Letter writer Michael Burrows of Windham argues in favor of long-term renters and against the interests of homeowners who might want to rent their seasonal homes on a short-term basis (“Limits on Peaks short-term rentals will benefit renters,” Aug. 29).

Unfortunately, Mr. Burrows’ use of rather inflammatory language undermines his own argument. For example, he asks: “Should the rich have to sell their second or third homes, or should renters go without housing?”

It is not the rich who rent out their personal property on a short-term basis. Anyone who rents knows that their rental property is being occupied by strangers who may damage it or steal items in it. Further, renting involves cleaning the property before new tenants can move in, and dealing with complaints about problems. For these reasons, the rich do not rent out their personal property. On the contrary, those who rent out their second homes are simply trying to pay a mortgage or tax bill; they are not the rich.

I would go even further. If someone is rich and has numerous homes, then they should have the right to make any use of them they see fit. That is simply what we mean by property rights. If you take away those rights without just compensation, and thereby provide someone with a rental property they cannot otherwise afford, you are living by the slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Is that the position Mr. Burrows wants to advance?

William Vaughan Jr.
Chebeague Island