Once again, the Talbot County Council is preparing to vote on a proposal that should never have made it this far. Bill 1622, the latest attempt by Councilmembers Lynn Mielke and Pete Lesher to curtail vacation rentals, is not new legislation—it’s a reheated version of the same deeply flawed idea your fellow citizens, neighbors, and friends spent the summer opposing.
Let’s be clear: this is a solution without a problem. The number of short-term rental licenses in Talbot County has remained steady for years. Verified complaints? Fewer than ten in nearly a decade. A decade.
The Planning Commission—our own appointed experts—spent months studying this issue, held multiple hearings, and delivered thoughtful recommendations. Their conclusion was unmistakable: there is no justification for this bill.
None. In fact, they suggested reforms that were also ignored.
Yet their expertise—five experts, all our own fellow citizens, appointed by the County Council itself —has been ignored.
Equally troubling, Councilmembers Mielke and Lesher fail to recognize the substantial monetary contributions and tax revenues that vacation rentals quietly generate for Talbot County year in and year out—revenue that flows directly into county coffers and supports vital public services such as infrastructure, schools, law enforcement, volunteer firefighters, first responders, and public safety.
That income benefits every resident, not just property owners or visitors. By attacking a proven and already heavily regulated segment of our local economy run by residents—your neighbors—they threaten to eliminate an important stream of local revenue without offering any plan whatsoever of their own to replace it—except, perhaps, the likelihood of higher property taxes on already struggling homeowners to make up for what will be a profound shortfall.
What Bill 1622 will do, however, is very real. It will damage our local economy, threaten tourism, and jeopardize the livelihoods of countless residents—cleaners, landscapers, restaurant workers, pool servicing companies, and small business owners—who depend on the steady rhythm of our vacation rental market.
And now, the Council plans to present and vote on this measure over the Thanksgiving holiday, when many citizens are least able to attend or speak out. That timing alone speaks volumes.
Talbot County and the people who love and care about it deserve better than politics by ambush. We deserve transparent, evidence-based governance that strengthens our community, not divides it.
I urge every resident who loves and cares for this County to speak up now:
Attend in person:
The meeting is on November 25 at 5:00 p.m., in the Bradley Meeting Room beside the Courthouse, Talbot County Courthouse, 11 North Washington Street, Easton, MD.
The agenda, once posted, will be available here:
https://talbotcountymd.gov/
Call or leave a message:
Contact the County Council office at (410) 770-8001. You may leave a message for any Council member by calling this number and asking to record or forward your comment for the public record.
Email the Council directly:
- Chuck F. Callahan — [email protected]
- Keasha N. Haythe — [email protected]
- Pete Lesher — [email protected]
- Lynn L. Mielke — [email protected]
- Dave C. Stepp — [email protected]
- Tell your elected officials that this bill must be defeated in no uncertain terms. Let’s protect the economic health, fairness, and common sense that make Talbot County such a special place to live.
“Vote NO” on Bill 1622.
Keith Alan Watts
Tilghman Island
Robert Haase says
It should be noted that Mr. Watts is the owner of at least two short term rentals and most likely wants to protect his investment, maybe for future properties but who knows. Most if not all of the opposition to passing this bill is coming from the industry that profits from it while those who support the bill are made up of County residents with no financial interests. It should be noted that at least 90% of Talbot short term rentals are owned by non-residents of Talbot County. It also should be noted that since the short term rentals have multiplied the long term rentals and home sale prices have skyrocketed leaving Talbot County residents unable to find affordable housing. One can see how St. Michaels is changing from the loss of many of the businesses that made the Town desirable not to mention the increase in traffic. The Town of St Michaels and Easton have much stricter regulations on STR’s. This bill is much less restrictive and if passed will protect our Town and Village zones before its to late. The bill will put restrictions on short term rentals that are owned by non-residents and allow principle owners ( Talbot County residents)far less restrictions. If you agree enough is enough please contact your County Council listed in Mr. Watts letter and let them know.
Mary Jane Wyant says
What is the position of the author- resident, realtor, rental owner? All or none of the above?
Also, Bill 1622 is only explained as curtailing rentals, and that it will be disastrous for Talbot County. Wow. A powerful bill. I would have appreciated more facts about the bill in order to decide if I am pro or con. This is a one sided argument at best.
Leslie Steen says
This proposed law will improve compliance, administration, and very importantly, keep clusters of STRs from overwhelming neighborhoods and forcing rents and sales prices up based on what the in-and-outs pay, but locals cannot afford. I have four STRs within 1,000 feet of my home. The domino effect of STRs is clear. One house becomes a STR, the house next door will as well because who wants to live next to constantly changing in-and-outs lounging at the pool 35 feet from your bedroom with no constraints on light or noise. The in-and-outs have no stake in the community. They never get to know their neighbors.
The members of the community working to assure reasonable regulation of STRs are looking out for the good of our communities, not investors seeking higher rents through short term rentals. Short term rental rates force long term, full time residents out of our housing market. In Tilghman we do not want the next generation of watermen to have to move to another county.
The bill seeks to improve administration and compliance. Monitoring and compliance is difficult because it has to be left to the neighbors. For example, there needs to be a better mechanism for tracking complaints. Under the current law neighbors are notified to go to the owners and agents to resolve complaints, which is well intentioned but not effective for tracking the number of complaints. Do you think that owners/agents are motivated to report complaints to the County? The reality is that there are far more complaints than ever reach the County Code Enforcement Officer.
Another gap in the current law involves the fact that properties owned by corporate entities, such as LLCs, don’t have to go through the licensing process when they transfer. This leads to many problems. For example, a property in violation of two County codes that were and still are disturbing the neighbors – night lights shining in neighbors windows and the removal of required bushes planted to provide screening around your pool – transferred without the scrutiny of licensing review. The new owner of the LLC did not check his property for compliance with the licensing requirements and did not know. The neighbors were unaware of where or how to complain. Last winter the new owner was informed of the violations by a neighbor. Spring and fall have passed. The required bushes have not been planted.
The Short Term Rental Board has approved every license application, no matter how vigorously the neighbors have objected or how problematic the license might be. It has refused to allow any license conditions or mutual agreements to mitigate problems.
What are the economic benefits of STRs. It’s mixed and certainly not better than homeowners or long term renters. STRs are rented only some of the time making the financial impacts sporadic and seasonal. They pay the lowest hotel tax in the state. The renters go to restaurants, sometimes, but they like the fact that they have kitchens because cooking at home is cheaper and often fun with the group.
The STR owners have the houses cleaned, lawns mowed, roofs replaced, but guess what, so do homeowners and landlords/long term tenants, who probably invest more because they love their homes and have a stake in the well-being of the community.
There is no doubt that residents who make Talbot County their principal residence pay income taxes to Talbot County and vote. Not so with the in-and-outs and probably most of the investors. As the in-and-outs come we gain T-shirt shops and lose dry cleaners. Long term residents have a stake in their communities and volunteer in their communities. Citizens volunteer at the nonprofits, watch out for their elderly neighbors, work at the food bank, tutor at the after school program, and the volunteer at the fire department. That has real economic value that saves taxpayer dollars.
This bill could have proposed that only homes owned as principal residences could be STRs, as is required by Easton. No, this bill is seeking a reasonable solution to the issue of forcing out affordable housing and concentration of clusters of STRs. Let’s not let what is happening to Rude Ave. happen elsewhere. Rude Ave. is a small, close knit street of 7 former homes backing up to a farm on Tilghman Island. Two years ago it became 3 STRs and 4 homes that are principal residences. Time has gone by. Now two more homes are about to turn over. What will happen to them?
Keith Alan Watts says
Rebuttal to Letter on Short-Term Rentals (STRs)
1. “The proposed law will improve compliance, administration, and prevent STR clusters from overwhelming neighborhoods.”
There is no evidence that clusters of STRs are “overwhelming neighborhoods” in Talbot County. The County’s own data shows that STRs make up less than 2% of total housing stock—far below the threshold that affects housing affordability or neighborhood composition. Moreover, no study or report has demonstrated that “clusters” of STRs exist in Talbot County or that they have raised property prices locally.
2. “STRs drive up rents and home prices.”
This claim is unsupported by any local or regional data. Numerous studies (including from the University of Maryland’s Economic Development office and national housing analyses) show that STRs can have minor, localized impacts only in areas where they make up more than 10% of total housing units—a situation nowhere near the reality in Talbot County.
The far greater factors influencing housing costs here are limited housing stock, land use restrictions, and overall demand for waterfront property—not a handful of seasonal rentals.
3. “STRs create noise, light, and nuisance problems.”
The County already has noise and nuisance ordinances that apply equally to all residents—short-term or long-term. Enforcement mechanisms exist and are complaint-driven, as is the case with every code issue in Talbot County. Singling out STRs as a nuisance source without data on the number or frequency of verified complaints is misleading. To date, no documented pattern shows that STRs generate more complaints than long-term rentals or owner-occupied homes hosting guests.
4. “Monitoring and compliance are difficult; neighbors must police STRs.”
This misrepresents the process. STRs in Talbot County are licensed, inspected, and reviewed annually—far more regulated than traditional rentals or owner-occupied homes. Suggesting that “neighbors must do the monitoring” ignores the fact that Talbot County’s compliance framework already includes a 24-hour contact requirement for each licensed STR, penalties for violations, and a county enforcement officer for follow-up.
If the complaint tracking system could be improved, that’s a procedural tweak, not an argument for new restrictive legislation.
5. “Corporate entities like LLCs transfer ownership without review.”
This is a business-structure issue, not a failure of STR policy. LLC transfers occur in all types of property transactions, residential and commercial alike, and are subject to the same state and county laws. It’s misleading to imply this is a special STR problem. Licensing compliance attaches to the property, not merely the owner’s name, and the County retains the authority to enforce code violations regardless of ownership form.
6. “The STR Board approves every license and refuses to mitigate problems.”
This is a serious claim made without a single piece of evidence. The STR Board operates in public meetings, with minutes and votes recorded. If every license has been approved, it’s because applicants met all County standards—standards the Council itself set. If the writer believes otherwise, she should cite specific cases, dates, and outcomes, not sweeping accusations.
7. “STRs don’t contribute economically as much as long-term residents.”
Again, this is pure assertion with no data. STRs:
• Pay property taxes, often at higher assessed rates.
• Contribute hotel occupancy tax revenue—revenue that directly benefits county services.
• Support local cleaners, landscapers, contractors, restaurants, and shops—many of whom rely on the seasonal tourism that STRs help sustain.
Talbot County’s tourism economy (lodging, dining, and retail) supports thousands of jobs. To say STRs “aren’t better than homeowners” misses the point—they complement the broader economy, especially outside of Easton, where visitors directly sustain small businesses.
8. “STR owners don’t volunteer or pay local taxes like residents do.”
This is a false dichotomy. Many STR owners are, in fact, local residents or retirees supplementing income. Others are part-time residents who contribute through taxes, local spending, and charitable giving. Whether or not they “volunteer” is irrelevant to zoning or licensing policy—and cannot be used as a basis for regulating property rights.
9. “Tilghman doesn’t want the next generation of watermen forced out.”
Everyone agrees with this goal—but STRs are not the cause of declining affordable housing on Tilghman Island. That decline stems from longstanding structural issues: limited buildable land, lack of small-scale housing development, and high demand for waterfront properties. Restricting STRs will not produce affordable homes—it will simply reduce tourism income and property utilization.
10. “We should adopt Easton’s ‘principal residence only’ rule.”
Easton’s policy exists in a dense, urban environment with distinct housing pressures and infrastructure. Applying that to the rural and tourism-oriented areas of Talbot County would be inappropriate and economically damaging. The County’s mixed-use tourism model depends on flexibility, and STRs are part of that balanced ecosystem.
11. “Rude Avenue has become overrun by STRs.”
Anecdotes aren’t evidence. One street’s turnover—if accurately described—does not demonstrate a countywide pattern or policy failure. Without verified data on property sales, license status, or complaint records, this example is a story, not a statistic.
⸻
In Summary
The arguments for further restrictions on STRs rely almost entirely on anecdotes, fears, and assumptions—not data.
Talbot County already has:
• Licensing, inspection, and enforcement mechanisms.
• Tax revenue from STRs.
• Existing nuisance and zoning ordinances.
If the County Council wants to improve administrative tracking or fine-tune compliance, that’s reasonable. But claims that STRs are “forcing out locals” or “destroying neighborhoods” simply do not hold up under scrutiny.
A sound policy should be based on data, not sentiment.
Leslie Steen says
I will not go through and respond tit for tat. Just one example: while you were on the Board two of the three Rude Ave STRs went through STR Review Board for licensing and one was appealed between 2022 and 2024, while the third has been licensed since the beginning of licensing. Three STRs out of seven houses is not a “story.” It is fact that you should know.