Here we go again.
In a nation where a woman’s choice, shockingly, remains an open question 50 years after Roe v. Wade was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court, it was perhaps naïve to think that the great 2021/2022 Short-Term Rental (STR) bylaw debate was settled. You may recall—how could you forget?—that at the annual town meeting in June 2022, Great Barrington’s Short-Term Rental (STR) bylaw was overwhelmingly approved by town residents. After, olive branches were extended to opponents, both sides put their sharpened knives away, and it appeared we could move on to other pressing matters. Not so fast.
The bylaw had been crafted with care following quite a few often-testy Selectboard meetings. Input was given and considered, and the bylaw evolved. To be sure, there were valid arguments on both sides of the debate. The town earnestly considered whether a STR regulation would meaningfully address the town’s lack of affordable housing. The drafters of the bylaw acknowledged that the measure was but one piece of a complicated puzzle, while opponents argued that the bylaw would deprive residents of potential income without making any material difference in the town’s housing shortage. At the town meeting, everyone was afforded a chance to speak, and both sides were ably represented. The town got the right result, passing the bylaw by a 2-1 margin. Finally, peace in our time. Or so we thought.
We now know that the bylaw’s opponents never could quite quit opposing it. The Warrant for the upcoming May 1, 2023 town meeting has three Citizen’s Petitions, Articles 39-41, seeking, for all practical purposes, to kill the bylaw. If the current STR bylaw was a three-legged chair, these Articles cut off at least two of the legs. Oh, it may vaguely resemble a chair once the STR bylaw opponents are done with it, but the bylaw will serve no useful purpose. Akin to the gun law loophole permitting gun sales at gun shows without requiring background checks, if successful, these three articles will create massive loopholes that only Airbnb and Vrbo could love.
Let’s agree that without an enforcement mechanism, regulations are merely interesting. If the town passed a bylaw prohibiting ticketing for excessive speed, Great Barrington would become the Autobahn. Folks might observe the speed limit signs, but they certainly would have no cause to observe the limit. Articles 39-41 answer the age-old question, “What can one do to make a STR bylaw meaningless while appearing to put constraints on short-term rentals?”
The least offensive of the three articles, but still due defeat, is Article 39. As currently enacted, the STR bylaw prohibits tenants from renting their leased home. Article 39 removes that prohibition. For a town seeking housing solutions, permitting tenants to lease their homes is counterproductive. While not suggesting this was in the minds of its drafters, a fiendish person could lease a home for nominal value to a friendly party in order to create a right to lease, which, absent such machinations, would have been prohibited. Article 39 does a disservice to the town’s goal of preventing the depletion of available rental housing stock.
Article 40 truly guts the STR bylaw. If passed, it would prohibit the town from hiring, contracting with, or otherwise engaging the services of a company to ascertain compliance with the STR bylaw. Currently, the STR bylaw has a trust-but-verify component that apparently does not sit well with Article 40’s proponents.
Article 40 prohibits the gathering of data on short-term rentals. It prohibits neighbors from reporting unlawful short-term rental activity. If passed, the current bylaw would be a mere short-term rental façade—yes, we have a regulation in name but not practice. You know that sign you might see in a store notifying you that you are being monitored, presumably to impede five-finger discounts? This is the opposite of that. Article 40 wants you to know you are not being monitored. No one is watching, go right ahead and act as you please. Article 40 asks, “If one short-term leases a home in a forest and no one is around to monitor it, did one violate the bylaw?”
Article 41 attacks one last necessary element of the STR bylaw. Currently, a homeowner with several dwellings may only short-term lease one. Currently, a homeowner may hire a property management company to manage a short-term rental, but the registration for the dwelling must be in the homeowner’s name. Currently, if the homeowner resides in the home, up to two bedrooms in the home may be leased without limitation, but if the homeowner does not reside in the home, the dwelling is limited to 150 days per year.
Article 41 gets rid of all of these pesky limitations. It permits precisely what caused citizens’ concerns in the first place: It will permit speculators to buy as many houses as possible to short-term lease them for as long as possible. For those of you that miss billboards offering to manage your home as a short-term rental, Article 41 is good news for you. But for those of you that care about a shortage of housing for folks that want to live and work in Great Barrington, Article 41 is what drove you to the town meeting in 2022.
Let’s make sure there is no ambiguity here. If you still care deeply about housing in Great Barrington, your work is not done. If you, like most of the town, voted in favor of the STR bylaw, then you need to come to the annual town meeting yet again, and stay to the end, to vote against each of the Citizen’s Petitions.
For those few that opposed the STR bylaw, this is your second bite at the apple. Let’s hope it is your last.
