To the Editor: Two STR polls were recently conducted and released to the public and media. Both claim to be “scientific” and “independent.” To be both, the questions must be “direct, clear, simple, and unbiased” and the sample participants must be randomly selected; at least one of them was not. How can someone deeply involved in the process and who has publicly expressed their opinion on the poll topic (no matter how good their intentions and how hard they try) create a poll and come to unbiased conclusions about the results? We humans are not very capable in this area, and it is dangerous to base conclusions on that hope.
Questions filled with gaslighting language and undefined terms are designed to get respondents to answer their questions. Example: “Investor-only STRs” – who exactly is meant by “serving STRs’ business”? Is this a euphemism for real estate agents or does it include electricians, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers and/or the hospitality industry? Undesirable answers are completely ignored in the conclusions (92% of respondents believe homeowners have the right to rent their homes). And what is the right to rent? Year-round? Part-time? The right to rent less (or more?) than they live in their home?
It’s pretty amusing to be “shocked” that over 70% of respondents (not “residents,” as one article begins) believe STRs should be regulated, since they are already regulated by the state and city, and two STR articles have already passed to set the restrictions voters supported, including a ban on corporate rentals. Maybe they’ll vote for more, but maybe voters are happy with what already exists? The polls don’t touch on the main source of debate on day one (what restrictions and how strict?). Can anyone name an organization on the island that doesn’t support regulation of STRs?
People “believe” many things – some of them truthful and some of them purely opinion-based, but these polls cover theoretical issues. Why not use that energy and resources to create a poll that is completely independent and contains unbiased questions about the exact components of the articles that appear in the currently approved STM City Permit? Why not take the wording of each of the restrictions mentioned in Articles 1 through 7 and put them into a poll of prospective voters, voters in general, and property owners who cannot vote but own the majority of the island’s residential properties? This could generate a useful dialogue regardless of the STM outcome.
Kathy Baird for Nantucket Together
