Our Island Home Finances Demand A Closer Look Before Ballot Vote

To the editor: Our Island Home isn’t just expensive - it’s fundamentally unfair.

At Town Meeting, Article 11 was passed. Now, as ballot question 1 in the May 19 election, voters are being asked to make the final decision - and the numbers demand a closer look.

This proposal would commit Nantucket taxpayers to more than $350 million over time to build and operate a 45-bed facility serving a very small number of people at any given moment. In its first year alone, the town would be on the hook for roughly $15 to 16 million - about 10 percent of the entire budget - with costs rising year after year. To put that in perspective, it is a $375,000 to $550,000 subsidy per bed, per year. Yes, you read that correctly.

At the same time, Nantucket faces over $200 million in near-term capital needs and nearly $1 billion in long-term investments for schools, infrastructure, and coastal resilience - priorities that benefit the entire community.

Ballot question 1 does not serve those broader needs.

And it gets worse. Because the facility relies on Medicare and Medicaid, Nantucket cannot limit residency to locals. That means taxpayers could be subsidizing off-island seniors - at extraordinary cost - while the burden falls entirely on this community.

This isn’t about compassion. It’s about accountability. No alternatives were meaningfully explored. No serious private funding was pursued. And residents are being asked to absorb a massive, escalating financial obligation that benefits very few.

Nantucket deserves solutions that are fair, balanced, and sustainable.

Ballot question 1 fails that test—and taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to carry a burden this large for a benefit this small.

Sincerely,
Jenna Nankin