Nowhere is the frustration with short-term rentals ―and the way they are commercializing and changing neighborhoods across the shoreline region ― more apparent than in Stonington, where a recent attempt to regulate them ended up fizzling.

Indeed, Stonington First Selectman Danielle Chesebrough, was among those testifying recently in support of a proposed General Assembly bill aimed at helping towns regulate the rentals.

Chesebrough specifically blamed Stonington’s failure to regulate the rentals on the lack of state law giving the town authority.

“We received various points of feedback regarding legal opinions that municipalities in Connecticut do not have the statutory authority to regulate renting of residential property based on length of stay of the renters,” she wrote in her testimony.

The bill, which would allow municipalities to hire consultants to develop regulations and ordinances and charge up to two percent tax on short-term rental income, has moved out of committee and is awaiting full votes in the General Assembly.

Rep. Aundre Bumgardner, who represents both Groton and Stonington, towns where the proliferation of short-term rentals has been especially vexing, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Sen. Cathy Osten of Sprague testified in favor of it, noting that regulating short-term rentals has become a concern for constituents in Norwich.

“It is my understanding that we need to clarify state statute to allow cities and towns to engage consultants and to adopt local ordinances regarding the licensing, regulating and enforcement of short-term rental properties,” Osten wrote.

Bumgardner urged constituents to reach out and make their views known as the bill progresses. He noted that it should empower municipalities to adopt rules but would not require them to.

It would leave control at the local level, he said.

I reached out to Rep. Holly Cheeseman, who represents East Lyme and Salem, because she voted against the bill in committee.

She told me she voted no because she worries it would violate federal laws pertaining to taxing internet commerce, but no matter how many ways I asked her to explain I couldn’t understand why she thinks taxing local “brick and mortar” rentals would be a violation, even if they are advertised on the internet.

Almost all of the public hearing testimony, including from Connecticut associations of municipalities and planners, was in support of the bill, except for two national tech travel lobbying/trade organizations that made the same argument as Cheeseman.

I hope that the bill finishes what looks like a successful trajectory in the General Assembly and that residents in East Lyme and Salem, who feel besieged by short-term rentals in their neighborhoods, may get some relief from their towns, despite their representative’s no vote.

This is the opinion of David Collins

d.collins@theday.com