I guess I'm still confused about seasonal non winterized housing, especially ones not part of a year round neighborhood. For example there are many seasonal cottages all around long pond and in other similar areas. How does restricting rentals on these help the housing crisis? How is anyone served by having these become less rentable? By definition they can never be residences and yet many have been in a family for generations and are unsustainable without renting a portion of the season. Putting families in the position of having to sell a loved and long held home should at least serve a purpose. I hope that goals can be more clearly defined so that decisions that harm people can at least serve some beneficial purpose. I'm also confused how 30 day rentals are better than weekly rentals if the goal is to have more year round housing. I hope someone can bring the focus around to what needs to be achieved instead of whatever group of "others" needs to be punished.
The short and sweet of it is weekly rentals have enabled my whole family, all, 40+ year Bar Harbor residents, 3 are Bar Harbor natives, to stay and prosper in the town they love.
Weekly rentals as a residents privilege only . All others, 30 day rents or more, Like NYC.
It's sad if everything now is about 'economic interest'. If the love a family has for the place they built and have cared for over 50 years, and their long, close ties to the community don't count for anything, then there isn't much hope. The focus should be on identifying (not assuming) the cause and working to solve the problem without lots of collateral damage that doesn't help with housing in any way. The focus initially should be on places that were affordable year round housing and are now another use and finding a way to prevent conversions and return some, such as employee housing, to the overall housing market.
It was disappointing to read this posting as it seems to follow todays current predilection for finding a scapegoat to rant against rather than fixing a problem. It sounds like all the rants against “immigration” or other scapegoats talking as if they are one thing instead of a mixture of issues.
I would have hoped that the QSJ would be pointing out inaccurate statements and data, and looking to bring a nuanced discussion and journalistic integrity to finding solution to what is a real problem.
First, the number of listings on AirBnB or VRBO is a meaningless number and should be pointed out as such. I don’t know how you get accurate data on short term rentals but listings alone do not give you any information.
Second, if you are actually interested in solving the problem of a lack of affordable housing, then you have to identify what is causing the problem and work to solve that. A start would be accurate data on previous year round housing options and what happened to them if they are no longer available. Some data on the increase in demand in recent years is also critical.
Clearly conversion of year round housing to seasonal employee housing is an issue and the number of these should be identified. I know of no conversions to short term rentals but I know personally of 5 year round apartments that are now employee housing. Four in Bar Harbor and one in SW Harbor. (I’m sure the one I know of is not the only Claremont apartment.) Conversion of a year round house to only short term rentals by an investor would also be a problem and the number of these should be clarified. Given the short season here it is not financially advantageous to do this so I question that this is a major cause of the shortage. I would guess that the majority of short term rentals are by owners to afford the increase in taxes and maintenance and that these properties would never become part of year round housing. The lack of actual data makes it difficult to know what is really happening.
Short term rentals of many properties does not impact the housing shortage or have an impact on neighbors and those should be acknowledged. Such as rentals of non-winterized seasonal cottages or rental of some weeks of a property also used by the owners or properties in a residential but summer cottage setting. Please note that ‘used by the owners’ is not the same as ‘owner occupied’. Seasonal properties used extensively by the owners can never by “owner occupied” and they should not be penalized for renting some weeks to be able to afford to keep their properties including paying high taxes to benefit the towns.
What if the real problem is a large increase in demand and the lack of creating new housing. In that case you can regulate short term rentals all you want and it will not solve the problem.
I challenge anyone to tell me how forcing my family to sell the seasonal non-winterized cottage we have had for 50 years, that my father-in-law built himself board by board, that we rent 14 weeks and use 16 weeks is going to fix any of these problems. I hope that the focus of these discussions can change to understanding the problem and working towards a real solution, not jumping on the mindless scapegoating of "short term rentals". A term which encompasses a large number of situations.
This is what IHT warned four years ago:
Over the three years between April 2015 and April 2018, the
number of Airbnb listings on MDI grew from 11 to 111, a tenfold increase. Over the last year, the average
nightly rate for an “entire place” listing on Airbnb was about $145, reaching $175 during peak times.
Oftentimes a homeowner can obtain a higher profit from short-term vacation rentals than from renting to a
local resident. This creates an incentive to rent to vacationers over year-round residents, thereby limiting the
supply of year-round rental options. While Airbnb listings account for a small number of MDI’s housing
stock, sustained growth in Airbnb and other short-term vacation rentals could increasingly impact housing
affordability on the Island.
I guess I'm still confused about seasonal non winterized housing, especially ones not part of a year round neighborhood. For example there are many seasonal cottages all around long pond and in other similar areas. How does restricting rentals on these help the housing crisis? How is anyone served by having these become less rentable? By definition they can never be residences and yet many have been in a family for generations and are unsustainable without renting a portion of the season. Putting families in the position of having to sell a loved and long held home should at least serve a purpose. I hope that goals can be more clearly defined so that decisions that harm people can at least serve some beneficial purpose. I'm also confused how 30 day rentals are better than weekly rentals if the goal is to have more year round housing. I hope someone can bring the focus around to what needs to be achieved instead of whatever group of "others" needs to be punished.
The short and sweet of it is weekly rentals have enabled my whole family, all, 40+ year Bar Harbor residents, 3 are Bar Harbor natives, to stay and prosper in the town they love.
Weekly rentals as a residents privilege only . All others, 30 day rents or more, Like NYC.
It's sad if everything now is about 'economic interest'. If the love a family has for the place they built and have cared for over 50 years, and their long, close ties to the community don't count for anything, then there isn't much hope. The focus should be on identifying (not assuming) the cause and working to solve the problem without lots of collateral damage that doesn't help with housing in any way. The focus initially should be on places that were affordable year round housing and are now another use and finding a way to prevent conversions and return some, such as employee housing, to the overall housing market.
It was disappointing to read this posting as it seems to follow todays current predilection for finding a scapegoat to rant against rather than fixing a problem. It sounds like all the rants against “immigration” or other scapegoats talking as if they are one thing instead of a mixture of issues.
I would have hoped that the QSJ would be pointing out inaccurate statements and data, and looking to bring a nuanced discussion and journalistic integrity to finding solution to what is a real problem.
First, the number of listings on AirBnB or VRBO is a meaningless number and should be pointed out as such. I don’t know how you get accurate data on short term rentals but listings alone do not give you any information.
Second, if you are actually interested in solving the problem of a lack of affordable housing, then you have to identify what is causing the problem and work to solve that. A start would be accurate data on previous year round housing options and what happened to them if they are no longer available. Some data on the increase in demand in recent years is also critical.
Clearly conversion of year round housing to seasonal employee housing is an issue and the number of these should be identified. I know of no conversions to short term rentals but I know personally of 5 year round apartments that are now employee housing. Four in Bar Harbor and one in SW Harbor. (I’m sure the one I know of is not the only Claremont apartment.) Conversion of a year round house to only short term rentals by an investor would also be a problem and the number of these should be clarified. Given the short season here it is not financially advantageous to do this so I question that this is a major cause of the shortage. I would guess that the majority of short term rentals are by owners to afford the increase in taxes and maintenance and that these properties would never become part of year round housing. The lack of actual data makes it difficult to know what is really happening.
Short term rentals of many properties does not impact the housing shortage or have an impact on neighbors and those should be acknowledged. Such as rentals of non-winterized seasonal cottages or rental of some weeks of a property also used by the owners or properties in a residential but summer cottage setting. Please note that ‘used by the owners’ is not the same as ‘owner occupied’. Seasonal properties used extensively by the owners can never by “owner occupied” and they should not be penalized for renting some weeks to be able to afford to keep their properties including paying high taxes to benefit the towns.
What if the real problem is a large increase in demand and the lack of creating new housing. In that case you can regulate short term rentals all you want and it will not solve the problem.
I challenge anyone to tell me how forcing my family to sell the seasonal non-winterized cottage we have had for 50 years, that my father-in-law built himself board by board, that we rent 14 weeks and use 16 weeks is going to fix any of these problems. I hope that the focus of these discussions can change to understanding the problem and working towards a real solution, not jumping on the mindless scapegoating of "short term rentals". A term which encompasses a large number of situations.
Thank you for stating your personal economic interest in this subject. I'm glad we agree we need more data.