Leave it to Edgartown to try to pass a bylaw restricting parties. Next they might require everyone’s trim to be the same color, or their nighttime lights dimmed so as not to offend any pedestrians.
Jokes aside, the town’s building inspector and member of the bylaw review committee is proposing to restrict the amount of parties a homeowner can have at a given property.
The proposal would limit “social events” with more than 50 people to two per week, or five per month. Exemptions would be granted if the gathering has a community or public interest. Social events include anything from birthday celebrations to weddings and reunions.
The presentation last Monday feels like just the start of the discussion. Anything that is finalized would have to go before town meeting voters, and there’s a hearing where the select board will review the proposal on Jan. 8. So if you like throwing parties — or dislike large gatherings — you’ll have a chance to chime in.
The issue seems to stem from a recurring incident last summer when a private residence was the location for multiple whiskey tastings and other events. Neighbors complained about excessive noise and traffic congestion.
There are some looming questions to consider. Probably the biggest is how this would be enforced and permitted. Requiring a homeowner to request a permit to throw a party sounds like overkill and a major headache, and it seems unlikely to happen. We’re effectively punishing the rule followers.
As with most municipal issues, we imagine that enforcement would be complaint-driven. Residents who have issues with their neighbors will undoubtedly be counting the number of people filing into a house, and alerting police when 50 people are added up. First, are the police then supposed to go and count everyone, and write a ticket to violators? That seems like a waste of a police officer’s time. Second, how would they know this is the third party of the week, or the sixth of the month? Is the town considering adding a position to its building department to enforce the rules? Raising taxes to hire someone to stop partying seems a little excessive.
The proposal is also considering a $300 fine, which would be unlikely to discourage anyone who can host 50 people several times a week.
The bylaw also raises the question of whether police are already armed with the laws and regulations they need to bust up an annoying party. If noise and traffic and parking are the issues, there are options. Noise complaints can be filed. Granted, noise can be tough to regulate, but multiple check-ins from the police generally lead to compliance from hosts.
Traffic and parking can be addressed. Homeowners looking to host a lot of guests should have to show that they can provide the parking, one way or another. That way, lawns aren’t driven over, and traffic held up with cars circling the neighborhood looking for parking. If a homeowner is throwing multiple ragers a week, perhaps requiring them to hire a police detail is a better way to handle it than more bureaucracy.
Despite outstanding questions and issues, regulating overzealous parties in private residences is worth exploring when considering short-term rentals. Undoubtedly, Airbnbs and other online options can be problematic for some neighborhoods.
But it’s likely easier and more beneficial to regulate Airbnbs with their own set of regulations that we’ve discussed in this editorial section before, like not allowing too many guests in one property; compiling a registration of short-term rentals that will be subject to regulations, inspections, and their own set of parking restrictions; homeowners could lose their privilege to offer short-term rentals if they fail to comply.
In fairness to the Edgartown proposal, the idea isn’t to stop parties completely. It’s worth pointing out that two social events a week isn’t too radical. If someone is throwing five large events a week, there might be more going on than graduation parties.
But Edgartown has to ask itself if it wants to be known as the place that ended partying. We would argue that Martha’s Vineyard is known as a place that can throw a good party, whether at a bar, venue, or a backyard. That’s a good thing. And if that means tolerating your slightly noisy neighbors for a few months out of the year, we think that’s reasonable. It’s better than no parties at all.
Obviously you have missed the point of what was happening at this location. It was a business owner using their private home as a marketing tool. It wasn’t friends and family visiting your summer rental for a get together. They had tents and chairs and tables set up for weeks and a walk in cooler for food deliveries. You had to sign up online for admission. This was a business venue.
The MV Times knows what this bylaw is intended to do, and it’s not to restrict the average house party in Edgartown. Last August, the Tennessee-based whiskey company Uncle Nearest rented a house in a residential neighborhood and hosted a party that attracted hundreds of people, many of whom parked on Edgartown-West Tisbury Road. There is no need to trivialize concerns about businesses turning rental houses into commercial party venues and the significant impacts on year-round and seasonal residents with a poor attempt at humor.
The Times posits that “Martha’s Vineyard is known as a place that can throw a good party, whether at a bar, venue, or a backyard.” Not to be forgotten is that It’s also known as a place where neighbors are considerate of each other, and that’s a good thing. The Times advises that we should tolerate slightly noisy neighbors for a few months out of the year because “it’s better than no parties at all,” I doubt those afflicted agree. Edgartown is a well-run town with capable leadership. I expect the final bylaw will reflect that.
They’re not trying to end parties. I think you know that. The issue at hand is that a corporate entity is using a residentially zoned property as an event space. These events are promoted and advertised, as demonstrated at the town meetings convened to discuss the matter. I know this from the reporting in your paper. So don’t get cute.
These things shouldn’t happen, and the bylaws should be worded in a way that prevents them from happening. We shouldn’t need to regulate the normal and usual use of a residential property to prevent abuses by a corporate interest. We zone areas as residential to prevent these types of conflicts. This does not seem to be a very complicated situation.
We don’t need regulation of birthday parties. We need protection from abusive uses of properties in residential zones by corporate interests.
It’s interesting that the Times requires first and last names for all comments but published this ridiculous article without giving credit to the writer. Whoever wrote this obviously doesn’t understand the concept of objective reporting versus personal biased opinion.
David, when you own a newspaper you can decide what to publish.
You can decide to publish letters to the editor, with or without names.
The letter writer was not reporting, they were giving their opinion, do you know the difference?
Do you know that 90+% of “news” is opinion.
It’s 2023, you can always find the news, and opinion, you want to be true. The MVT is not your kind of paper, move on,
Your kind of newspaper exists, there are so few in the Northeast.
Usually, if a comment is put up like this, without a name ,it is the opinion of the publication, ie the editor or the editorial staff. Could Nelson please chime in about this ? I could be flat out wrong. Please advise.. Thanks
A loquacious person talks a lot, often about stuff that only they think is interesting. You can also call them chatty or gabby, but either way, they’re loquacious.
Comments are closed.