I’ve been reading the responses to the STR fiasco. It’s obvious the Realtors' motivation is money. They have very adeptly involved the big guns, the state Legislature. Of course the main sponsor of SB 249 is Sen. Harold French, a Realtor.
Full disclosure, I am a second homeowner, and a masshole to boot. In the minds of some that makes me Satan, also I have never rented my place and although I never intend to, I would like to retain that right as I wish that for you too. My disagreement is to the snotty and condesending attitudes you cited. I think most of us second homeowner's work hard to get along with and fit in with the locals. We have a substantial investment in the community and want it to prosper. I have also seen some misbehavior, but my guess is that most often it is from short term visitors who only care about their fun few days up here. I believe it is a minority, but a vocal minority who like to trash anyone who was not born at Memorial Hospital. In the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along".
Dear Rebecca: The vote last year was NOT a vote to ban STRs. I understand that it was confusing to you and many others. It was a vote FOR something that was already perfectly legal…the use of homes for short term rental. So yes, it was confusing because voting against a warrant article that stated that STRs were to be permitted in residential zones was completely unnecessary since they were ALREADY allowed. Unfortunately, the selectmen felt the warrant article needed to be placed on the ballot because they misunderstood and misinterpreted (deliberately?) the zoning ordinance. Judge Amy Ignatius’ ruling clarified it for them. But, as we all know, they have ignored her very detailed and clear ruling and have instead decided to cling to their misinterpretation by appealing the ruling. I have no doubt they will fail, and will long be remembered for their stubbornness. Perhaps another reason for confusion was that the voters voted to allow regulation of STRs, even as they voted for what they, and you, thought was a ban. I can see why so many were confused. The bottom line, however, is that the vote to allow STRs in residential districts…whether you voted FOR or AGAINST it, was moot and unnecessary… and never was a vote to ban.
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
Full disclosure, I am a second homeowner, and a masshole to boot. In the minds of some that makes me Satan, also I have never rented my place and although I never intend to, I would like to retain that right as I wish that for you too. My disagreement is to the snotty and condesending attitudes you cited. I think most of us second homeowner's work hard to get along with and fit in with the locals. We have a substantial investment in the community and want it to prosper. I have also seen some misbehavior, but my guess is that most often it is from short term visitors who only care about their fun few days up here. I believe it is a minority, but a vocal minority who like to trash anyone who was not born at Memorial Hospital. In the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along".
Dear Rebecca: The vote last year was NOT a vote to ban STRs. I understand that it was confusing to you and many others. It was a vote FOR something that was already perfectly legal…the use of homes for short term rental. So yes, it was confusing because voting against a warrant article that stated that STRs were to be permitted in residential zones was completely unnecessary since they were ALREADY allowed. Unfortunately, the selectmen felt the warrant article needed to be placed on the ballot because they misunderstood and misinterpreted (deliberately?) the zoning ordinance. Judge Amy Ignatius’ ruling clarified it for them. But, as we all know, they have ignored her very detailed and clear ruling and have instead decided to cling to their misinterpretation by appealing the ruling. I have no doubt they will fail, and will long be remembered for their stubbornness. Perhaps another reason for confusion was that the voters voted to allow regulation of STRs, even as they voted for what they, and you, thought was a ban. I can see why so many were confused. The bottom line, however, is that the vote to allow STRs in residential districts…whether you voted FOR or AGAINST it, was moot and unnecessary… and never was a vote to ban.
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.