Don't Kill The Golden Goose Or Lay A Rotten Egg

To the editor: With the report that Nantucket’s tax income from rentals was down 27 percent last summer, unless Nantucket voters at this year’s May 3 Town Meeting stay alert, it’s possible to kill both the golden goose and lay a rotten egg!

Four articles are up for a vote in this year’s ATM warrant that address the vacation rental issue. One makes good sense, while the other three are risky indeed.

Article 66 would preserve your right to rent, stop lawsuits against neighbors, protect the island from lost tax revenues, and end this debate once and for all.

Since voters have now approved several articles in previous ATMs to register and regulate vacation rentals, Article 66 preserves an old island tradition under strict regulatory guidelines devised by the town. An easy YES vote.

It’s the other articles – 67, 68 & 69 – that could end up costing island taxpayers millions of dollars, in addition to causing more tax loss for the town. Why? Because 67 & 68 seek to treat longtime Nantucket homeowners who live off-island differently than those who live on-island year-round.

Consider a recent court ruling in South Lake Tahoe, California.

Voters in that resort town, by the narrowest of margins (58 votes), enacted a ban on short-term rentals with one exception: year-round residents were still allowed some rentals. When that discriminatory ban took effect, 1,300 seasonal homeowners went to court. A few weeks ago, a judge ruled that this type of unequal treatment of property rights violated what’s called the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Not only was the ban struck down, but some of the seasonal homeowners threatened to sue South Lake Tahoe for lost rental income during the years they were not allowed to rent. Taxpayers are on the hook.

If passed, Articles 67 & 68 could lead to a similar outcome. Why? Both Articles 67 & 68 require a homeowner’s family or friends to spend at least 30 days in their Nantucket home before they are allowed to rent it. This clearly benefits year-round homeowners and discriminates against seasonal off-island homeowners. Most working Americans do not get 30 days of vacation time to stay on the island. This 30-day requirement is designed to prefer year-round residents. It also explains why the Town’s Advisory Committee for Non-Voting Taxpayers opposes Articles 67 & 68.

Article 69 is problematic in a different way. It limits all homeowners to just 70 days of rental. Since the high summer season is longer than 70 days, once homeowners lease their homes for the summer, they would have no days left to rent to visitors during the off-season, shoulder seasons.

The Chamber of Commerce and the Town have worked hard to encourage tourism in the off-season. Daffodil Weekend, Figawi, Wine Festival, Book Festival, Film Festival, autumn weddings, and Christmas Stroll are all at risk with fewer homes left for visitors to rent under Article 69.

Voters, please stay alert. This could be the most consequential ATM, negatively impacting town revenues and the Nantucket economy for years to come. Vote YES on 66 and NO to 67, 68 & 69.

Jonathan Delano
Lyons Lane