The following proposal below does not pertain to legitimate residents who choose to rent their sole residence during the summer.

The whole purpose of zoning is to protect the quality of life of the resident, but in Massachusetts the resident is irrelevant when it comes to housing.

As I have written for decades, our statewide failure to enforce our own state property classification laws (MGL Chapter 59) and local zoning regulations has resulted in the inability of the resident to compete for basic housing. As a result there is absolute chaos in the living conditions, housing availability and quality of life issues the resident is subjected to. While multiple town planning boards, housing committees and housing nonprofits continue on the same path as the past 30 years, the snowball has become an avalanche.

The only way to lower the cost of residential housing is to enforce existing law by separating the use of and value of residential and commercial property. This is about a $200,000 difference on basic housing.

Recognizing the need for housing for residents, housing for the seasonal workforce and housing for tourists, while complying with existing law and generating revenue to support the cost of the infrastructure demands of the tourist industry, I see only one path.

We need to demand a 90-day minimum rental for a property to be considered residential. Based on our seasonal economy, properties available for rent for 90 days or more would be classified as residential property while properties available for transient use, less than 90 days, as required by existing law, be classified as commercial. These commercial rentals would be required to pay a $500 rental permit fee, be inspected for fire safety, occupancy capacity, health code compliance, collect rooms tax and be properly valued and assessed based on rental income, as per current commercial rental assessment valuation methods. Homes that have a weekly rental history would be grandfathered if they choose to remain commercial but changing a home from residential use to a commercial rental should be subject to the same permitting process as any other home business.

This policy would create an incentive for year-round rentals, lower the cost of year-round housing, properly shift the property tax burden to commercial properties while significantly reducing the cost of property tax for the resident. It should also be possible for Island affordable housing funds to purchase permanent residential status. For example, $1 million would buy 10 permanent residential classifications for $100,000 each, i.e., the housing fund pays a homeowner $100,000 and the house becomes a forever residential property under the above classification rules. If a future owner wants to buy back commercial status they must return the $100,000.

This and enforcing other zoning regulations, like the requirements for rooming houses, would go a long way in balancing the cost of residential housing as compared to commercial transient rental housing. With all the social and economic injustice inflicted upon the residents by the illegal weekly rental, the fact that we still allow anyone to buy a residential property and use it as an unregulated commercial property that does not collect rooms tax and is valued and pays property tax equal to residential property is insane and a sad commentary on the state, the towns and the voters for their failure to institute public policy to correct this gross inequality.

Donald Muckerheide

Oak Bluffs