To the editor:

A response to Mr. Hankin’s response.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter.

While I do believe that Mr. Hankin’s personal intentions for the short-term rental (STR) proposal are benevolent (and I apologize for my earlier tone that implied otherwise), the change opens up a loophole that now needs another layer of oversight by the town to ensure compliance—if that is even possible. I have read the actual amendment, it is not long. The question still lingers: how is anyone going to prove that a tenant with a lease lives on the property full time?

An overwhelming majority of the residents at Great Barrington’s 2022 town meeting spent a great deal of time deliberating and voting for the passage of the bylaw as it stood before Monday night, and I am guessing they would likely have voted to preserve their position had the meeting not run so long.  I assume that most people who attend the meeting were there to vote on the entire town warrant, not just the first bits.

Even if we still technically preserved a quorum (and as I recall the moderator had to confirm several times), how is it fair or democratic to the people who physically cannot endure or have to attend to children?

I am more than happy and willing to debate this with Mr. Hankin or just share a coffee. Divergent opinions are an important part of the political discourse and in no way suggest that I harbor hostile feelings towards him or any of my fellow community members.

We should be open about the merits (and even our mistrust) of proposals that affect our town.

Julie Anidjar
Great Barrington