Preserving Nantucket’s Spirit Means Protecting Its People

To the editor: Nantucket isn’t just a place - it’s a legacy. My family’s connection to the island dates back nearly a century, when we ran Cy’s Green Coffee Pot in the 1930s. Through generations, Nantucket has remained our home, our gathering place, and our shared heartbeat. We’ve watched the island evolve, but its spirit - rooted in community, tradition, and resilience - has endured.

That spirit and legacy is now at risk.

Article 2 proposes restrictions on short-term rentals that would fundamentally alter the island’s social and economic fabric. While framed as a regulatory measure, its impact would be deeply personal —threatening the ability of families like ours to stay connected to Nantucket and jeopardizing the livelihoods of countless islanders who rely on seasonal income to survive.

Short-term rentals are not a luxury — they are a lifeline to the Island. The statistics are there and over 93 percent of Nantucket visitors stay fewer than 31 days. These guests fuel our economy: they rent bikes, take taxis, dine in local restaurants, shop downtown, rent from brokers and their agents, justify property managers, cleaning services, and support the multitude of small businesses that keep Nantucket vibrant. Restricting their access would ripple across every corner of the island — slashing tax revenue, cutting jobs, and weakening services that year-round residents depend on.

The idea that these visitors will simply “stay in hotels” is not only unrealistic — it’s dismissive. Hotels often cost two to three times more than short-term rentals and lack the flexibility that working families need. Meanwhile, the rigidity of Article 2 would hurt year-round residents who rent their homes to make ends meet, as well as the seasonal workers who rely on flexible housing options to stay employed and proudly islanders.

This isn’t just about property rights. It’s really about people. It’s about preserving the Nantucket we know — one where families return summer after summer, small businesses thrive, and working-class islanders can afford to live and work. Article 2 threatens to turn Nantucket into a gated enclave, accessible only to the wealthy and disconnected from its roots. Before we approve sweeping changes and price out the heart of Nantucket, we must ask: Who are we protecting and who are we pushing out? Let’s not legislate out the very soul of Nantucket.

If our parents, Zelda and Milton Zlotin, both longtime stewards of the island’s spirit, could speak from the grave, I believe they would be heartbroken by the direction this proposal takes. They understood Nantucket not as a commodity, but as a community. They knew its strength came from the diversity of people who made it their home — whether for a week, a season, or a lifetime.

Respectfully,

Elaine and Bob Feldberg