It is right that wealthy homeowners and working-class renters are fighting over restrictions on vacation homes, since what is good for one group will cost the other – and the countless benefits accruing to wealthy homeowners have simply gone on too long.

In “Islanders at odds over impact of short-term rent proposal” (Aug. 24, Page A1), Staff Writer Rachel Ohm lays out the tradeoff clearly: Should the rich have to sell their second or third homes, or should renters go without housing? The moral choice could not be any clearer. As sad as it may be for the elite to own one fewer home, too many of our neighbors are overly burdened by rent – or going homeless – so that a few may subsidize their luxurious lifestyle with exorbitant short-term rentals.

In terms of policy to make housing more affordable – and in the midst of a major housing crisis – limiting short-term rentals is truly a no-brainer. Clearly, much more must be done, and affordable housing committees filled with owners of multiple homes are not situated to act in the best interest of those struggling to pay rent or put a roof over their head. This referendum represents renters acting in their own best interest, and those who are truly concerned by the human impacts of Maine’s housing crisis should vote in favor of limiting short-term rentals. When renters win, wealthy homeowners lose – that’s the point.

We must be more concerned with housing everyone than with preserving the vacation homes of an elite, vocal, well-publicized few.

Michael Burrows
Windham