What this ordinance actually does
Referendum Question Z (Article 28) is a proposed Short-Term Rental Registration Ordinance placed on the June 9 ballot by a 2–1 vote of the Raymond Select Board. It would create a mandatory permit and inspection system for any Raymond property rented for fewer than 30 consecutive days — including family camps rented for a week or two each summer.
- Obtain a permit and pay annual registration fees before renting their own property
- Submit to annual inspections by the Code Enforcement Officer as a condition of that permit
- Provide septic documentation, proof of insurance, and occupancy details to the town
- Accept that a single complaint can start a process — investigated by the Code Enforcement Officer, decided by the Select Board — that can suspend or revoke your registration, judged against standards the ordinance never clearly defines
- Face fines, and potentially cover the town's legal fees, if the town pursues enforcement action against you
This ordinance creates a new permit and inspection regime — backed by a complaint process with no noise ordinance to define what actually counts as a violation, leaving enforcement to subjective, case-by-case judgment.
Why this ordinance doesn't work
Supporters of this ordinance argue that short-term rental regulation is common practice and that Raymond is simply catching up to other towns. They're right that many towns have passed STR ordinances. They're wrong that any ordinance is better than none.
This ordinance isn't the answer to any of them.
There is no verified problem this ordinance solves.
Raymond has no noise ordinance. It has no formal STR complaint process. It has no baseline count of how many short-term rentals even exist in town.
A 2–1 Select Board vote built on unverified neighbor grievances is not a mandate for sweeping new regulation.
The ordinance is built on vague language that invites selective enforcement.
Key terms in the ordinance — including what constitutes a violation serious enough to trigger suspension or revocation — are left largely undefined. There is no noise ordinance establishing what level of disturbance is actually unacceptable. There are no objective standards for what a complaint must include or demonstrate to be acted upon — and a complaint can put your registration, and the income some families depend on, at risk.
That is not a fair system for anyone — including the responsible property owners this ordinance claims to protect.
Property taxes have risen over 50% in less than a decade.
For the family that inherited the camp but not the income to maintain it, a few weeks of summer rentals may be the difference between staying and selling. For the retiree on a fixed income, it's the difference between keeping the property their parents built and losing it.
The ordinance was built on borrowed language, not local knowledge.
The requirements in this ordinance were pulled from regulations written for other towns — towns with different lakes, different complaint histories, different enforcement track records, and different data. Many of the communities that have enacted STR ordinances are grappling with problems Raymond doesn't have: urban rental markets where short-term rentals compete with scarce housing stock, neighborhoods with constrained parking, and communities where outside investors have converted residential properties into full-time commercial operations. Raymond's short-term rentals are overwhelmingly family-owned lakefront properties rented for a few weeks each summer. A family camp on Crescent Lake is not displacing a first-time homebuyer. Importing regulatory language designed for those problems and applying it here doesn't protect Raymond — it just adds government overhead to a situation that doesn't call for it.
This ordinance adds significant burden with no plan to support it.
Code enforcement is a demanding job, and Raymond's Code Enforcement office is already stretched managing existing responsibilities. This ordinance would add:
- Permit review and annual renewal for an unknown number of properties
- Annual physical inspections of each registered rental
- Complaint investigation, record-keeping, and follow-up
- Potential suspension hearings and legal proceedings
An ordinance that cannot be consistently enforced doesn't protect the community — it creates new problems while leaving the old ones unaddressed.
There's a smarter path
Voting NO on Question Z is not a vote against accountability for short-term rentals. It's a vote against this particular approach — built before Raymond has collected the basic data needed to write effective, fair regulation.
We support a measured approach that protects the community without punishing the families who built it:
The ordinance and town resources
The full text of Referendum Question Z (Article 28) and additional voter information are available on the Town of Raymond's website.