Brooke Mohr, Select Board member Matt Fee, Housing Nantucket executive director Anne Kuszpa, as well as rarely heard from neighbors like Jay McConnell, Emma Young, and Phil Garufi, all jumped into the fray.

Clearly, there was a message sent by the voters of Nantucket who thumped Maury’s proposal to rezone the area. Despite the end use being advertised as affordable housing, it was never going to fly if the resulting density increase rivaled that of the city of Manila in the Philippines.

However, I heard another message on Tuesday night and that was it is possible for the community to debate a controversial topic in a healthy and meaningful way as Moderator Alger let things play out.

For example:

I heard debate and push back against affordable housing and the growing concerns about the lack of tangible results despite over $90 million being earmarked for affordable housing over the last five years.

I heard debate about private vs. public sector’s ability to produce affordable units in a timely fashion.

I heard debate about water and sewer, junkyards, Wiggles Way, noble goals, the inevitable head-butting of greedy developers vs. neighbors and neighborhoods.

And to take the edge off, I heard a tongue-in-cheek suggestion from Pat Taffe who echoed the sentiment of many of his neighbors who feel under siege by the amount of affordable housing being stuffed into the Surfside area when he suggested some affordable housing units be built on vacant land next to Something Natural on Cliff Road.

It was great.

And by the end of the debate, I can honestly say that I learned something new.

Undoubtedly, this discourse isn’t over. And frankly, Maury certainly did not help his cause when he posted on his Facebook page head shots of community members who spoke against his articles along with their home addresses in a truly petty post following Town Meeting.

Nevertheless, following the unproductive skirmish of the STR discussion, this exchange spoke volumes about the potential to rediscover the lost art of a relevant debate in a Town Meeting setting where we can agree to disagree with the potential of a meaningful compromise.

To those of you on both sides who participated in this debate on Tuesday night:

Thank you.

Article 16 was UGLY.

It was ugly because it was personal.

The ongoing feud between the Hillary Hedges Rayport clan and the NP&EDC clan is no longer focused solely on what’s truly good for Nantucket.

Now, it’s all about winning.

Despite the vote, Nantucket’s version of the Hatfields and the McCoys is not over. The community has watched this play out for several years, and by the tone of some of the sully exchanges at Town Meeting, it seems the snipping will continue. But in past years, having Town Meeting end on such a sour note , it would be the talk of the Town.

Not today.

Somewhere along the way, the goal and the message has been lost by these two “feuding families," and honestly, I don’t think the community really cares anymore.

And finally, three quick observations:

When Nantucket’s Sewer Department head David Gray spoke Tuesday night about capacity, 6,000 beds added to the system over the last few years, millions of gallons treated each day, etc., it was a sobering update. Next time, I hope he goes for more than the allotted two minutes.

Much like E.F. Hutton, when Emily Molden talks, I’ve learned to listen. When so many Town officials are ducking for political cover and refusing to go on the record, Nantucket’s Land & Water Council director rarely hesitates to step forward and comment with conviction. Her participation at Town Meeting was no different.

And finally, as for my favorite story of the night, it would be too easy to nominate a couple of the vignettes we heard of strangers found sleeping on a living room couch in the morning.

Instead, my favorite story from Town Meeting goes to Tobias Glidden.

While attempting to highlight the inevitable struggles between developers and environmentalists, Glidden came clean and admitted that as a seven-year-old boy, he once rode his bike down Rugged Lane to spray paint his name on the tires of an excavator in protest of their efforts to clear the land in his neighborhood for a new development.

You gotta love the effort.

My bet, he had two cans of spray paint - not one.

See you in May.