I can’t believe of all people, Sen. Jeb Bradley is co-sponsoring SB 249. My wife and I chose to retire to Conway six years ago for a variety of reasons, one of which was to live in a less autocratic state than Massachusetts. I’ve always felt that the more local the government is, the more responsive it can be towards the particular needs of its citizens.
Every been to an retirement community, they are very quiet. Lots of restrictions. This is what is really happening here , change Conway from a tourist town to a retirement community. Yes what they want is a BIG change eliminating ski rentals and summer rentals. This has been going on forever in the valley . But people move here to retire and they realize it’s not as quiet as they thought. The answer: get rid of the tourists. Fine . But I guess it’s about the children. Economic opportunities is what brings families to a location. Where’s the opportunity’s ? Sort term rentals create opportunities for emerging businesses. A local young man or woman can start a variety of business opportunities services servicing the rentals. The town could and address the housing issue in a constructive way rather than scapegoating property owners . If it’s about family’s and children then tell me why when I was with my two daughters aged 7& 9 they were yelled foul language directly at them and told to go back to mass .!!!! Not so welcoming. I think this is more about a retiree who wants to remake the community into a retirement community. It’s not about the children or housing. If it is do something!!!! And eliminating rentals will not solve the affordable housing problem. Everyone knows that . But this letter is about retirement folks who get their pickle ball court , get the government money to support themselves , get free healthcare, social security on and on . I fine with this but then you try to destroy the tourist economy in the area you relocate to ?!? Take away economic opportunities. That’s not going to bring families here . But it will make it a nice quiet town for the old folks and rich second home owners who leave them empty.
When our founding fathers moved to this continent the embraced the common law right for landlords to create and control a tenancy on their property. They could have rejected this right as communism does. They did not.
This right is entrenched in the Constitution of the United States. Recall colonial distain for having to “give quarter” to British troops. This was not anti British sentiment because colonists saw themselves as British. This was explicit resentment against the practice of government dictating the terms of tenancy on their property.
American jurisprudence has always embraced this right. Later in our history, the Supreme Court established a public health or safety exception to this right. However, this tenancy right was not abdicated rather the burden of proof of a health or safety need was placed on the government entity to support by more than just theory or speculation. The anti STR gloom and doom purveyors are akin to the witchcraft tribunals of the 1600s. Claims that affordable housing will result from banning STRs is mere “spectral evidence”
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(2) comments
Every been to an retirement community, they are very quiet. Lots of restrictions. This is what is really happening here , change Conway from a tourist town to a retirement community. Yes what they want is a BIG change eliminating ski rentals and summer rentals. This has been going on forever in the valley . But people move here to retire and they realize it’s not as quiet as they thought. The answer: get rid of the tourists. Fine . But I guess it’s about the children. Economic opportunities is what brings families to a location. Where’s the opportunity’s ? Sort term rentals create opportunities for emerging businesses. A local young man or woman can start a variety of business opportunities services servicing the rentals. The town could and address the housing issue in a constructive way rather than scapegoating property owners . If it’s about family’s and children then tell me why when I was with my two daughters aged 7& 9 they were yelled foul language directly at them and told to go back to mass .!!!! Not so welcoming. I think this is more about a retiree who wants to remake the community into a retirement community. It’s not about the children or housing. If it is do something!!!! And eliminating rentals will not solve the affordable housing problem. Everyone knows that . But this letter is about retirement folks who get their pickle ball court , get the government money to support themselves , get free healthcare, social security on and on . I fine with this but then you try to destroy the tourist economy in the area you relocate to ?!? Take away economic opportunities. That’s not going to bring families here . But it will make it a nice quiet town for the old folks and rich second home owners who leave them empty.
When our founding fathers moved to this continent the embraced the common law right for landlords to create and control a tenancy on their property. They could have rejected this right as communism does. They did not.
This right is entrenched in the Constitution of the United States. Recall colonial distain for having to “give quarter” to British troops. This was not anti British sentiment because colonists saw themselves as British. This was explicit resentment against the practice of government dictating the terms of tenancy on their property.
American jurisprudence has always embraced this right. Later in our history, the Supreme Court established a public health or safety exception to this right. However, this tenancy right was not abdicated rather the burden of proof of a health or safety need was placed on the government entity to support by more than just theory or speculation. The anti STR gloom and doom purveyors are akin to the witchcraft tribunals of the 1600s. Claims that affordable housing will result from banning STRs is mere “spectral evidence”
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.