In Support Of Article 2 And Short-Term Rentals In The Nantucket Tradition

To the editor: I’m writing in support of Article 2 and to dispel the spread of Article 2 misinformation.

Article 2 is the compromise article that was developed by Dave Iverson, the chair of the Planning Board, and Tom Dixon, a member of the Select Board.

It represents the views of all stakeholders who have agreed to concessions in order to develop this proposal. Therefore, it serves as a compromise in the views of almost all of the stakeholders.

Unfortunately, those who support Article 1 and the associated unrestricted short-term rentals (STRs), made no concessions or compromises.

Since most of the supporters of Article 1 are those with financial interests at stake, this “my way or the highway” attitude is no surprise.

Furthermore, any newspaper interested in fair reporting should ask those who write letters in support of Article 1 to disclose their financial interests in STRs. Regardless, residents can search the recent AirROI report on Nantucket to learn who financially benefits from Article 1.

Conversely, Article 2 protects the property rights of island residents to rent in the Nantucket tradition. It allows 70 days of STR per year plus multiple 32 day rentals plus as many owner-occupied rental days as one would want.

That should be plenty for any homeowner to earn rental income and stay connected to Nantucket.

Unless, of course, for those who use their properties primarily for investment purposes; paying residential tax rates for properties used for commercial purposes.

And just a reminder, 80 percent of STRs are owned by off-island investors.

I hope voters will support Article 2 and protect their neighbors.

Sincerely,

Eric Silfen MD