Support Article 1, Oppose Article 2: Protect What Works For Nantucket

To the editor: We bought our Nantucket home in 2020 with one clear purpose: to one day join this community full-time. Until then, using our home as a short-term rental makes that dream possible. It allows us to cover expenses, care for the property, and keep it as part of our family’s future.

We are not large-scale operators. Ours is a smaller home that we rent responsibly from late spring through Christmas Stroll. While it would be our preference to do so, like many homeowners, we find it difficult to only secure seven-night rentals. Instead, we often host guests for three to five nights to fill the calendar and meet our yearly costs. In fact, only two of our rentals this year met the seven-night standard proposed under Article 2.

That is why Article 2, which limits rentals to 70 nights a year and requires seven-night minimums from June 15 through August 31, is so concerning. This proposal would not only affect absentee investors. It would hurt families who rent in good faith, with reasons that go beyond their return on investment.

Besides individual homeowners, Article 2 would weaken the wider island economy. With total nights limited to 70 per year, many homes would quickly reach their cap during summer, leaving fewer available rentals in the spring and fall. Those shoulder months are vital for restaurants, shops, and service providers who rely on steady weekend traffic to bridge the gap between seasons. With fewer guest stays, local cleaners, landscapers, property managers, and tradespeople would see reduced work. Restaurants and shops would face quieter weeks, taxi and bike rentals would slow, and town lodging-tax receipts would decline. The very network of small businesses that depends on steady seasonal activity would feel the loss almost overnight.

By contrast, Article 1 codifies what already works. It recognizes that properly registered and taxed short-term rentals are a vital part of Nantucket’s housing and visitor economy. Supporting Article 1 provides a fair and functional framework while keeping the island accessible to families like ours who are deeply invested in its future.

If the concern is the total number of short-term rentals, we can look to Pinehurst, North Carolina, which stopped issuing new STR registrations entirely. While that policy preserves existing rights, it risks letting the rental inventory shrink too far over time as properties change hands. Nantucket could improve upon that approach by adopting a gradual, planned attrition model that protects current owners who purchased their homes under clear assumptions while maintaining an upper limit that balances housing for year-round residents with the island’s vital visitor economy. For instance, for every three rentals that leave the registry, one new registration could be issued until the total reaches an agreed-upon number that supports both the community and its economic health.

Our home is, of course, a financial investment for us. But it is also something more. We bought on Nantucket because we want this island to become a permanent part of our story, a place to one day call home, to pass on to our daughters and their families, and to root our future in a community we love. All of that will be at risk if Article 2 passes.

We do not have a vote in this matter. We live in New Jersey and can only ask, with great respect, that the people of Nantucket not take this dream away from families like ours who rely on short-term rentals to make it possible.

We urge our fellow voters to support Article 1 and oppose Article 2. Let’s protect what works today and come together afterward to craft thoughtful guardrails that ensure a balanced, sustainable, and welcoming future for the island we all cherish.

Sincerely,

Todd and Susan Raisch