I don't usually comment online, but it's high time our legislators start focusing their efforts on changing the enabling legislation of the Martha's Vineyard Land Bank. I am a huge fan of the Land Bank and its purpose. However, there is simply no logic in not having a portion of those funds attributed to affordable housing. And use some of that land for that purpose as well. It is a wonderful thing to preserve land, but at this pace we will completely squeeze out the working class on this island.

The problem is not about no affordable housing. The problem is that there are too many people looking for housing. Until we are willing to see it that way...there will be no answer. It is not just about housing, too many people means over saturation of all resources from land to water. The time has come to stop trying to provide for the masses, and to start saying NO. It is not our obligation to continue until nothing of "what is" will be left for anyone.

There is no reason to expect public money, such as land bank fees, to create subsidized housing for people who lack the motivation to save their money. Who wouldn't want to live on Martha's Vineyard in a 'less than market' rate rental, or build a home on a free lot. Look around at all the people who work hard, save their money, and find a way to become a homeowner without looking for a handout. I look around, and see that everyone buys a new SUV, a boat, and is out spending money at the bars and restaurants. If you can't afford that lifestyle.. don't do it. But to expect those of us who worked our *#)S off to subsidize you.. you're delusional. You are not ENTITLED to live here on fantasy island. I see lots of tradesman commuting on the boat, because the wages here are astronomically higher than the Cape, and I don't hear them expecting the 'community' to provide them with cheap housing. Sure, there is the occasional case of a 'deserving' person, but for the most part, its the standard 'what can you do for me' attitude. Before you start 'flaming me', I've done the seasonal shuffle, lived in a tent, shed, and more cellars than I want to count. I used to move out of my home into a basement in the summer so I could rent my home to make the payments... so why should I subsidize those who make no effort to better themselves.

Plenty of job listings but no housing persists until September each year

The solution is quite simple. Move to a place you can afford. This is a very difficult place to live. We've all struggled with housing. You find a way to make it work or you move on.

Lets get over this fantasy that all have to live here. Some people simply cannot afford to live here and lets stop this argument that we who cant afford it are the ones who fix your cars and clean your houses. Let the market function. When we do not have those people to do those jobs we will adjust to the circumstances. I would love to live in Monaco and I sure hope someone will provide me housing there.

Rick Presbrey hit the nail on the head when he said that we HAVE failed.He also said that 20 years ago at a housing conference held at the Grange. Instead of continually hearing these so-called experts talking, and instead of the Land Bank conserving any more open land, let's force the conservation organizations to contribute pieces of every property they buy....as the Vineyard Open Land Foundation did with Pilot Hill Farm and Sweetened Water Farm. But now And admit that this conservation is part of the problem. it's rental housing that's needed more than individual lots for homeownership. It can be done. It has been done. We should be ashamed that some of these same "experts" have been discussing exactly this problem since the mid-70's. We have to be creative and allow innovative ideas like tiny houses, family campgrounds, trailers, zoning changes to allow rentable guest houses for ex. I'm glad that we have 165 IEH apts. for low income elderly and disabled folks and yet that's not enough. With 2 undeveloped lots at Woodside Village, why is no additional rental housing or assisted living or supportive day care being built there?

Why do we have an affordable housing problem on Martha's Vineyard in the first place? My opinion is because summer rentals are so profitable that people have chosen the profits over community. It's basic economics. The supply of affordable homes goes down the cost goes up with the demand. My experience with affordable housing goes back to the 70s when my parents ran and operated the beach plum inn. Even back then securing houses for a bunch of college students was never an easy thing but back in the 70s that's who the workforce was. In the 70s and 80s there was a lot of housing opportunities as well as camping opportunities which no longer exist. In the bottom of the real estate market they were many lower end homes that people were happy to convert towards lucrative summer rentals including to college students and the workforce. Fast forward 30 years and the community has been squeezed as Martha's Vineyard has prioritized open space habitat over community preservation. Don't get me wrong I'm all for open space and conservation. I love what the land bank does but I strongly believe that we need to provide ample opportunity for our Island community to be able afford to live here and have a reasonable cost of housing. Some could argue that the affordable housing crisis is the collateral damage of good economies combined with the acquisition of large tracts of land that could've been developed. Regardless of how we've gotten here, we are now are faced with the task of providing some solutions to the problem at hand. Although all the towns operate independently this affordable housing problem is common to us all. Each town has his own approach to what it feels it can do or will do it an effort to try to help mitigate this problem. Each independent solution is balanced upon what the voters feel is acceptable in their own towns. In Chilmark we are hoping to pass an apartment by law similar to West Tisbury so that we can create more affordable year-round housing opportunities for family members caregivers and people in our community. The community preservation act tax levied on all homeowners is proof that a majority of people feel strongly enough about affordable housing to want to do something, but it is not enough. I think that the time is come for us to develop an islandwide solution that would help to create more opportunities to have year-round rental housing at affordable rates. Don Muckerhide has for years been uttering the T (tax) word. I personally am not a big fan of taxes especially when in the end only a small percent but what we would pay would actually trickle down to help the problem. I would rather make a donation annually to affordable housing to help offset the high cost of rentals. As a real estate broker, I have committed to pledging 1% of my summer rental revenues towards affordable housing annually. I believe this is my effort to being socially responsible on Martha's Vineyard. Think of it like a carbon credit for polluters. I also know a number of summer rental homeowners who would also do the same. If Martha's Vineyard could come together and create a community solution to this community problem by donating 1% of all summer rental revenues towards affordable housing we could make a serious dent in the problem. With the revenue we would bring in annually we could buy houses, we could subsidize expensive rentals (as some towns already do with the rental subsidy program)we can renovate other properties and we could buy land. I think collaborations with the Landbank could also be possible because they certainly understand the problem. We all have one thing in common. We love and care about Martha's Vineyard as a place to live and as a community. Isn't it time that we created a solution that will help this problem? In truth no one solution will be a quick fix to our dilemma but the more different opportunities and options that we have at our disposal, that we can come together with employ, the better we will do in helping those who need our help, our community, our friends, our brothers. Jim Feiner.

Island residents cannot compete financially in a housing market when housing cost is based on the profitability of vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. If the state and local governments properly and legally assessed the transient rental business as commercial use, as defined in Chapter 59, Section 2A, of the state statutes, we would have a major source for funds for rental subsidies. The weekly rental must be controlled, permitted, taxed and inspected. Tourists renting for $2,000, $10,000 or $25,000 a week, or even the Obamas' $50,000 per week, do not pay rooms tax, and the owners of these accommodations do not even pay commercial valued property tax as required by statute. The fact that the weekly rental, undoubtedly the largest part of the tourist accommodation business on the Cape and Islands, generates no taxes to pay for the cost of infrastructure demands created by the tourist industry is more absurd than ever when you look at our current economic situation. Instead, we put an equal property tax burden on the elderly, the working class and the young people needed for a sustainable year-round economy. Consider that $5,000, or 10 percent of a $50,000 one-week rental, equals the annual property tax of two basic residential homes. Do you care if the property owner gets only $45,000 or the rental goes up to $55,000 for the week? I am sure neither party will suffer a loss of food on the table. Of course, the broker gets 10 percent of the action for doing the paperwork while those residents who are not beneficiaries of the tourist industry face ever-increasing taxes to pay the bills for the tourist industry's infrastructure and the housing problem it creates. Go figure. It is about time the cause of the inflated value of resident housing and overdevelopment, with its costs and environmental issues, helped pay to correct the unsustainable situation it has created. It is time to demand real change lest we leave a legacy of "Land of the Rich, Home of the Fool."

We provided housing for several years to a nurse who worked with elderly patients on the island. Maybe she cared for the parents of some of the harsher commenters here. I know it didn't matter to the tough talkers where the person providing a decent quality of life to their loved ones actually lived, or how much they earned, only that they were there for their loved one when needed. For those of us who believe that the Vineyard is BIG enougfh literally and figuratively to build more housing in the $350K to $450K range, we should speak up. Nobody is asking for handouts, so let's refrain from that type of rhetoric. We're supposeed to be better than that here!

What most writers seem to be seeking is a result that involves the Vineyard remaining a beautiful island with significant open spaces - and a place that permits people who earn their living on the isalnd to live here. Interestingly, given the way the island's development has progressed, that isn't truly in conflict with more year round rental housing from a land use perspective. (The problem of summer workers is different.) As the Land Bank and other groups acquire open land for conservation purposes (which involves various government subsidies ranging from tax abatements to charitable deductions) it would be possible to carve out the least critical parts of the land (often near the roads) to build multi-unit rental development that could be restricted to year round isalnd residents. It might be possible to accomplish that objective through new zoning and tax abatements accomplished at the Town level. The challenge of a simple "market solution," is that it involves teachers, nurses, and other local providers getting paid at rates that permit them to afford living on the Vineyard. Over time, that has become increasingly expensive for renters, and impossibly expensive in the summer. Another possibility would be for Towns to impose a surtax on homes used for summer rental with the surtax dedicated to construction of lower cost multi-unit housing.

Having just secured that rare unicorn that is stable year-round housing, I can tell others that from several years of shuffling and from briefly sitting on the Affordable Housing Committee when I lived in Edgartown that the crisis is further than real, it is surreal. Many of the people in crisis are those who provide the services that keep the island afloat – this is a community crisis, not just a housing crisis. I am not completely aware as a non-lawyer of Chapter 59, Section 2A of the MGL, but it has been my understanding that the state and local governments are not following the law in legally assessing the transient rental business as commercial use. That is a major issue if it is true and the towns need to step up their game and follow the law. Why is this not a public discussion? What makes towns decide they don't have to enforce a state law? Do they feel they're exempt because it's inconvenient and unpopular? If you're a town official elected or simply employed reading and you know why, please respond in the comments. Additionally, there are certainly some who would be able to commute and there are many commuting communities, but here also, I am understood to know that we are talking about those in professions like the police, teachers, nurses, business owners and full-time employees that surely deserve the convenience and good will of the community here on Martha's Vineyard, a community that has come together to solve many island problems not by kicking people out, but by thinking harder and smarter for a community solution. It's easy to say that no-one deserves housing or a hand up when the person saying it doesn't need one. Saving and working for a house as a year-round resident who contributes to the island economy is in fact in 2015 a lot more than simply busting your hump and saving for most people– a six figure income, tens of thousands in savings, and excellent credit is required for the least expensive houses on the market – and there are but a handful of those homes and many need much work. The "work and save" American dream ethic has all but disappeared with Bush economics of years ago and is only beginning to recover for the everyday American in terms of wages to reach the goal – the wealthy have seen a major boost since the market recovered several years ago, but keep in mind that business owners are the ones who are not raising wages – someone renting year-round once told me that they need to increase the rental rate by 7% per year and the reasoning was that "the price of coffee goes up every year" – someone is raising the price of coffee and clearly it is not the people doing the work to provide it or else we would hear about rising wages for those "complaining". The various housing authorities and housing committees on the island are working their butts off helping to alleviate the strain, but it is not enough yet – and they cannot be responsible for the entire burden, clearly! Year round housing for those who are part of the community and the economy is something that we would like to happen. So many summer rentals contribute to the problem, and yet homeowners have every right to do as they please in terms of their rentals, I don't think it's productive to demand that homeowners rent for summer, but it sure would be nice if some could figure out a way to safely provide for responsible tenants who are members of the community to live year-round in homes. That is something only individual homeowners can change, but perhaps there can be incentives that have not been explored as far as I know. To return to one central issue that every town must, I believe, face is enforcement of Chapter 59, Section 2A of the MGL (if I understand it correctly as legally enforceable) - local governments are not following the law in legally assessing the rental business as commercial use. It is unfortunate that the elected representatives have not taken this up as extremely unpopular as this issue will be for those who rent vacation homes. Will that stop some from renting? Maybe. But the numbers of those who stop renting to avoid paying taxes will be far less than those that do for pricey summer rentals and the taxes can help support housing problems in all of the towns. Continued discourse is good for the island and maintaining our heads about it and continuing to raise awareness is paramount the best thing people can do is get involved with the towns and the housing agencies.

I have no doubt that the lack of affordable housing is a problem on the Vineyard and there is no silver bullet solution. However, one idea that would not involve any subsidy at all would be to get the MA legislatue to roll back well meaning but misguided "tenant friendly" real estate laws. We have literally thousands of empty bedrooms during the off season and many that go empty year round. The owners would be happy to rent them out for extra income and to help alleviate thie housing problem. However, the small number of year round renters that have abused property, failed to pay rent and have refused to vacate hurt the majority of hard working responsible year rounders. These abusers are aided by tenant friendly rules that cause potential landlords to keep their property off the market in lieu of taking the risk for a modest rent. Change the rules so that they are a ffair contract between two parties and I guarantee some affordable housing would come available. It won't allevite the entire problem, but it would not cost a thing and, along with some of the other suggestions in this string would help

Well, we've spent a lot of subsidies so far. And we've given away a lot of expensive land. We haven't gotten much for it, though. Out of the many "affordable lots," how many are now occupied by people who CURRENTLY qualify for affordability, at the original qualifying AMI? Out of the many heavily-subsidized IHT and town projects, how many are occupied by people who CURRENTLY qualify for affordability at the original qualifying AMI? Sure is a bummer to have a $100,000-250,000 subsidy wasting away per unit. If you can afford a new Volvo, you probably shouldn't be in an affordable home. There's 58 units for IHT, plus god knows how many from the towns--that is *decades* worth of DCRHA subsidies.

As a Summer renter, I completely agree with imposing a special tax for this privilege. My family appreciates the special place that MV is year-round.

This situation is similar on the Cape (probably not as bad as the Vineyard). So many houses sit unoccupied for most of the year. My husband and I work year-round here and we can't find year-round housing for our family. We aren't asking for low-income housing, we just need a year-round rental. And we have looked for 7 months without finding one. It is time to make summer rental properties less attractive, or to offer a tax incentive to home-owners who decide to make year-round rentals.