The Nantucket Land And Water Council Needs To Stay In Its Lane

To the editor: While I have the highest respect for Emily Molden and the work that the Nantucket Land and Water Council achieves, I do not support their view on the Planning Board's Article 2. We are disappointed in the direction that the Nantucket Land and Water Council has taken in their alignment with ack now and their joint attempt to influence our community through unwanted political action.

The Nantucket Land and Water Council needs to direct their energy towards our PFAS issues, our contaminated water supply that will affect all of us. Focusing your efforts on reducing excess nitrogen from fertilzied lawns and over watering would be a greater benefit to our community.

We have owned homes that we have rented to vacationers and year-rounders as we see fit. By capping the vacation rentals to 70 days will not solve any problem citied by the NLWC. It will only create them by taking money from hardworking islanders.

Restricting rentals to a seven-day minimum is very elitist. Not everyone can afford time or money to come for seven days. This is very exclusionary and unfair to the general public who want to visit a National Historic Landmark. We have many checks and balances that regulate our tourism ebbs and flows. Why would our governance propose such a severe and unnecessary restriction with no evidence, nor studies to support the Planning Board's Article 2? This will not solve our resources and infrastructure issues.

As far as allowing unrestricted STRs island-wide, this is a blatantly incorrect statement. Town Meeting already voted in four restrictions that are currently in place to govern our STR model.

Why would Nantucketers want to compromise our strong economic viability with arbitrary restrictions put forth by special interest factions?

Join us in voting yes on Article 1 - the citizens' article.

Chris and Cheryl Emery