Urging Community To Vote "Yes" On Article 66

To the editor: As a former member of the town-appointed Short-Term Rental Work Group (STRWG), I closely follow the ongoing discussions. It continues to seem that the best way to regulate and manage STR’s is to use the framework that the STRWG settled on after a year of careful deliberations. As a reminder, that framework was to use a Zoning Bylaw to codify STR’s in the Zoning Code while using General Bylaws to regulate their operation.

At this time, there are already numerous regulations in place that govern the operation of STR’s, including a ban on corporations. The missing piece has been to address the zoning code as Judge Vhay has since recommended. That is why I am pleased to see Article 66 proposed by Caroline Baltzer because it provides clear language and officially codifies a practice that is already in place.

Contrary to what some people would like you to believe, codifying vacation rentals in the zoning code is NOT an invitation for reckless expansion of STR’s. It merely allows STR’s to be officially identified as a legal use of a property as has been the practice for over 100 years. Once that zoning bylaw is in place, it becomes a partner to the general bylaws that will continue to regulate STR’s under the new title “NVR’s”.

The three alternative articles this year (67, 68, and 69) propose significant additional restrictions. The PB, FinCom and SB have all recommended against taking action on each of these articles. I can see why! These articles involve collections of proposals that the STRWG considered and largely rejected for a variety of reasons. The STRWG spent a great deal of time weighing every option that we could imagine. We considered the financial impacts, whether an option risked being deemed unconstitutional, and the potential intended and unintended consequences of the policies individually and when combined. While the STRWG did propose some additional restrictions at the conclusion of our time, these were more moderate in scope and effect. Contrary to recent advertising, Articles 67 and 68 are not simple and uncomplicated. 67 layers multiple restrictions that would make it very difficult for seasonal and year-round families who rent. It would be difficult to reverse if the effects are not desirable. Articles 67, 68, and 69 have not been vetted, and they ignore lessons learned, including that residency requirements are likely unconstitutional and unenforceable. The proposals in these articles would likely cause more harm than good to the island community as a whole.

The Town of Nantucket is in the process of hiring a full-time STR community Liaison who will “oversee the registration, licensing, and enforcement coordination of STR rental regulations.” Please vote to codify the framework provided by Article 66 and allow time for the mechanisms already in place through the general bylaws to be enforced.

I urge you to vote "Yes" on 66 and "No" on 67, 68, and 69.

Karen L. Zagayko
Former Member of the STRWG