Ship Bottom Ordinance Update: December 19, 2025

After weeks of growing backlash from property owners and residents, Ship Bottom officials held a special council meeting on Friday, December 19, at 2:30 p.m. to address the proposed short term rental ordinance. The timing alone raised concerns. This was the last true working Friday before Christmas week, scheduled in the middle of the workday, requiring many people to take time off or travel specifically to attend. There is still a meeting to be held on December 30th.

Despite that, the turnout was overwhelming with well over 100 people in attendance. I arrived roughly 20 minutes early and still had to sit on the floor for the duration of the meeting. Every seat was taken. People lined the walls. Others stood in the back. Some even in the hallways. It was eye opening and honestly encouraging to see that many residents show up under such inconvenient circumstances.

The borough ultimately scrapped the original version of Ordinance 2025 09C. That ordinance would have introduced new rental license fees, annual applications, inspections, detailed renter reporting, and strict penalties, including the possibility of a two year rental ban after three violations. The level of public pushback clearly forced the council to pause, but do not be fooled, there will be another ordinance in the coming year.

However, what unfolded during the meeting raised concerns that went far beyond the ordinance itself.

Conduct and tone from the council

Three council members who voted to keep the ordinance intact chose to remain seated for most of the meeting, did not engage with the public in any meaningful way, and largely stayed silent while residents spoke (Valyo, Tallon, and Hartmann). At no point did those council members clearly explain or defend the reasoning behind the ordinance using facts or data.

At one point during public comment, someone in the crowd asked the council members whether any of them owned a rental property themselves in Ship Bottom. To no surprise, not a single hand was raised. It was also clear from comments made during the meeting that one or more council members live next to a home that rents. For many in attendance, that reinforced the feeling that this ordinance was not only about revenue, but also about personal frustration with nearby rental activity. To many, it felt less like sound policy and more like punishment aimed at renters and landlords.

That tone and lack of engagement left many in the room frustrated.

Councilman Joe Valyo made the following statement during the meeting:

“I just want to make a comment that as many people that are against it, there are probably a lot either for it that are not just speaking up.”

That comment was met with a strong and audible reaction from the crowd. Throughout the entire meeting, not a single person stepped forward during public comment to speak in favor of the ordinance or to express support for its direction.

Councilman Tallon also stated:

“No, I am not in favor of canceling Ordinance 2025 09, which includes necessary public safety components and ends subsidy short term rental units currently enjoy.”

That statement was made without any supporting data, examples, or explanation showing how short term rentals are subsidized or why the proposed changes were necessary for public safety.

It is also worth noting positively that three council members voted to kill the ordinance outright (English, Butkus, and Basile), and with the council split, the mayor ultimately cast the deciding vote, which resulted in the ordinance being tabled rather than pushed through at that meeting.

Where the meeting truly fell apart

Several residents came prepared. Multiple people from the crowd asked for specific figures showing how many complaints actually occurred, how many were tied directly to rental properties, and whether those complaints were coming from a small number of repeat offenders or spread across the town.

One resident stated that Ship Bottom recorded approximately 67 total complaints over the entire summer season. Another resident independently cited the same figures, which added credibility to the numbers being presented. Of those roughly 67 complaints, about 26 came from just three properties. When you consider that Ship Bottom sees hundreds of thousands of visitors throughout the summer, that number does not appear excessive or alarming for a town that has always functioned as a major tourism hub.

What made this moment especially troubling was that the council did not have these figures in front of them, nor could they confirm or refute them with any data of their own. Yet the ordinance itself repeatedly referenced an increase in complaints year over year, pointing to increasing “concerns of public safety”. That raised an obvious and important question from the crowd. How can the borough claim complaints are increasing if it does not have the numbers to support that claim? Without data, there is no way to show a trend, a spike, or a meaningful problem.

The council also stated that the chief of police was expected to attend the meeting and speak about the claimed increase in complaints/incidents, yet he did not appear. Given that the meeting was held on a Friday afternoon, December 19 at 2:30, during one of the quietest times of year on the island, his absence was concerning, especially since his input was being cited as justification for the ordinance.

It was surprising and disappointing to see residents arrive with specific figures while the governing body proposing sweeping regulatory changes could not produce a single documented statistic. That lack of preparation undermined the credibility of the justification being used for the ordinance.

Concerns over proposed AI monitoring and privacy

Another moment that caused strong reaction in the room was discussion of the borough being in talks with an artificial intelligence company. The stated purpose of this system would be to search the internet for rental listings in Ship Bottom, identify what platforms properties are listed on, determine rental rates, track how many weeks a home is booked, and even conduct parking audits to estimate how many vehicles a property could accommodate.

Many residents immediately raised concerns about privacy and overreach. People questioned how accurate this type of monitoring would be, how the data would be used, and whether it would unfairly target owners who already comply with existing rules. There were also repeated questions about cost. A council member stated that the basic package for this service would be approximately $15,000 per year. That figure drew significant negative feedback from the crowd, especially given the lack of clarity on what problem this technology would actually solve.

The budget and the reaction it caused

The situation escalated further when discussion turned to finances. Council members openly referenced the need for a new three percent tax and additional fees to support the town’s budget. That statement caused immediate uproar in the room.

Keep in mind, this conversation was happening inside a newly constructed municipal building that reportedly cost approximately $14 million to build. Residents were being told the town needed more money while sitting in a building many felt was unnecessary.

A notable moment came when a resident identified himself as a CFO at his company and a board member of the Ship Bottom Taxpayers Association. He explained that he had repeatedly requested financial data, projections, or reports from the borough showing whether the town was operating at a deficit, how much revenue these new rental rules were expected to generate, and what financial problem the ordinance was actually meant to solve.

The council responded by stating multiple times that the town is not in a deficit. However, they still failed to produce any projections showing how much money the new rules would bring in or why they were necessary. There was no forecast, no numerical shortfall identified, and no explanation tying the ordinance to a documented financial need.

The contradiction was obvious.

At that point, Borough Administrator and Chief Financial Officer Kathleen Flanagan stepped in to explain the budget pressures Ship Bottom is facing. She stated that in the most recent budget cycle she was required to cut roughly $885,000 to remain within the state’s tax cap, including reductions to police overtime and public works staffing and overtime. Looking ahead to the 2026 budget, she cited major cost increases, including a 36.5% rise in health insurance costs mandated by the state, sharply higher contract expenses, and a nearly 65% increase in the town’s garbage contract, amounting to just under $900,000. Flanagan explained that the proposed three percent hotel and motel tax on short-term rentals was being considered as a way to offset these growing costs without raising taxes across the board, emphasizing that the town is not in a deficit but is under pressure to find new revenue sources to cover rapidly increasing expenses.

The unavoidable conclusion

By the end of the meeting, emotions were high and frustration was widespread. The council was asking residents to accept higher taxes, higher fees, greater regulation, and compromised property rights without presenting data, financial justification, or a clear operational plan. When pressed for answers, the explanations simply were not there.

For many in attendance, the meeting confirmed what they already suspected. This ordinance was not built on research, transparency, or necessity. It felt like a revenue grab paired with expanded oversight, and in some cases appeared to be driven by personal grievances rather than sound policy.

One thing deserves recognition. Local journalism played a critical role in bringing this issue to light. The SandPaper has been vigilant in reporting on these developments and ensuring residents understood what was happening. Without that coverage, this ordinance may never have faced the scrutiny it did.

What happens next matters

While the original ordinance was pulled, a new proposal was and will be introduced. That means this issue is far from over. The December 19 meeting sent a clear message. Residents are paying attention, they are informed, and they expect transparency, respect, and facts when decisions of this magnitude are made.

Ship Bottom is a seasonal town. Rentals, tourism, and property ownership are the backbone of its economy. Any policy affecting those areas must be grounded in data, not assumptions, and collaboration, not dismissal.

The turnout made one thing unmistakable. People care, and they are not going to quietly accept decisions that do not make sense.