Featured Story

Shelter Island Reporter Letters to the Editor

REPORTER FILE PHOTO|
REPORTER FILE PHOTO|

Placing blame
To the Editor:
Last week’s front page headline, “Could Bus and Ferry Fare Kill the School Budget?” struck me as misleading. Approval of transportation to parochial school outside of our 15 mile radius is what could kill the school budget, end up costing taxpayers more money and potentially affect the possibility of future programs for the children of this community. Let’s not put the blame on busing and ferries.
PAIGE MOREHEAD
Shelter Island

A family place
To the Editor:
I have followed with interest the debate concerning the regulation of short-term rentals (STRs). I believe that the acrimony that has developed is in good measure because the advocates on each side are failing to address the real issue and its possible solution.

As I see it, the real question is the nature of the renters not the duration of their rentals.
Those in support of regulation cite the noisy disruption of our bucolic Island. Those against base their argument on economics — they require STRs to supplement their income in order to continue to own homes here. The opponents also advance a second economic argument by stating that the commerce and economy of the Island will suffer by the loss of STRs.

Both sides would likely have their objectives met if rentals were limited to families. This would mitigate the noise, residential density, trash, etc. associated with group houses. At the same time, permissible rentals could be limited to two families sharing a residence, so as not to be excessively restrictive and so as to permit friends to have joint vacations in a single house.

Families can be noisy, as well I know having had noisy young children myself; but the disruption of serenity is not a function of the duration of a rental. Group houses of unrelated people tend to be party venues carrying with them the characteristics we seek to avoid.

The definition of “family” can be challenging in contemporary society and should not be used to disguise discrimination. To define persons who share a permanent residence as a family for these purposes should eliminate that danger. Additionally, it would be easy to confirm, with a simple look at drivers licenses.

We, too, discovered Shelter Island by staying first for a weekend (in an inn), then as renters of a house (for a season) and now as home owners who visit the Island throughout the year and do not rent our second home to others. We should all be respectful of the needs of our neighbors, for whom some rental income is necessary to maintain their ownership. We should all be respectful of the desire of all who share this Island to have its peaceful beauty maintained.
MARTIN NUSSBAUM
Shelter Island

Things as they are
To the Editor:
Am I missing something here?

After attending the meeting regarding short-term rentals (STRs) on January 27, I wrote a letter to the Reporter stating how impressed I was that supporters of STRs presented their argument with well-documented facts, while those opposed to STRs presented an argument filled with speculation and a fear of undesirables.

Since then I have tried to better inform myself in regards to this matter. I’ve talked with other community members, read the numerous articles and letters published in the Reporter, and am now even more certain that the proposed regulations on STRs are unnecessary.

Those opposed to STRs have not presented any compelling reason for the proposed regulation. They still seem to be peddling fear and encouraging intimidation based on speculation, while most arguments supporting STRs present logical reasoning and examples of personal experience. My conclusion is we should keep things as they are while enforcing existing ordinances.

My wife and I are retired. We do not rent every season but have done so in the past when we needed the extra income. My concern is we will not be able to count on an occasional STR to cover unexpected expenses that will arise in the future. I know many others who share our point of view. I beg the Town Board, please study this in the coming season and pick it up again if there becomes a real need for action.
MARK LEDZIAN
Shelter Island

From Pennsylvania
To the Editor:
I am writing regarding the ongoing debate over short term rentals (STRs). Although I now live in Pennsylvania, I receive the Reporter on a weekly basis to keep up with the happenings on the Island and to stay connected. I’ve been following the STR story since it first broke.

My parents met on the Island and have had a summer house there since the early 1970s; my grandmother for decades before that. I have been fortunate to spend almost every summer and as many weekends year-round on the Island. It is worth every minute and mile of the four-hour drive. I bring my children out as often as possible, so, we have had four generations enjoying this magnificent place. I hope my children will find the same connection as I have.

My wife and I aspire to have a home here someday, but, as prices increase, that aspiration seems further away every year. If we are ever able to buy our own home on the Island we would need to rent it out (full disclosure) for a period every summer. That is the financial reality even for middle income families.

I won’t comment on what limits should be applied for the duration of rentals. What I would do is implore the Town Board to seek and reach a compromise that considers all affected groups, and do so in a collegial and professional manner.

I believe you all have the best interest of the Island at heart, but you do not agree on what those interests are. The result has been emotional and, according to the accounts reported, unpleasant interactions between government officials. This is not a good example for others and fosters additional arguments. I have seen what happens when neighbor is pitted against neighbor and it is not pretty. We have seen government dysfunction at its worst in Washington. You are much better than that.

Please, set an example by reaching a reasonable and prompt compromise that serves the best interests of everyone fortunate to enjoy such a wonderful place.
ROBERT MURRAY
Doylestown, Pennsylvania

A feminist shudders
To the Editor:
Mr. Adler’s claim of collusion between Town Board members and the anti-rental group at a recent town meeting was properly based on the following language in a resident’s recent email to anti-rental enthusiasts: “ … some board members now ‘see the light’ on a two week minimum with no exceptions and they need our support, they have specifically requested it.

This is the help needed … they have specifically asked us for a flood of support emails, and they need it before tomorrow’s work session. These board members will leverage the support emails as something to lean on when crafting the new draft law tomorrow.”

Such covert direction by board members presents, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety. The authoritarian attitudes expressed to justify taking away existing rights — “based on my opinion” not facts — make this feminist shudder.

While the article cites criticism leveled against Mr. Adler for being “rude” at the hearing, this paper has wholly ignored the xenophobic mutterings at the hearing and the loud support for these mutterings by people who are advocating regulating their neighbors.

Councilwoman Lewis explains that under the two-week minimum proposal, homeowners “would be allowed to rent for any length of time within two weeks.” Thus, I can rent for two or three nights, but only during a two week period. That underscores the arbitrary nature of the two-week minimum requirement. I thought the “evil” to be addressed was the short-term renter?

Whether my home is occupied by a renter or my family or friends makes no difference to the aquifer, unlike houses with many bathrooms. In fact, short-term rentals (STRs) mean the house is occupied for fewer days. There is zero evidence that renters are noisier than owners. I have rented my house on and off for 20 years —I don’t have the “extra house” imagined by Councilman Shepherd .

Both sides do not “say that the lack of affordable housing is tied to the issue of STRs.” A February 23 Reporter article, “Housing Board calls for forum,” clarifies that: “On the hotly debated proposal for short-term rentals legislation before the Town Board, CHB Co-chairwoman Mary-Faith Westervelt doesn’t see a direct competition with the market for affordable housing.”

Exactly. Most homes that are rented as STRs would not be considered affordable housing. Thus, cities that regulate STRs based on affordable housing findings exclude houses from regulation.
SHELLY d’ARCAMBAL
Shelter Island

Rock on
To the Editor:
I agree that the recent modification of the intentional walk was made to quicken the pace in a game of the national pastime (“A walk in the park.” March 2). However, this is nothing new.

To my recollection, the count of balls required to cause a walk has been changed on a few occasions in history. Several other fundamental rules have changed as well over time, though I couldn’t cite them offhand.

Whether or not the changes are for the betterment of the game is not my opinion to make, but sometimes change is indeed good to prevent stagnation. Plus, in today’s busy age, time is valuable resource for us all.

Maybe quickening things a little isn’t such a bad thing?

Rock & Roll!
B. WEATHERSTON
Westbury