Next Week's STM Another Opportunity To Vote NO On Articles 1, 3, And 4, YES On Article 2

To the editor: Voters at Special Town Meeting on September 17 have another opportunity to reject the gutting of residential zoning as they have done four times in as many years by voting NO on Articles 1, 3, and 4. They will also have the opportunity to vote YES on Article 2, an Accessory Use article which codifies the right of homeowners to rent while protecting neighborhoods. We have heard that there will be an amendment to Article 2 which will allow very generous STR days [up to one less than owner occupied days].

For 50 years, Nantucket’s zoning bylaw has protected neighborhoods so that year-round and seasonal residents can enjoy their homes. Articles 1, 3 and 4 concerning Short Term Rentals will eliminate zoning protection for neighborhoods-something that would be a terrible mistake and lead to the transformation of Nantucket from a community to a rental park. Why would voters ever give up the protection of zoning? Only Article 2 codifies the traditional right of homeowners to rent while also protecting neighborhoods.

Those who stand to profit from such a transformation are pushing hard for allowing STR as a legal principal use because they stand to make a lot of money. I think it is fair to say they are not concerned about the impact of such a drastic zoning change on neighborhoods. And, despite the denials from realtors, there is no question that investor STRs have taken housing opportunities from locals. The conversion of 600 Long Term Rentals to STR and mid-island prices driven higher by investors have shut out young Islanders.

Enforcing zoning would have been a much easier way forward, but PLUS and the Town decided otherwise. Remember, the Town was advised that STRs are not a legal principal use four years ago. That was when Andrew Vorce and Dawn Holdgate, an STR owner at the time, decided they needed to fix zoning. They “instructed” the ZBA to rule that STR was a legal principal use and launched a series of articles that would gut zoning. Both strategies failed. The Land Court overruled the ZBA and the voters rejected every article that would gut zoning despite the fear tactics. No one believes that Nantucket homeowners don’t have the right to rent. Everyone knows that STRs have hurt housing and disrupt neighborhoods. Everyone knows the economy will survive and maybe improve if Article 2 passes and more people who work here (and maybe live in the Cape) can find housing and add to the year-round economy.

The ZBA, with perfect timing, just ruled that an owner can STR more than twice as much as he uses the dwelling himself and still qualify as a legal “accessory” use. The conflicted members had the answer all along but took weeks searching for something to support it. By making this ruling, they may very well have rendered themselves irrelevant. The ruling is an embarrassment to Nantucket and will be overruled by the Land Court.

Zoning is the only protection the community has from this kind of carpetbagging. There is a strong movement to turn houses in residential districts into party venues and/or time share-like ownership structures that PLUS and the ZBA are supporting. Why? The vast majority of the investors in these properties are not Nantucket residents. Why would voters destroy one of the most unique and beautiful communities on earth for the benefit of people who mostly don’t live here?

It makes no sense.

Peter McCausland