Why I'm Voting "NO" On Article 59

To the editor: With regard to STRs, many friends and neighbors have asked what they can and can’t do under the recent Land Court decision, and why they should vote NO on Article 59. This is because the STR issue on Nantucket is difficult to understand as well as being mired in complexities. Oftentimes, words are often deliberately misconstrued by those persons or entities profiteering from STRs and are misleading to voters.

So, here’s what Nantucket residents can and can’t currently do under the Land Court’s decision.

1. You can rent your house as a STR as long as you live in your house longer than you rent it.

2. You can’t use your house as a commercial STR which is renting your property for longer than you live in it. (As Judge Vhay said in his ruling, "STR's are not a legal principal use in a residential district.”)

Here’s why Nantucket residents should vote NO on Article 59:

1. It would allow STRs everywhere on island with no restrictions - including commercial STRs (i.e., those that are used principally or exclusively as STRs).

2. If Article 59 passes and is later amended, all of the existing STRs would essentially be grandfathered as pre-existing non-conforming uses.

Current news tells of many cities and towns around the country who have placed restrictions on the burgeoning STR market and done so expediently. Why can't Nantucket do the same?

Beverly Dammin