A veteran real estate broker with 28 years of experience on Nantucket has voiced strong opposition to proposed short-term rental regulations, warning of negative economic consequences for the island community. While acknowledging the efforts of those involved in crafting the compromise, the author argues that Article 2 does not represent a balanced solution but rather an erosion of property rights. In contrast, Article 1 is supported as it formalizes rental practices while safeguarding homeowner freedoms.
The proposed restrictions, which limit rental availability, are expected to reduce supply without significantly altering demand. According to basic economic principles, this imbalance could drive up prices for available rental periods. While some property owners might benefit from higher rates, local businesses dependent on consistent visitor traffic—such as tour operators, restaurants, and retail shops—could face reduced income due to fewer guests during shoulder seasons.
Concerns extend beyond tourism. Homeowners who may need to rent temporarily due to unforeseen personal or financial circumstances would be constrained by the 49-day cap, which may not cover ownership costs. This limitation could force individuals to sell their properties under pressure, undermining long-term housing stability.
Data shows a 16 percent decline in rental transactions processed by the author’s firm over the past seven years, even amid a robust economy. Existing regulations already address community concerns: corporate ownership of rentals is banned, noise rules are enforced, safety and insurance standards are required through a rental registry, and a hotline exists for reporting disturbances—only five calls were logged in 2025. Enforcement is further supported by local police and property managers.
Financial implications are also significant. In 2019, Nantucket introduced an 11.7 percent tax on short-term rentals. Reducing rental activity could cut municipal revenue by an estimated $3 million, raising questions about how the town would compensate for the shortfall.
Claims that short-term rentals overburden infrastructure are challenged by observations of daily traffic patterns. Congestion on roads like Old South Road persists regardless of rental status, often involving local residents rather than visitors. Utility consumption and lawn maintenance habits do not appear to differ meaningfully between renters and seasonal occupants.
The author calls for self-reflection, urging the community to stop scapegoating vacationers and instead evaluate its own environmental practices. With the debate having caused deep divisions, the recommendation is clear: reject Article 2 and support Article 1 to preserve economic vitality and local autonomy.
— news from Nantucket Current
— News Original —
Island Real Estate Broker Warns About Economic…
To the editor: I have tremendous respect for people on both sides of the STR debate, but I cannot remain silent. I have been a real estate broker for 28 years, and I am a co-owner and broker of an island firm. These views are my own, and while they do not reflect the views of all my associates, they do reflect the views of the vast majority of them. n nDavid Iverson deserves credit for the time he has invested, but I cannot support his proposed Article 2. Article 2 has been posed as a compromise for this 6-year debate. It is not a compromise; it is reluctant acquiescence. I am a firm believer in property rights, and Article 2 strips Nantucket homeowners of these rights. I support Article 1, which codifies Nantucket rentals and preserves the rights of our citizens. n nArticle 2 is unlikely to have a significant impact on the real estate community. The demand for Nantucket remains strong. Article 2 limits the supply. The law of supply and demand says this will only make those few precious rental weeks that much more expensive. Not a bad result for some of us, but what about those who rely on full occupancy to make their living? Fewer visitors means fewer bike tours, fewer fishing charters, fewer dinners out, fewer t-shirts sold, and fewer turnover cleanings. Article 2 will have a significant adverse economic impact on Nantucket ‘s community. n nMany of us have no intention of renting our homes, but what happens if, for some reason, we NEED to rent? 49 days of peak season rental will not cover the expense of owning my home. What then? Do we need to sell because life has served us one of the many curveballs that we did not see coming? n nOver the past seven years, our office has seen a 16 percent decrease in the number of rentals we process. With a healthy economy, fewer of our clients are renting their homes. But people still want to be here, and with that, we do need some guardrails. Fortunately, we already have them. We have already prohibited corporations from owning rental properties. We have noise ordinances in place. We have a rental registry with safety and insurance requirements. We have a rental hotline to report nuisances (in 2025, they received five calls). We already have an enforcement agency: the Nantucket Police Department. The efforts of homeowners, real estate agents, and caretakers further this enforcement. n nIn 2019, Nantucket added an 11.7 percent rental tax to rentals. Restricting rentals, as proposed in Article 2, will have a significant impact on rental tax income, which we estimate to be in the $3 million range. Where will the town make up that revenue? n nThere has been discussion of STRs straining Nantucket ‘s infrastructure. If we limit the number of nights that can be rented, do we think that these homes will sit empty, and the traffic will disappear? Or that on the weeks that are not rented, the landscaping crews will still not sit in a line of traffic that runs the span of Old South Road. The homes will still be occupied, and it will still be the same number of heads on beds. And if anyone wants to question the traffic situation, go drive down Old South tomorrow morning. This morning, the traffic ran from the Rotary to the airport, and the occupants of the vehicles were not renters. I do not think I saw one single out-of-state plate. n nI want to protect Nantucket ‘s fragile environment. I love this island, but do STRs fertilize lawns more than seasonal residents? Do they drink more water? Consume more electricity? Why do we vilify those who come for vacation? Because they are the easy target. I fertilize my lawn, and I occasionally run the A/C with the door open. It may be time for us to look at ourselves and stop blaming others. n nI am really tired of this debate. It has done more damage to this community than just about any other subject. I am not willing to accept Article 2 as a “compromise”. Article 2 will devastate the shoulder season that businesses rely upon. Lawns will still be too green, traffic will still be a nuisance, and tax revenue will be lost. Who wins? n nIt is time to end this debate and vote Yes for Article 1. n nLet Nantucketers determine what is best for Nantucket. n nSincerely, n nGreg Mckechnie