The Compromise: Nantucket’s Path Forward on Short-Term Rentals
A Community at a Crossroads: The Enduring Short-Term Rental Debate
Nantucket, a picturesque island renowned for its rich history, pristine beaches, and unique maritime charm, finds itself at a critical juncture in addressing the complex issue of short-term rentals (STRs). For years, the island’s governance has grappled with how to integrate these accommodations into its fabric without undermining its core character, economic vitality, or the availability of housing for its year-round residents. The debate has been protracted, often contentious, and marked by numerous attempts to craft legislation that satisfies the diverse needs and concerns of the community. Nantucket’s distinctive governance, heavily reliant on the consensus-building power of its town meeting system, faces a significant test in its capacity to find common ground on this deeply divisive topic. The success of any proposed solution hinges not only on its inherent merits but also on the willingness of various stakeholders to support a functional compromise.
The island’s reliance on tourism makes short-term rentals an integral part of its economic engine. Unlike many mainland destinations, Nantucket has historically limited the development of large-scale hotels, fostering a model where private residences serve as primary lodging for visitors. This has allowed visitors to experience the island more intimately, but it has also exacerbated concerns about housing availability, neighborhood character, and the potential for STRs to operate akin to commercial lodging businesses. The ubiquity of online platforms has amplified the reach and ease of STR operations, bringing these issues to the forefront of community discussions with increasing urgency.
For over five years, Nantucket has been navigating this complex landscape, with multiple Special and Annual Town Meetings considering various articles aimed at regulating short-term rentals. These deliberations have often highlighted starkly different viewpoints: some advocating for the protection of property rights and the economic benefits derived from STRs, while others prioritize preserving residential neighborhoods, ensuring housing for the local workforce, and maintaining the island’s year-round viability. This ongoing tension has, at times, led to community division and a sense of stalemate, where progress is elusive and uncertainty prevails for homeowners, businesses, and visitors alike.
The Emergence of a Compromise Proposal
The Iverson Proposal: Balancing Competing Interests
Amidst this prolonged period of debate and legislative attempts, a new proposal, spearheaded by Planning Board Chair Dave Iverson, has emerged as a focal point for a potential path forward. This initiative, often referred to as the compromise proposal, is the product of months of intensive negotiations and discussions involving a wide array of stakeholders. Its central aim is to strike a delicate balance between the often-competing interests that define the short-term rental debate: fostering economic viability, preserving the unique character of Nantucket’s neighborhoods, and establishing much-needed regulatory clarity.
The specifics of Iverson’s proposal, as it has taken shape, are designed to be more restrictive than outright legalization but less prohibitive than a complete ban. It seeks to codify short-term rentals as an allowed accessory use within Nantucket‘s zoning bylaws. This classification acknowledges the role STRs play in the island’s economy while situating them as secondary to the primary residential use of a property. Crucially, the proposal includes defined limits on the intensity and duration of STR activity. Under its provisions, a property would be limited to 49 rental days specifically between June 15 and August 31, a period encompassing Nantucket’s peak tourist season. Furthermore, the total number of days a property can be used as a short-term rental throughout the entire calendar year would be capped at 70 days. To address concerns about high turnover and potential disruption in neighborhoods, the proposal also introduces a cap on the number of occupancy changes permitted during the busy summer season, limiting them to seven. An important exemption within the proposal includes “hosted stays,” which are defined as instances where the STR operator lives either in the building they are renting or in another structure on the same property. This provision aims to support homeowners who rent out portions of their primary residences while they are present.
The Iverson compromise directly confronts the core tensions of the STR issue. For those who emphasize economic viability, the proposal recognizes that short-term rentals are a significant income source for many homeowners and contribute to the island’s robust tourism economy, supporting local shops, restaurants, and year-round employment. By allowing STRs under specific conditions, it seeks to provide a stable framework for these economic activities. Simultaneously, the proposal addresses concerns about neighborhood preservation. The defined limits on rental days and occupancy changes are intended to mitigate the impact on long-term residents, reduce potential nuisances such as noise and traffic, and prevent the widespread conversion of residential homes into de facto commercial lodging establishments that could alter the quiet, residential character of many neighborhoods. Finally, the initiative aims to provide regulatory clarity. Years of debate have highlighted ambiguities in existing bylaws and enforcement challenges. A clearly defined set of rules, if passed, would offer predictability for property owners, reduce opportunities for conflict, and establish a more consistent system for oversight.
The Broader Context: Lessons from Past Attempts
The current compromise proposal does not exist in a vacuum; it is the latest in a long line of efforts to regulate short-term rentals on Nantucket, each offering lessons that have shaped the present discussion. The town’s legislative journey has been fraught with challenges, most recently evidenced by the May 2025 Annual Town Meeting. At that meeting, four separate articles concerning STRs were put before the voters, reflecting the persistent division and the difficulty of achieving consensus. Article 66, which sought to establish short-term rentals as a permitted use under the zoning bylaws and continue existing regulations, garnered a majority vote but narrowly failed to achieve the critical two-thirds supermajority required for passage. Other articles—67, 68, and 69—which generally proposed stricter regulations, including length of stay requirements, owner-use stipulations, and caps on the number of STR properties, also did not succeed. This outcome underscored the persistent legislative hurdles and the polarization of the issue.
Adding further urgency to the situation was a significant ruling by the Massachusetts Land Court on June 17, 2025. This decision clarified that short-term rentals, defined as rentals of less than 31 days, are not considered a lawful *accessory use* under Nantucket’s current Zoning Bylaw for “primary dwellings” in specific districts, except for the rental of rooms within an owner-occupied unit. This ruling, which vacated a prior Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals decision, has profound implications. It suggests that without explicit legislative action from the town, the legality of many existing STRs could be in question, potentially leading to a state-level intervention if Nantucket fails to establish its own policy. This judicial intervention underscores the critical need for a clear, locally crafted solution, lest Nantucket lose control over how STRs are managed on the island.
Prior to the May 2025 meeting, efforts had also been made to reconcile differing viewpoints. In July 2024, a Special Town Meeting warrant included an article that proposed banning STRs outright and creating a new zoning use called a “Nantucket vacation rental” with specific regulations, such as limits on occupancy changes. A subcommittee was formed to attempt to merge three citizen petition articles into one cohesive proposal. However, this effort encountered opposition, notably from groups like “Put Nantucket Neighborhoods First,” which advocated for STRs to be permitted only as an accessory use to a primary dwelling. Conversely, other stakeholders, such as those represented by Steven Cohen, emphasized the economic importance of STRs to Nantucket’s tourism sector. The difficulty in finding common ground among these factions has been a recurring theme, demonstrating that even structured attempts at compromise have faced significant resistance. Past town meetings, such as one in September 2023, also saw voters send proposed zoning changes back for further study, reflecting a desire for more inclusive dialogue and a better understanding of the implications. Planning Board Vice Chair David Iverson himself has spoken about the divisive nature of the debate and the need for all stakeholders to come to the table to work out meaningful regulations, recognizing the challenge of misinformation and unhealthy debate.
The Stakes: Why Support is Crucial
Navigating the Extremes: Beyond Stalemate
The upcoming Special Town Meeting on November 4, 2025, presents voters with a pivotal opportunity to move past years of deadlock. The debate has often been framed by what can be considered two opposing extremes: on one hand, a proposal that seeks to codify short-term rentals as a principal, “by right” use across most of the island, exemplified by the article submitted by charter boat captain Brian Borgeson, which is similar to past Article 66. On the other hand, there are those who advocate for much stricter limitations, potentially bordering on a ban for non-owner-occupied properties, driven by concerns for neighborhood preservation and housing availability. The Iverson compromise proposal is strategically positioned between these poles, aiming to attract support from those who recognize the need for regulation but are wary of overly restrictive measures, as well as from those who might prefer more leniency but understand the necessity of a passable solution.
The nature of compromise itself means that no single faction will likely be entirely satisfied. As Bruce D. Miller noted in a letter to the Nantucket Current, a proposal that “lies on a razor’s edge” often signifies a perfect compromise, where “everyone will be a little unhappy.” This sentiment is crucial for voters to consider. The success of any bylaw amendment in Nantucket’s town meeting system requires a two-thirds supermajority, a threshold that has proven exceptionally difficult to reach for STR regulations. Past attempts have garnered majority support but fallen short of the necessary supermajority, leaving the issue unresolved. The Iverson proposal is specifically crafted to build a broad coalition, bridging the divides that have prevented consensus. Without widespread support, even a well-intentioned proposal risks failure, prolonging the uncertainty and potentially leading to state-imposed regulations that may be less tailored to Nantucket’s specific needs.
The stakes are high for Nantucket. The island’s economy is inextricably linked to tourism, and short-term rentals play a vital role in sustaining this industry. They provide income for many homeowners, support local businesses, and contribute to the seasonal workforce. However, the unfettered growth of STRs also raises significant concerns about the island’s long-term sustainability and the quality of life for its year-round residents. The increasing demand for housing, coupled with the potential for properties to be used solely as investment vehicles for short-term income, has contributed to a housing crisis for those who live and work on Nantucket year-round. This scarcity impacts essential service providers, educators, hospitality workers, and families, threatening the island’s ability to function as a year-round community. Furthermore, the character of residential neighborhoods can be altered by a high concentration of STRs, potentially leading to increased transient populations, noise, and a diminished sense of community among permanent residents.
A Call for Unity and Forward Movement
The current moment offers a unique opportunity for Nantucket to demonstrate its capacity for collaborative governance and collective problem-solving. The compromise short-term rental proposal, championed by figures like Dave Iverson and supported by opinion pieces in Nantucket Current, represents a carefully crafted effort to navigate the island’s complex challenges. Its success at the upcoming Special Town Meeting hinges on voters recognizing its merits in balancing competing interests—economic viability, neighborhood preservation, and regulatory clarity. There is a strong and urgent call for all stakeholders, including various committees, elected leaders, property owners, and ultimately, the voters of Nantucket, to rally behind this proposal. It is presented not as a perfect solution for any single group, but as a vital, functional step toward resolving a protracted community challenge and establishing a stable, predictable framework for the future.
Nantucket’s governance structure, built on community input and consensus, has historically relied on the town meeting system to make crucial decisions. The short-term rental issue has, for years, exemplified the inherent difficulty of achieving such consensus on contentious matters. However, the current compromise signifies a potential breakthrough, born from a demonstrated willingness among different factions to engage, listen, and adapt. The very nature of such a proposal—one that aims to satisfy no single extreme viewpoint entirely but rather to find a workable middle ground—is precisely what defines a successful compromise in a democratic process. This moment offers Nantucketers a chance to unite in support of a measure that, while perhaps imperfect for some, provides a much-needed path forward for the entire island, fostering predictability for homeowners and reinforcing the community’s commitment to a balanced approach to its future.
Looking Ahead to the Special Town Meeting
The critical decision point for Nantucket’s short-term rental future is scheduled for the Special Town Meeting (STM) on November 4, 2025. This meeting is set to feature two primary articles directly addressing STR regulations, offering voters a distinct choice. Following deliberation by the Select Board, the articles will be presented in a specific order. The proposal submitted by Brian Borgeson, which aims to codify short-term rentals as a principal, “by right” use across the island—similar to past Article 66—will be considered first. This approach means that voters will first have the opportunity to decide if they wish to broadly legalize STRs. If Borgeson’s article does not secure the necessary two-thirds majority, the voters will then proceed to consider the more restrictive, compromise proposal sponsored by Planning Board Chair Dave Iverson. This order is strategic, allowing those who favor a less regulated approach to vote first. Should that fail, the Iverson article offers a fallback option that attempts to achieve broader consensus.
The passage of Dave Iverson’s compromise proposal would represent a significant legislative achievement, establishing clear rules for STRs for the first time in years, thereby reducing conflict and offering predictability. Conversely, if both articles fail to pass, Nantucket would remain in a state of legal and regulatory uncertainty, potentially subject to outside intervention and continued division. The outcome of the November 4th STM will not only shape the future of short-term rentals but will also serve as a testament to Nantucket’s ability to engage in difficult conversations and unite behind a shared vision for its community and economy. The broad support for the compromise, as advocated by pieces in Nantucket Current, emphasizes the critical need for voters to recognize the proposal’s balanced approach as a vital step toward resolving this long-standing challenge and ensuring a stable framework for Nantucket’s future.