Finding Common Ground

To the editor: On September 17th, Nantucket voters will convene once again to seek a palatable solution to the widely supported notion that we as a community want to 1) both preserve and regulate the long-standing practice of family vacation rentals, which goes back a century and on which many rely to keep the family home in the family, and 2) at the same time strongly discourage investment-driven STRs.

There are wide ranging ideas about the best way to achieve this. I respect that. I believe everyone coming to this discussion, regardless of their viewpoint, is coming with a sincere love for our island and community, and that they have good intent.

People would often ask me in my prior role as Housing Director what my thoughts were on the STR topic.

The first thing I would often say is: I don't have the magic answer -- if it were an easy solution, we would have figured it out a long time ago.

The second thing I would often tell them is: we could ban STRs across the board and $3.5 million homes, which is the median home price on Nantucket today, are not suddenly going to become affordable, or attainable, to year-rounders. Not without significant subsidy -- which is why I am such a strong proponent of the real estate transfer fee for housing.

In the aftermath of ATM this spring, I was asked to be part of a group trying to thread the needle on the protections the community wants and simultaneous prevention of being overrun by "investor-owned STRs".

This small group was comprised of wide-ranging views on the STR topic. We made a point of talking and listening to each other. More importantly, we made a point of talking and listening to other groups with other perspectives who were working on possible solutions.

Article 1 is a solid attempt to thread this needle. One STR property per person. Significant deterrence relative to investors, with a provision calling for only three contracts in July and August for the first five years of ownership. Acknowledgement of cottage colonies created prior to zoning. An exemption for hosted stays where someone is on-site ensuring good behavior. Protection for neighborhoods in limiting turnover during the high season. Certainty for everyone.

Article 1 followed an inclusive Select Board process which involved Steven Cohen and the realtor perspective, the Put Nantucket Neighborhoods First group, our group, and public input by year-round and seasonal residents alike.

That was followed by a Planning Board process that really listened to the types of concerns expressed by the Nantucket Land & Water Council, as just one example. Not only did the Planning Board listen, they acted by incorporating the vast majority of the changes recommended in the NL&WC's July 10 letter.

Article 1 is the result of thoughtful input from all sides of the discussion. Because of the input incorporated from the many perspectives, I believe it is a better product than any of the individual group proposals (Articles 2, 3 and 4) -- including our group's own original proposal.

There is something in the final version of Article 1 for everyone to love and, just as likely, something in there for everyone also to dislike. That is the nature of compromise.

Opposing something is easy. Working together to find and agree to reasonable compromise -- that's where the hard work resides. Even within our own group, if one could order a la carte, not everyone is enthusiastic about each individual provision of Article 1. However, we each are able to subscribe to the Article 1 package as a whole.

Perfection is an ideal, and often can be the enemy of the good.

I have great faith in the voters to decide what is best for our community. I look forward to joining you all on the 17th for healthy and respectful consideration of what is before us.

Tucker Holland