As the local “paper of record,” I depend on the Press Herald to provide information and clarity on local elections, particularly for some of the “down ballot” items that might not draw much attention during the campaign. In the case of Portland’s Question B, relating to short-term rental regulations, I believe the Press Herald let us down in its coverage.

When filling out my absentee ballot several days before the election, I could not find any articles explaining the issue despite trying multiple searches. Ultimately, I relied on my reading of the ballot language and the supplementary documentation provided on the city’s municipal election page . Per the full text of Question B, we were voting on some fairly dry clerical requirements for the documentation required to register an STR in Portland. There was no language related to a cap on units.

However, day-of-and-post-election coverage from the Press Herald would have us believe that Portland voters had approved setting an STR cap at 1.5% of the city’s rental stock, which simply is unsupported in the ballot materials.

Understandably, there is confusion related to what the council approved for changes to the STR regulations in August, particularly as to what had to be approved by the voters. Frankly, it seems odd that we only voted on the minor documentation tweaks. But this is exactly where I would expect our newspaper to dig into the details and provide plain-language summaries to inform the electorate, preferably well in advance of the vote.

Nathan Miller
Portland