Warning letter on short-term rentals in Greenport angers and confuses homeowners who rent

Since his spring campaign for mayor, through public meetings and in interviews with this newspaper, Greenport Mayor Kevin Stuessi has repeatedly proclaimed that cracking down on illegal short-term rentals in the village is among his top priorities.

He also was the driving force behind a new contract with a software company that will allow for more automated code enforcement of illegal short-term rentals this fall.

So when a letter signed by Mr. Stuessi went out to all villagers in June warning that Greenport “has begun to strictly enforce the … short-term rental law,” and citing a new restriction not found in the village code, legal short term rental owners got very upset.

The discrepancy is over a provision included in the letter but not found in the code, which falsely asserts that legal short-term rentals are limited to one rental every two weeks.  

Village code defines a short-term rental as the rental of a residential property or a portion of the property in the village for less than 14 days, except for permitted bed and breakfasts. Short term rental owners require a village permit to operate, which must be renewed every two years.

Permits are issued for single family homes renting a portion of the house, or two-family homes with one unit being either owner-occupied or occupied by a long-term tenant.

Mr. Stuessi said that there are currently 346 active rental permits in a village with less than 1000 parcels, including commercial properties. He said the black lettering on red paper was an effort to get villagers’ attention. Residents told The Suffolk Times that in the past, red paper was used to alert homeowners of overdue or unpaid electric bills.

Greenport resident John Kramer, a permitted, short-term rental owner since 2015 who organized a neighborhood group with fellow short term rental owners, was so frustrated that he mailed a follow up letter to everyone in the village in mid-July, calling attention to the error in the village’s letter.   

Mr. Kramer said he tried to remedy the situation in person at Village Hall, but got nowhere. So he sent a draft of his letter to Mr. Stuessi, with copies going to Village Administrator Paul Pallas and longtime Village Trustee Mary Bess Phillips.

“I said, ‘You’ve got to fix this or I will,’” Mr. Kramer said in an interview.  

Again, he said, he got no response.

“Crickets.

“So I got to the printer, went to the post office and sent the letter to everybody in the community. I thought it was very important.”

In an interview, Mr. Stuessi acknowledged the error, saying the letter was written by former Village Attorney Joseph Prokop, but said he doesn’t intend to issue a correction or clarify the actual code in a follow up letter.

Mr. Stuessi said that “we’ve clarified for anyone who has inquired” that short term rentals are not restricted to one rental every two weeks.

Reached at his law office in Melville, Mr. Prokop declined comment.

At a Village Board meeting last week, Mr. Stuessi also clarified what the existing code says to a confused short term rental homeowner.  

“The village is enforcing the law as it’s written, and so there’s a very small number of people that have a permit and the ability to rent for less than two weeks,” Mr. Stuessi told The Suffolk Times this week. “Those than can legally do so can rent for more than one weekend.”

He went on to say that “to be clear, my goal has not been to change the existing laws but to enforce them and to raise the penalties for anyone who is renting against our code,” adding that he intends to propose raising fines at next month’s board meeting.  

Mr. Kramer said he felt that village officials were cracking down on illegal short-term rentals that they believe could otherwise provide desperately-needed affordable housing in the tiny village.

“They think that by scaring everybody out of renting, somehow miraculously these are going turn into $800 [a month] affordable apartments. That ain’t happening.”

Mr. Stuessi denied that the aim of cracking down on illegal rentals was to find new affordable housing.

“I would state that while a potential illegal rental might eventually come on the market, the housing prices in the Village of Greenport have gotten very expensive … We need to find other ways to solve for the affordable crisis. This will not do it. This is simply about this new administration enforcing the short-term rental law [and] about doing the right thing and better managing the community.”

Mr. Kramer also asserted in his letter that the rest of the community benefits from legal short-term rentals like his.  

“I think what the Greenport short term rental owners want is for the retail, and the restaurants and the village to understand is that our clients, our customers are pumping money into this village, and if you don’t want money pumped into this village, fine. Shut it down and we can become the sleepy old waterfront harbor that Greenport always was for 100 years. And a lot of people want that.”

Mr. Kramer said that since the red letter arrived in his mail, he’s been interviewing tenants to find how much and where they spend their money. He said he estimates that his customers spend $1,000 a day per person on goods, services, food and other commercial vendors within the village.

“If my guests are not spending $1,000 per person per day – this place is going to be crickets. The Frisky Oyster isn’t going to be open seven days a week. Noah’s isn’t going to be open. They’re going to close down. You’re going to have vacancies. The retailers are not going to have anything to do. I’m not buying Greenport t-shirts. I’m not the customer,” he said, insisting the tourists are vital to the long-term interests of the community.

Another veteran short term rental owner who spoke with The Suffolk Times about the red letter insisted that their name not be used.

“I think that when people’s rights are being actively threatened and you have an atmosphere where people are using AI [artificial intelligence] in the village to turn on their neighbors and encourage neighbors to turn on each other — that’s not really conducive to going on the record about an activity that is completely legal,” the person said.  

“What really offended me is that I built my business and my life to the letter of the village code. I have considered the village code in everything we’ve done, and when we rent, we rent in the spirit of the code.”

The homeowner said the red letter came across as “hostile at best and flippant at worse.”

“This village has a history of boarders and the legal short-term rentals are a modern-day extension of that.”

Mr. Stuessi himself owns a rental property in the village that he rents to long-term tenants. Earlier this year he said in an interview that he aims to put his mother up at the location when her house sells.