Former Town Assessor Argues In Favor Of Article 1
Debbie Dilworth •
To the editor: As a homeowner, former Town Assessor and Finance department employee for 37 plus years, naturally, I have been following the issue of short-term rentals (STRs) since it all began more than five years ago and for those reasons I am strongly in support of Article 1. While I could reiterate the reasons why Article 2 is just the wrong choice, from enforcement, potential reduction in revenue, and even worse, a possible impact to our town bond rating (AAA), as we approach the 11th hour and ready ourselves for November 4th I want to offer my own opinion of what is truly going on.
Allow me to share what Land Court Judge Vhay wrote in his opinion. “The facts found by this Court show that STRs are, as the Town and ZBA have contended, a 'customary' activity on Nantucket, albeit one with a puzzling zoning history.” Puzzling? The use of the word puzzling should come as no surprise to Town Meeting veterans who know that there are always audible sighs when our moderator announces that it is time to take up zoning. Written and then approved by lawyers, our zoning bylaws are a true word salad where one slight change can collapse the true purpose and intent of the law like a Jenga puzzle. And that is how we got to where we are today. At the 2015 Annual Town Meeting, a “housekeeping article” that was not called for discussion and ultimately approved, unintentionally took out the operative words (rental and intended use thereof) that had reinforced our property rights since zoning was first adopted in 1972. Our “word salad” became a chopped salad. Actually, the epitome of “gut zoning” a favorite term used by Article 2 supporters.
Judge Vhay further opined: “…… hovering over the historical evidence are two undisputed facts: first, the vast majority of Nantucket residences have been (and still are) second or 'vacation' homes; and second, a sizeable part of Nantucket’s economy is connected to the goods and services demanded by the seasonal occupants of such homes, whether they be the families of owners or the families of renters.” Two undisputed facts.
So why did Judge Vhay rule as he did and as the supporters of Article 2 like to say, that short-term rentals are not allowed? Is he biased? I think not. In my opinion, his honor picked through the “word salad” that is our zoning bylaw in search of language to support what he had already opined. Unfortunately, the only mechanism remaining, let’s just call it a crouton in the word salad, was accessory use. The problem with “accessory use” however is that it relies heavily on interpretation and requires that three things be met; customary (which was established), but then “subordinate” and “incidental." More toppings for the word salad, which can be found in Article 2 of your warrants. Article 2 supporters have now heavily endorsed this concept, perhaps thinking that is what His Honor wanted us to do. I for one think he simply wanted us to make our zoning bylaws less “puzzling” or perhaps easier to read. It is absolutely puzzling to me how anyone could endorse Article 2 (also known as the compromise article!) when it adds more confusion than ever to our zoning bylaws. Page two of our warrant offers large-print versions for the visually impaired. This is a very nice accommodation. If only there could be one for zoning.
Please attend the Special Town Meeting on November 4th and join me in voting yes on Article 1 and then “toss the salad” that is Article 2.
Debbie Dilworth