Historic Nantucket
"The Homestead" - Main Street Former Residence ofEdwardH. Perry
October 1980 Published Quarterly by Nantucket Historical Association Nantucket, Massachusetts
NANTUCKET HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION OFFICERS President, Leroy H. True Chairman of the Council: Walter Beinecke, Jr. Vice Chairman of the Council: Mrs. Grace Grossman Vice-Presidents, Albert G. Brock, George W. Jones, Alcon Chadwick, Albert F. Egan, Jr., Walter Beinecke, Jr., Mrs. Merle T. Orleans Secretary, Richard C. Austin Treasurer, John N. Welch Councillors, Donald Terry, Mrs. H. Crowell Freeman, terms expire 1981; Miss Dorothy Gardner, David D. Worth, terms expire 1982; Nancy Ayotte, Mrs. Bernard D. Grossman, terms expire 1983; Robert D. Congdon, H. Flint Ranney, terms expire 1984 Historian, Edouard A. Stackpole Editor: "Historic Nantucket", Edouard A. Stackpole Assistant Editor, Mrs. Merle T. Orleans STAFF Oldest House: Curator, Elizabeth Baird Receptionists: Margaret Crowell, Elsie Niles Hadwen House-Satler Memorial: Curator, Phoebe Swain Receptionists: Dorothy Strong, Laurel Stackpole, Mary Elizabeth Young, Lillian Merrithew 1800 House: Curator, Helen Soverino Receptionist: Florence MacGlashan Old Gaol: Curator, Albert G. Brock Whaling Museum: Curator, Renny Stackpole Receptionists: Frank Pattison, James A. Watts, Patricia Searle, Rose Stanshigh, Alice Collins, Mary Lou Campbell, Alfred N. Orpin Peter Foulger Museum: Curator and Director, Edouard A. Stackpole Asst. Director: Peter MacGlashan Receptionists: Everett Finlay, Mary J. Barrett, Ann Warren, Helen Levins, Marjorie Burgess Librarian: Louise Hussey Macy-Christian House: Curator, Laura Baldwin Receptionists: Dorothy Hiller, Florence Stackpole Archaeology Department: Curator, Cynthia Young, Asst. Betty Little Old Mill: Curator, John Gilbert Millers: John Stackpole, Edward Dougan, Anita Dougan Folger-Franklin Seat and Mem'l Boulder: Curator, Francis Sylvia Friends Meeting House-Fair Street Museum: Curator, Albert F. Egan, Jr. Lightship "Nantucket": Curator, John Austin Shipkepper: Richard Swain Receptionist: Carlos Grangrade, III Greater Light-Receptionist: Dr. Selina T. Johnson Building Survey Committee: Chairman, Robert G. Metters Hose Cart House: Curator, Francis W. Pease
HISTORIC NANTUCKET Published, quarterly and devoted to the preservation of Nantucket's antiquity, its famed heritage and its illustrious past as a whaling port. V olume 28
October 1980
No. 2!
CONTENTS Nantucket Historical Association Officers and Staff
2
Editorial: Nantucket and the World
S
An Historical and Architectural Survey of 4 East Dover Street by Jane H. Howell
6
Autumn - Nantucket by E.A. Stackpole
13
Reflections on Nantucket Development by Kevin Hurst Bequests and Address Changes
14 27
Historic Nantucket is published quarterly at Nantucket, Massachusetts, by the Nantucket Historical Association. It is sent to Association Members. Extra copies $.50 each. Membership dues are—Annual-Active $7.50; Sustaining $25.00; Life—one payment $100.00 Second-class postage paid at Nantucket, Massachusetts Communications pertaining to the Publication should be addressed to the Editor, Historic Nantucket, Nantucket Historical Association, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554.
Nantucket and the World THE WORLD BUSINESS Council, a unique organization in its own right, held its tenth anniversary in mid-September by holding its Fall Conference at Nantucket. Some three hundred and fifty members and their wives came to the Island to be housed at the White Elephant and Harbor House hotels where they spent five days, holding their various functions, including a daily conference under a huge tent that occupied one street within the Harbor House complex. The principal speakers on these occasions included some of the outstanding figures in the world of business, education and the law, and their remarks created an unusual atmosphere within the confines of their own particular subject as well as in the well-rounded sweep of the Conference itself. The theme for this Conference was titled Focus America - Nantucket and The World. This recognition of the role that Nantucket played in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries was most fitting and most welcome especially at this time, when the preservation of our Island assets is of such vital importance. The values which old-time Nantucket has given to this nation, its historical and cultural traditions, its leadership in the development of one of the great Colonial industries - deep-sea whaling were stressed by various speakers. One of these, a Nantucketer, stated in his address: "But the good fortune which made possible Nantucket's preservation to date has vanished. Now comes as great a challenge as we have ever faced - the responsibility of preserving the outlying lands. The rolling heath, the sweep of bayberry and beachplum thickets, the low growth of pines, the curving beaches, with the white sands binding the green of the commons - all are now endangered. These are not just a legacy of the past. In a physical sense they are the necessary composites for guaranteeing the future. In preserving these assets we are also preserving an economy, which, until this time, was vital in maintaining the Island's livelihood. If we destroy these assets we will be contributing to the eventual destruction of Nantucket in its role as a unique part of the modern world." As we all realize, we live in a confused time. But, as never before, America needs places like Nantucket, where the past serves as a symbol of the vitality of the kind which built our nation. In establishing their insular kingdom, the Nantucketers created an American legend, in which freedom of action was a part of free enterprise factor. Let us hope we may emulate them by a concerted attempt to preserve the visible evidences of the rich, historical legacy they have bequeathed to us. —Edouard A. Stackpole
6
An Historical and Architectural Survey of 4 East Dover Street By Janet H. Howell
There were progressive events that were significant in the development of the present town of Nantucket and subsequently the building of the house at 4 East Dover Street. When the original settlers arrived on the Island of Nantucket, they homesteaded west and southwest of the present town. Expecting to earn their living farming and raising sheep, it soon became apparent that they must seek another livelihood to sustain the succeeding generations. The sea was the obvious answer and as early as 1678, the proprietors laid out the'Wesco Lots, in an area bounded by Liberty Street, Broad Street, Federal Street, and just beyond Westminister Street in the present town of Nantucket. The new com munity was to be, and did become a planned community of progressive growth. In 1716, Joseph Coffin was granted permission to build a wharf. The next year, 1717, the original harbor used by the first settlers, Capaum Pond, proving inadequate, provided the impetus to transfer all activity to the great natural harbor of Nantucket. The same year the land, below Main Street to the south, was divided into house lots. They were called Fish Lots and were immediately built upon, extending from Pine Street eastward to Quanato Bank, or the edge of the cliff between Orange and Union Streets. Fair Street divided this into two parcels, which significantly numbered 27. Three years later, 1720, the official site of Sherborn was moved to the present town of Nantucket. The next significant development of the town's growth was the construction of Straight Wharf by Richard Macy in 1723. By 1726, two new residential areas were protected. The first was West Monomoy, south of Fish Lots, and the second, South Monomoy, remained as meadowland. The dwelling of 4 East Dover Street is located in the area known as West Monomoy. This area is divided into two districts, totaling again and significantly, 27 parcels. The name Dover existed at thetime ofthe Isaac Coffin Survey, 1799. Dover Street proper is a short section between Orange and Union Streets. The longer stretch, extending from Orange to Pleasant Street is now called West Dover Street. This area known as
4 East Dover Street
7
West Monomoy includes (between Pleasant and Orange Streets) the streets of Silver, West Dover, York, Warren, Back, Williams, Cherry, and Bear Streets. Between Orange and Union Streets, it includes the streets of Mulberry, Weymouth, East Dover, East York, Coon, Beaver, and Spring. Apparently, it was not until the 1820's that East Dover Street had a house built on it, coinciding with the growth of the whaling industry and the town's population. In my search of deeds for the house and then for the land, it is my understanding that the land where the house, 4 East Dover Street, stands, was originally part of land granted to Thomas Mayhew. In Book 2, page 20, the deed reads,
"To all Christian people or others - William Vaugn of Ports mouth in the county of Dover and Plymouth in the colony of Massachusetts in New England merchant sendeth greetings know yee that where I the said V augn have lately bought of Richard Way of Boston and Bethiah his wife a certain pur chase of land at the Island of Nantucket and have that twentieth part of said Island belonging to T nomas Mayhew of Martha's Vineyard .... do constitute my trusted and beloved friend - Nathanial Waer of Hampton my true and lawful attorney agent and substitute in my place for me and in my name and for my wife .... May 20, 1678." Seventy-five years later, December 18, 1753, John Coleman, descendent of the original proprietor, Thomas Coleman, transfers property to his son John Coleman with mention in the deed that he acquired the land formerly belonging to William Vaugn. "John Coleman, County of Nantucket in the province of Massachusetts Bay in New England - yoeman - sends greetings know ye that the said John Coleman as well for the love and affection I bear unto him by son John Coleman and to his heirs and assigns forever one sixteenth part of one share of land upon the Island of Nantucket according to the common acceptance of shares of land upon the Island which I bought which was formerly William Vaugn's ... of that land laid out on the west side of the meadows of Monomoy." This area would be West Monomoy, a residential area that was laid out in 1723.
8
Historic Nantucket
The next transaction of land occurred on. October 15, 1790. John Coleman, and his wife Ann Trott Coleman, transferred land to Essex Boston. "Know all men - that I John Coleman of Sherborn in the County of Nantucket in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts yoeman and Ann Coleman my wife. For consideration of the sum of 7 pounds 16 shillings lawful money paid me by Essex Boston, shoemaker - a certain tract or piece of land lying and being in Sherborn - at a place called Newtown." There are three interesting aspects of this deed. The first, that Massachusetts is now a commonwealth, the second, that the British currency is still in use even though the Revolutionary War is over, and thirdly, that Sherborn and Newtown are used as names for the present town of Nantucket. On April 28, 1821, Essex Boston, a man of colour, sold land to the Gorhams, Davis and John, in consideration of 51 dollars and 34 cents. This deed clearly tells us that Essex Boston was a Negro, that the currency is changed from British sterling to U.S. dollars, and that there is no mention of Sherborn but of Newtown and New Guiney. Henry Barnard Worth refers to New Guiney as "the Negro town or village south and east of the wind mills near the house of Hezekiah Russell. Angola Street (now called Angora Street) is in the region and the Bostons and the Painters were colored families." John and Davis Gorham were house carpenters and co-partners in business under the name of John and Davis Gorham. A logical assump tion can be made that they bought the land to develop the area. However, on April 25, 1831, the land was transferred to Peleg Macy Jr., merchant", for sixty-six dollars and fifty cents. In this deed the parcel of land was located in Newtown, with no mention of New Guiney. Three years later, May 17, 1834, Peleg Macy Jr., sold this land to Nathan Meader for $160.00. Land was clearly beginning to appreciate as the whaling industry expanded and prospered. Nathan Meader was a carpenter and it was within the period of his ownership, May 17, 1834 - June 24, 1844, that the present house known as 4 East Dover Street was built. It is possible that Nathan Meader built it himself. Meader resold the land and the "dwelling house" back to Peleg
10 Historic Nantucket Macy, merchant. The deed reads, "Nathan Meader of Nantucket in the County of Nantucket, ship carpenter - in consideration of $600.00 to me by Peleg Macy, merchant - a certain tract of land and dwelling house." Also within this deed is the first mention of Dover Street. The whaling industry was close to its pinnacle and several references in the deed reflect the changes that the economic prosperity brought. Obviously more houses were needed and built for in 1840 the population of Nantucket was 9712. When Meader sold the house and land in 1844, he lists his oc cupation as a ship carpenter. Skilled labor was in demand and work and wages generous. With the mention of Dover Street shows that the area of West Monomoy was beginning to develop into a planned area. When Nantucket whaling began to decline an economic depression embraced the Island. On February 19, 1857, Peleg Macy sold the house to George Allen for $400.00, $200.00 less than he paid for it thirteen years before. On March 20, 1873, George Allen sold the house to Andrew J. Sandsbury. Sandsbury is listed in the 1897 Directory as the keeper of the , Brandt Point Light. Ownership of the house was transferred to his widow Martha Sandsbury, March 13, 1902, and in October 13, 1902, she sold the house to Liotine A. Souza. In the 1909 Directory, Mr. Souza was listed as a fireman for the gas works. In 1914, a fireman for the electric power house and in 1927 as a carpenter. On January 28, 1946, the property was transferred to Frank and Mary Hardy. Mr. Hardy worked on the IsLand steamers, then appointed postmaster, and is now employed by the Marine Home Center. They sold the property to Arthur and Patricia Menard on Nantucket on February 10, 1954. He was employed by the Nantucket Electric Co. The present owners, Rodger and Myrna Butler, purchased the house on September 28, 1970. They are from Westfield, Massachusetts and he is in the insurance business. They are the first off-island owners. This ownership of many Nantucket houses by off-islanders as an investment is a reflection of the current economic conditions. Whether this is an ad vantage or a dilemma for the Island is the present crisis to be addressed by Nantucketers. Architecturally, 4 East Dover Street is an attractive, solid one-andthree-quarter Nantucket house. It is shingled, has a medium gable roof,
12
Historic Nantucket
ridge chimney, three bay facade, plain lintels over the windows and 2-2 panes in the windows. There are several known alterations. The front door was changed from the north to the west sides during the 1960's. The original panes of windows were 6-6. From the picture found in the scrapbooks at the Peter Foulger Museum Library, the original siding of the house was clapboard, and it is now shingle. The most obvious alteration are the two additions to the rear of the house. Visual documentation of the house as well as structural documentation of the cellar substantiate the alterations. The west roof line was interrupted by the first extension to the rear, adding what is now a modern kitchen. The east roof line is the original line of the house. The next addition was a one story extension that is used as a back hall and laundry room. Both additions reflect the need for more contemporary, comfortable living and the great versatility and adaptability of the early Nantucket homes. The interior of 4 East Dover Street is charming. There are two living rooms, each with a fireplace, a downstairs bed-room, large kitchen and bath, front hall with single stairs leading to the second story. The front living room and stairs have wide floor boards. I believe that the other floors also have wide floor boards beneath the present flooring. The second story has three bedrooms with sloping ceilings and wide floor boards, one fireplace and a bathroom. All bedrooms have connecting doors. All the doors have lights and lift latches. The house is modest but well constructed and cozy. It is surrounded on all sides by historic houses that are well maintained and owned by Island people. There is a large lot to the west of the house that is part of the property and a fenced in dog kennel in the rear. A fence borders Dover Street and the yard is well maintained and landscaped with flowers and bushes compatible with the history and the environment of Nantucket.
Mrs. Janet H. Howell is a resident of Elmira, New York. She was a member of a class of twenty-five students who successfully completed a seminar in Nantucket History and The Seafaring Tradition, held during July, 1980, at the Coffin School, under the sponsorship of the University of Massachusetts-Boston, with the cooperation of the Nantucket Historical Association.
Autumn — Nantucket Now winter's chill has come in from the sea, To sweep across the house-tops of the old town— The island-town, snug beside its quiet harbor. And dry leaves drop swiftly from the cold trees To swirl along the pavement, in hurried flight Before the gusty march of the rushing wind. The town has taken on its gray, its sober look; Its houses, staid, in dignity of gray and brown; These are the homes of folk who love their hearths Like islanders of old who sought this land. Some houses, closed 'gainst spring's return, stand aloof, Having a lonely look amongst their clustered neighbors. In the hush of night the houses whisper gravely, Some sigh for old times, others seek the morrow; Many yearn for those who kept the rooms alight In summer's sun-filled, happy, careless days; All speak of great events—a whaleship just returned, A new-born babe, a dying old man, a Quaker wedding. Now the town settles to its long season, Club-meetings start; the ladies meet to sew, The men will vie at cribbage at the Pacific Club; Masons, Odd Fellows, the K. of C. and like brotherhoods Begin meetings which will launch a winter's cycle; The boys and girls have been a month at school. Ah, but that those who felt the summer's clime Could know the way of living in this quiet place Now the season's come and times are near to holidays; For here is peace amid the spirit of an older day, And there is time to think again of homely things, Which lend a living touch to a willing heart. —E.A.S.
The above verse was requested by one of our old Nantucket mem bers. It was originally printed in The Inquirer and Mirror, Oct. 23, 1943.
14
Reflections on Nantucket Development by Kevin D. Hurst
ALL PHILOSOPHICAL PAPERS begin with an unproved assump tion. My paper is based on one assumption and one prediction. The assumption is that Nantucket is valuable as it exists today, not just in monetary terms (which is merely a secondary or instrumental value), but intrinsically because of its rich traditions, unique culture, and finite location away from mainland acceleration. Because of its profound importance to the understanding of Nan tucket development, the concept of intrinsic value should be understood before going further. Intrinsic means: "Belonging to the real nature of a thing; an essential or inherent quality". Thus, intrinsic value is an inherent value which comprises the real nature of a thing, and which exists prior to any other value. Nantucket's intrinsic value should be obvious to everyone. This intrinsic value is the cause of Nantucket's popularity as a recreational retreat. Visitors do not come to Nantucket to see new commercial developments. They come to see seventeenth-century homes, cobblestoned streets, open vistas, unique moors, relaxing beaches, abundant wildlife, and historic museums; they come to enjoy an en vironment that will refresh their city souls. These homogeneous attributes comprise Nantucket's intrinsic value. Their first and foremost con sideration is essential to the well-being of Nantucket's unique culture.
G.E. Moore stated in his Problems of Moral Philosophy: By saying that a thing is intrinsically good...(one)means that it would be a good thing that the thing in question should exist, even if it existed quite alone, without any further ac companiments or effects whatsoever.' In contrast, those values derived from extensive commercial development are of a secondary or instrumental nature. Instrumental values are not intrinsically valuable; they are valuable only as a means to some end. In Nantucket's case, the desired instrumental end of com mercial development in most cases is an increase in monetary wealth. This is an important distinction; today, the majority of Nantucketers are
1 G. E. Moore, "Utility and Intrinsic Value", in Problems of Moral Philosophy, ed. Paul W. Taylor (Enaro, Calif.: Dickenson Publishing Co., Inc., 1972), p. 442.
Reflections on Nantucket
15
treating the instrumental values derived from development as intrinsic values when, in fact, they are not. These instrumental values are totally dependent on the well-being of Nantucket's intrinsic value. Based on my assumption, my prediction is that unless some sort of stricter regulation is enacted to control Nantucket's future development, this island's unprotected intrinsic value which has taken over three hundred years to accumulate socially, and hundreds of thousands of years to unfold physically, will be lost in the swing of a developer's hammer. I feel Nantucket, viewed as an abstract entity comprising past generations as well as present and future generations, has reached a point in time (and, perhaps is already on the way downhill), where increased com mercial and residential development will only lead to a progressive demise of the island's intrinsic value: a value which is at the base of all other value systems, especially the instrumental value system developers and realtors rely on. There is a paradox involved here: while the value derived from monetary gain increases with further developments (I should add that this value is shared not by everyone, but by only a few), the intrinsic foun dation underneath the monetary value system (the intrinsic value, whether realized or not, is shared by all who visit Nantucket), will crumble in relative proportions. From this, one may conclude the harsh realities of my prediction: the prediction, unless realized now, will be proved correct only after the island is already ruined by development. Resting overdeveloped on crumbled foundations, the island will have lost all its ability to support anything that attempts to be'aesthetically pleasing. People will no longer look at Nantucket as a place to recuperate from the accelerated realities of city life. They will no longer be able to enjoy an historical oasis, whose lighthouse now beckons all to learn from her interesting past: The major reason why this prediction runs the risk of being proven correct is because those who wish to preserve Nantucket simply do not have enough convincing information about the future to persuade others of the critical impact of all actions, both physical and cultural, involving development. I don't mean to imply here that there is no information available predicting the impact of developmental actions; there is. What I wish to imply is that apparently the present type of information pointing out the impact of development has not been perceived by all as being totally convincing. But this should not be, as some like to use it, an argument favoring development. On the contrary, it is an argument that should put the burden of proof on the developer's shoulders, instead of on those who wish to keep the present environment intact. Thus, I feel a more comprehensive "burden of proof' guideline for development should
Reflections on Nantucket 17 be enacted immediately and governed by town officials and concerned citizens. I hope this paper will help convince people, especially Nantucketers, that by giving a little (by supporting responsible plans for restricting development), they will gain a lot. They will gain the immense satisfaction of living on, or even just visiting, an oasis of history. They will feel contentment when able to say that they helped preserve an en dangered species. They will have the enjoyment of knowing that there will still be a place left where their children's children can go to escape the chaotic city life, and learn about freedom and preservation, and other things that can add moral fiber to a society partially crippled by the complexities of city life. I realize that the words "control" and "regulations" sound abhorrent to most Nantucketers. A perfect example of this indifferent attitude was seen in the lengthy debate over Senator Kennedy's Nantucket Sound Islands Trust Bill, first proposed in 1972. Here was an opportunity for Nantucketers to support a policy which would, in theory: preserve and conserve such values for the enjoyment of present and future generations, to preserve and conserve the natural ecological environment, and to encourage maximum coor dinate action by state and local governments and private individuals, groups, organizations, and associations; all to the end of protecting these values from developments and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural character of the area. In preserving the Nantucket Sound Islands and stabilizing their development, substantial reliance shall be placed upon coordinate action between Federal, State, and local governments to apply sound principles of land use planning and zoning; and full recognition shall be given to protecting private properties for the enjoyment of the owners.2 Kennedy felt "that local (preservation) efforts, if they are to succeed, need alignmentation from the Federal Government." He felt a "Nan tucket Trust Commission" should be the instrument for combining the two. This commission would embody seven members, six of whom must have been Nantucket property owners for at least five years. These members would be selected as follows: one member appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, one member appointed by the Governor of
2 Reprint of Bill. Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror, 29 June 1972, p. 17.
lg Historic Nantucket Massachusetts, three members appointed by the Nantucket Selectmen, one member appointed by the Nantucket Conservation Commission and one member appointed by the Nantucket Planning Board. 3 This bill was fought rigorously for over two years. In one Town Meeting, "a voice vote taken by Mr. Gifford (a bill proponent) near the end of the three and one half hour long meeting, showed that those op posed to the bill far outnumbered those in favor". Gifford then asked "for those who wanted a slowing down of developments on the island to say 'aye'. There was a roar of 'ayes' and no one said 'nay'. 4 During the next two years, the bill was extensively revised three times in the hope that a compromise might be found. In the end, however, the power of persuasion rested in the hands of the bill's opponents, and it was consequently tabled. In 1972, the Nantucketers' intentions were to slow down develop ment by local efforts. Eight years later, I don't see development slowing down. In fact, developments and their ramifications have increased sharply since 1972. No comprehensive controls, either local or state, have been implemented. The variety of arguments against them remain the same, and every year brings more haphazard growth. As a final note before examining some of the specific arguments that developers use to try to justify their cause, I wish to convey my often felt sense of being overwhelmed by ramifications. I should like the reader to know that some of the questions concerning development on Nantucket left me feeling as if I were chasing white rabbits down endless corridors. There are, in my estimation, no easy step-by-step comprehensive guidelines available that can enlighten everyone about the profound ethics concerning Nantucket development. To me, this is all the more reason why we must all pitch in to stop Nantucket's runaway development immediately, in order to buy some time to think out thoroughly exactly what course will produce the most ethical progress towards the preser vation of the values that make Nantucket, "Nantucket". EFFECTS ON LOCAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Developers and others with similar interests argue that increased development is needed to sustain Nantucket's local construction industry. Many Nantucketers, especially those with economic interests in the building trade, fear that restrictions which would limit the number of new
3 Ibid., p. 17 4 Ibid., 27 April 1972, p. 5.
20
Historic Nantucket
houses will deny them access to economy stability. Without an expanding building trade, they argue, we will lose a portion of our local construction industry. Recent statistics, however, contradict this view. In 1978, 116 new homes were built on Nantucket. Of these 116 new buildings, only threequarters of them were built with the help of island contractors. The remainder were built using off-island contractors. 5 In 1979, 159 new houses were constructed (a 97 percent increase over 1976). Only 85 of these new buildings were constructed with the help of local construction workers. 6 Thus, the local construction industry (the second largest dollar-making industry on the island) could, and more importantly should, survive on less new construction if the long-range goal is to save as much of the natural environment as possible,and to control the growth of the island in an orderly and comprehensive way. 7 If Nantucket's building trade is not limited, it will grow fast and recklessly. Fueled by larger and larger amounts of new construction, it will soon be a bonfire that can only be extinguished by burning itself out.i. e. , when the island's finite area is fully developed. The results of rapid and total development of the island will be: a great deal of money for a few entrepreneurs; a rapid destruction of the island's intrinsic value, and unemployment for the majority of Nantucket's construction workers. My suggestion is to face this future possiblity NOW, not after the gun has gone off, and Tom Nevers Head (among others) 8 is reeling from the impact of uncontrolled growth.
5 Nantucket
Planning
&
Economic
Development
Commission,
Residential Growth Impact Study 1978, 1 Sept. 1979, p. 6. 6 Public Service Announcement of the Nantucket Land Council.
Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror, 28 Feb. 1980. 7 In the April, 1980 Nantucket Town Meeting, a by-law, Article 25, was introduced for approval. Article 25 represented a carefully planned, comprehensive approach to Nantucket's growth. The major thrust of the article was to impose a 100 per year limit on new housing permits for the next five years. This five years would then be used to form a complete growth policy for Nantucket. The proposal would have had absolutely no effect on renovations or remodeling. It also would have given year-round Nantucket residents first chance at the permits, or the lease of the new home. The article was defeated. 8 Tom Nevers Head is an area of Nantucket which is now being rapidly subdivided and developed.
Reflections on Nantucket
21
TAX RATE It might be asked, with legitimate concern, what effect a decrease in new construction will have on Nantucket's tax base? Developers argue that new development strengthens the tax base. First, let's look at the historical side of the land tax issue. The land tax issue began years ago when there existed an abundant supply of "John Doe" land on Nantucket. This "owners unknown" land was not being claimed by anyone; thus, the town could not collect any tax on it. It was decided that this land should be sold to the public so a land tax could be collected. Hence, the land was sold for a relatively small price representing the past uncollected taxes. The Town had reasoned that Nantucket taxes could be kept lower by selling this land, because the taxes from the newly owned land would, in theory, expand the tax base. 9 In rebuttal to this theory, the growth which has followed from the development of the John Doe land (and all other land) by its new owners has caused a tremendous increase in the tax rate, doubling it from $68.00 to $134.00 during the past ten years. But, the Nantucket Land Council points out, this is only the beginning. Unchecked, increases in buildings will continue to result in a steady increase in population. A steady in crease in population will in turn cause many new capital expenditures, as more people demand more services. A partial list of such expenditures, derived from such diverse sources as the Capital Program Committee, Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission, con tractor estimates, articles for appropriation, and estimates of Department Heads, includes the following: new sewer lines and treatment facilities, up to $10 million dollars; fire station, $550,000.; police station, $350,000.; landfill for an ever-expanding city dump, $500,000 to $2,470,000; public water to airport, $150,000; .public water for Madaket, up to $2,600,000; improvements to public water system in general, no estimate; elementary school. $3,600,000; Our Island Home, $2,400,000; Steamboat Wharf reconstruction, $3,825,000; recreational and commercial town piers, $1,250,000 to $4,000,000; and resurfacing of Old South, Nobadeer, Surfside, Macy Lane, Polpis, and Madaket roads, $1,391,000. This list is virtually endless; many future expenditures are inestimable, along with interest rates for town borrowed money, inflation, and cost overruns. Hence, which approach seems more rational if Nantucket's future value is to be preserved: controlled growth until a more comprehensive plan can be devised, or a continuation of uncontrolled development?
9 Interview with Edouard A. Stackpole, Director, Foulger Museum, Nantucket, Ma., 25 Feb 1980.
22
Historic Nantucket
THE HOUSING NEED Because of the tremendous popularity of Nantucket over the past ten years, developers often claim that there is a "need" for more housing. I believe the problem with this argument is found by exploring the semantic ambiguity in the word "need", as it is used here. The concept of a "need" is extremely elastic. The definition of a need can stretch from something that is merely useful or desirable to something that requires unconditional and immediate relief. The latter definition could be classified as a "basic need". In a general sense, the criterion needed to establish the concept of a "basic need" would be that X needed Y, and without Y, X would be substantially harmed.'0 Thus, the developer argues that there is a need for more housing on Nantucket because having a roof over one's head is a basic need. Carried further, this is the same as saying: without more housing, some Nantucketers are going to be harmed because one of their basic needs, that of having a roof over one's head, will not be fulfilled. This argument seems sound until one realizes that the majority of houses that have been built over the past ten years have not been built for year-round residents or native Nantucketers. These are the only people , who have a valid claim to the basic need of a new Nantucket house.Of the 116 new houses that were built in 1978, only 5.6 percent are inhabited by residents who have lived on Nantucket for more than ten years. Based on a survey done by the Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (hereafter, NP & EDC) of the 1978 homebuilders, the facts concerning the use of new homes as principal year-round residences, are as follows: only one-third of the new homes were to be used only as summer residences; and twenty-three of the homes were built for insummer residences: and twenty-three of the homes were built for in vestment purposes." Thus, the majority of new homes were not built for year-round use. They were built primarily for those people who are wealthy enough to buy a second home in a unique, but finite, environment away from the mainland bustle. If the housing market on Nantucket continues to be directed towards the wealthy, house prices will continue to climb above the already exorbitant prices. (Any given copy of the Nantucket weekly paper, The Inquirer and Mirror, is literally filled with
10 Joel Feinberg, Social Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 111. 11 Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission, Residential Growth Impact Study 1978, 1 Sept. 1979, p. 4.
24
Historic Nantucket
Real Estate ads beckoning the elite to look at the great investment opportunites. The definite majority of Nantucket houses are valued at well over $100,000.00). Thus, the developer's argument that there is a "need" for new Nantucket homes rests precariously on the semantical ambiguity inherent in the word "need". It is apparent that there is not a "basic need" for more housing on Nantucket. Rather, there is a demand or "artificial need" based purely on the salability of Nantucket land to outsiders. Developers and realtors are merely justifying their personal desire to make money by claiming that these desires are actually based on a basic societal need. Hence, when developers say, "We need more houses on Nantucket because Nantucketers have a basic need for a roof over their head, " they are actually saying "We desire more homes on Nantucket because there is a great demand for Nantucket houses"; and they are thinking, "More houses on Nantucket bring us more money." Although the number of new houses each year is an important im mediate planning consideration of those persons who wish to preserve the Island s intrinsic value, the NP & EDC raises a further consideration: Also, it must be stressed that actual home building is only one side of the development isue-and to some the less important one. More urgent in many people's minds is the rate of sub division of land which tends to have crucial long range ramifications for the Island's eventual total population and settlement pattern. Nantucket is currently being subdivided at the rate of about four hundred lots per year (in 1979, 557 building lots were created) almost all of which are being transferred to single ownership.'2 The Nantucket Land Council (hereafter, NLC) further points out that'3 While it is difficult to determine precisely the total number of lots that have been sub-divided and are available for con struction; it is estimated that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 such lots.14 As the number of developable lots increases, so does the number of new buildings. As the number of new buildings increases, so does the Nan12 Nantucket Land Council, Nantucket Growth Policy, pg. 3 13 Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission, Residential Growth Impact Study 1978, 1 Sept. 1979, pp. 1-2. 14 Nantucket Land Council, Nantucket Growth Policy Study, p. 4
Reflections on Nantucket
25
tucket population. According to the NLC, at the 1979 rate, Nantucket's year-round population will double in sixteen years. If the rate continues to grow, as it has for the past four years, the population could double by the end of the decade. 1 5 • POPULATION GROWTH But, one might ask, what is so wrongwith the growth of Nantucket's population? Cybernetics, the science of control theory, provides a con venient way to view Nantucket's growth problem as a whole. In cyber netic language, a system, such as the growth of a human society, can exist in two general states: (1) a "transient state" in which the system is growing rapidly, and (2) a steady or "mature state", in which the system is maintained in an overall equilibrium for a relatively long period of time. Every transient growth state, whether it pertains to the individual or to society, is under the influence of what is called "positive feedback". This idea means that each increase accelerates another increase. All living systems, in general, have an inherent tendency to grow. As systems grow larger and more complex, more feedback energy is required to maintain the intricate structure that has resulted. In Nantucket's societal growth system, positive feedback has almost exclusively taken the form of economic gain or financial increase. Because Nantucket land is so valuable (The latest estimate of Nantucket's real estate value is $660,000,000),' 6 econoinic gain (by selling this valuable land commo'dity) has become Nantucket's overriding blueprint for transient growth. However, growth does not and cannot continue unrestricted because "negative feedback" control also comes into play, either by some limitation imposed by the external environment or by the action of an internal governor that brings about an orderly slowdown and establishes a set point at which growth in size stops. (This does not mean that growth in quality need stop). Human beings exhibit an example of the latter type of negative feedback control. Each individual has an internal governor in the form of a genetic code. This code first organizes growth, then slows it down and maintains an optimum state of maturity for a relatively long period of time. Quality maintenance replaces quantitative growth as the "strategy of survival" in the mature system.
15 Ibid., p . 3. 16 "Nantucket Real Estate Valued at $660,000,000," Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror, 24 April 1980, p. 1.
26
Historic Nantucket
Nantucket's growth thus far reflects the former type of negative feedback control, i.e., some limitation is eventually implemented by the external environment. It takes on such forms as lower water quality, lower land-use quality, a loss in aesthetic potential,a lower cultural uniqueness, a loss in the ability to draw tourists, and so forth (incidentally, I feel these are a few of the elements that make up the Island's intrinsic value foun dation). Sometimes, negative feedback of this sort can be detected early enough in the growth process to remedy it; most of the time, though, it continues unnoticed until it is completely overwhelming. Unfortunately, societies have no built-in "genetic code" that automatically monitors the transition from transient growth to qualitative maturity. Most Nantucketers simply don't realize that unless an internal governor is established that will slow down and set a standard by which growth should occur, the external environment's negative feedback system will overwhelm and eventually destroy not only the positive feedback system, but also Nantucket's total environment. Thus, the problem with Nantucket's growth becomes this: Nan tucket's external environmental constraints have not offered, and probably will not offer, adquate negative feedback about the destructive tendencies inherent in the positive feedback system until it is too late. So strong are the economic incentives of the positive feedback involved with increased commercial and residential growth, that overdevelopment seems inevitable if only external limits are used as a guide for societal growth. We can all be proud of the fact that Nantucket has been able to grow and develop so well thus far while still retaining most of her pleasurable attributes. However, as saturation levels are approached, all the "good" attributes will lose their intrinsic qualities. Growth beyond the optimum becomes cancer. Nantucket needs time to decide just what the optimum state of maturity should be. Thus, there must be some sort of Nantucket governor implemented immediately if Nantucket's future transition is to be orderly and relatively free of cancerous intrusions caused by an un controlled growth system's tendency to "boom-and-bust". Nantucketers cannot continue to ignore the seemingly casual, but actually intricate relationship between them and their immediate environment. They must begin to think holistically about how all the ramifications involved in Nantucket's growth affect the homogeneous character of the island.' 7
17 Eugene P. Odum, "Environmental Ethic and the Attitude Revolution," in Philosophy & Environmental Crisis, ed. William T. Blackstone (Athens, Ga.: U. of Georgia Press, 1974), pp. 13-14.
Reflections on Nantucket
27
As a rebuttal to anyone who feels that every mainlander has a Godgiven right to move to Nantucket if he or she pleases, I offer the following: if it is correct to assume that Nantucket's intrinsic qualities will decline with an ever-increasing population, then it should be apparent that Nantucket should not be concerned with trying to increase everyone's happiness by allowing everyone who wishes the opportunity to move to the Island. There are simply too many people in a position to reap Nantucket's pleasing attributes without giving consideration to the longrange effects their actions will have on these attributes. If Nantucket allows everyone who wishes the opportunity to move to the island, it will only lead to a qualitative decline until eventually, the Island's unique features will have lost all their intrinsic quality, and no one will desire their once-pleasing attributes. Then the Island will bring happiness to no one. I feel we all have an obligation to preserve the living museum they call Nantucket, even if this means implementing controls.
[To be continued] Kevin D. Hurst is a native of Utah and attends the University of Utah, majoring in environmental studies. He attended the University of Massachusetts-Boston seminar in Nantucket this past winter, with the class studying Nantucket History and Culture, sponsored by the University of Massachusetts and the Nantucket Historical Association. This is his term paper, which not only received a high grade but becomes •an important study for all who love Nantucket.
PLEASE—Send us your change of address if you are planning to move. You will receive your copy sooner and we are charged extra for all copies returned because of an incorrect address.
Bequests or gifts to the Nantucket Historical Association are tax deductible. They are greatly needed and appreciated.
Early 19th century Nantucket Dwelling -127 Main Street
