I write in response to letter writer Richard B. Himmelstein, who self-describes as “on the board at One Ski Hill Place,” and I presume a condo owner there. He states, “We are short three building engineers,” presumably because they can’t find housing or can’t afford to live here. Further, he says it would be “punitive to current residential condo owners at One Ski Hill Place if they could not sell their units at fair market value (because the new buyer/owner could not rent due to a rental cap).”

Does this mean that you think the same would not hold for those who own and short-term rent one, two or three units.

But I do commend you for illuminating a part of the problem. How about we require multimillion-dollar properties like hotels and resorts designate a percentage of their properties as long term?

Another approach, so One Ski Hill could attain its engineer quota, would be to set aside just three of its 88 condo units to house those employees.

I have rented to long-termers. On at least three occasions, it resulted in significant damage or skipped rent. The majority, to be fair, were respectful. With short-term rentals, insurance covers the damage and rents are paid in advance. The eviction process and legal expense is never needed.

Unless those concerns are addressed, the town should not be selecting winners and losers.