At a joint meeting with the West Tisbury planning board this week, the town’s short-term rental committee shared a draft proposal for a bylaw focused on managing and regulating short-term rentals.
West Tisbury officials are hoping that they can curb the increase of investment rental properties and maintain the unique year-round community by altering the town’s approach to addressing the short-term rental market.
The draft bylaw defines short-term rentals as a rental that is 30 days or fewer; it seeks to limit those rentals to fewer than 12 weeks per year, with a minimum of seven days per rental.
Under the proposal, the homeowner would have to reside on the property, in the primary dwelling unit, for at least one month throughout the year, and register the rental unit with the town on an annual basis, for $350.
Additionally, short-term rentals would be subject to inspection by the town’s building department and board of health, which would determine the maximum occupancy and maximum number of cars allowed on the property. Residential properties located in the town’s business district, and housing units rented fewer than 14 days per calendar year, would be exempt from the bylaw.
Currently, the town has a 63 percent year-round occupancy rate, and a total of 2,374 housing units; 315 of those are registered as short-term rentals.
The purpose of the proposed bylaw, committee member Karen Overtoom said, “is so we have some boundaries, so that we don’t turn into what Nantucket is right now — overrun with a lot of empty houses and losing their community.”
On the Vineyard, “I’ve seen the real estate market changing,” she said. “We used to sell houses to people who actually wanted to be here, and be part of the community.”
Now, Overtoom said, there’s been a jump in residences that remain vacant for the majority of the year, along with “completely absent homeowners.”
The regulation would “provide a process through which West Tisbury can continue the historic tradition of a vibrant vacation rental market by owner-occupied homes,” provided that they are lawful, registered rentals, Overtoom said. She added that it would still allow residents who’ve relied on the income from renting out their properties to continue doing so.
“We want you to be able to afford to live here, and to have all the use of your homes,” she said.
The bylaw would also seek to deter commercial interests like Marriot from buying housing for the sole purpose of renting out units on a short-term basis, in addition to ensuring preservation of the character and livability of the town of West Tisbury.
While the proposal was met with much support, some expressed concern with what they described as a complex and over-restricted policy that fails to address a number of housing-related issues.
Reid Silva, who also serves on the short-term rental committee, said he felt the bylaw was intended to more broadly regulate the short-term rental market, and that it ought to start with a more basic approach to solving the issue.
He expressed support over the proposal to solve what he called “two big-picture items”— stopping “the proliferation of corporations from buying residential properties to just turn them into for-profit businesses,” in addition to making sure that the town outlines the legality of the short-term rental market.
But the draft regulation has “evolved much more quickly,” he said, adding that the bylaw as written could negatively impact some year-round residents.
“I wish the planning board would put forth to the town something that is a little more simplistic and basic, that would get the principles in place, before working on the smaller details,” Silva said.
He noted that the requirements that all rentals be inspected, and monitored for any violation, would likely burden the town’s staff, who are already struggling to keep up with permitting and violation issues.
“We don’t have the personnel to control these things,” he said, noting that it would take a significant expansion of the town’s building department and resources to be able to accommodate a program like the one proposed.
The aim of presenting the proposed regulation in its draft form is to invite feedback that could help gear the committee toward improving the document before hosting an official public hearing, Bea Phear, short-term rental committee chair, said. Any proposal would need town meeting approval.
The committee plans to meet again next month, when it will continue the discussion on the draft.
This needs to go-to a Town vote, so it can be defeated and scrapped. The absurdity of this is beyond what taxpayers could ever imagine from a planning board run amok. The short term rental tax goes directly into the Town’s budget , it’s a windfall for the Town of West Tisbury and the Town fathers want to do away with it and at the same time keep increasing the property taxes. Please vote out next election anyone who supports this attack on home ownership.
Hotels, rooming houses, daily, weekend, week , monthly, seasonally and year around rentals must be regulated!
We the people decide our tax rates by the people we vote for.
“at the same time keep increasing the property taxes.” What town services do want to see cut?
There is no free lunch.
It’s nobody’s business what anyone does with their own home.
This proposal does not do away with short term rentals. The goal is to make them legal while deterring investment rentals and to help homeowners and seasonal rental owners. We expect that the number of short term rentals will not significantly change, and we are hoping that the character of the community will be protected. The full text of the draft is available on the town website, but it will surely change based on the feedback we have received so far.
The real estate market will self regulate with high interest rates and over valued property expect to see a significant correlation like 2008 in home sales and values, this will curb any investment demand for short term rental investments.
Airbnb volume is nationwide is of 40% from 2022.
Any solution should require year long leases with rent control. This would go a long way towards solving the affordable housing problem. A substantial fee, a percent of the rent, could allow for the hiring of more Building Dept staff.
I thought that in America, we had the concept
of private property, and you could do what you
on it and with it, within reason.
I often hear radical conservatives bemoaning the
policies of the liberals as
communist or socialist.
Communism does indeed advocate for the abolition
of private property. If you can’t rent your house out
to who you wish, who’s house is it ?
Socialism does indeed advocate that
the means of production, distribution, and exchange
should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
This proposal sure does sound like a pretty strong
mix of communism and socialism.
I know it’s well intentioned, but as they say,
“the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
And unintended consequences, I might add.
At what point has the government essentially seized your property through taxing it? In NJ there are 10 towns where the average property tax is between 20 and 25k per year. That’s the average. I’m sorry but I would argue that you no longer own that property, the government does and leases it back to you. And you have to pay those property taxes after paying your income tax, both state and federal. I think we are passed the point of socialism and communism in some of these overtaxed blue states.
https://www.app.com/story/news/investigations/watchdog/taxes/2023/06/06/high-property-tax-bills-nj-millburn-dearest-tenafly-rumson-glen-ridge/70270715007/
Any rented property should meet basic safety requirements—working smoke detectors, etc. Beyond that, it’s none of the town’s business.
A wonderful example of short sighted regulation. The proponents think they are looking out for the little guy by “preventing” corporate conglomerates from purchasing homes which they claim is creating a housing shortage. However, as with many un-thought through regulations, this will simply create other issues while not truly addressing the problem it is attempting to solve. First, where is the evidence that conglomerates are actually buying up houses? There isn’t any. The people buying the homes are seasonal individuals who are supplementing the high cost of the home by renting it out. And those renters bring in sizable tourist revenue to businesses and the town. Second, keep in mind these seasonal individuals are literally only using town services for a few months per year and don’t use the schools at all. Yet they pay the full year worth of taxes AND the rental income is taxed at 6% bringing in even more tax dollars (note: this is the highest tax rate charged on island). How much better of a deal can the town get? Third, this regulation will surely devalue home sales in Tisbury as buyers look to other towns without such restrictions, in addition to the most prohibitive tax rate on island. However the devaluation will certainly not be so drastic that it will suddenly make homes affordable to lower income earners. So what was accomplished? Lower home values and no impact to affordable housing. Heavy sigh.
Comments are closed.