I strongly support both PSLU 28 and 34. I assume that visitors come to Maui to experience it’s peace and beauty. The more we build, the more we destroy the very thing people come here to experience. So many beautiful places that have been overrun with tourists and these places have started to implement procedures to protect and ‘clean up’ the impact of over-tourism. (Venice, Manchu Picchu, Barcelona, Santorini, Amsterdam, areas of Iceland, Mallorca, Kyoto to name a few). We are already experiencing a housing crisis for local residents on Maui which simply is not okay. Who will be able to work in the tourist industry if people cannot find or afford housing. This is an example of the proverbial ‘shooting yourself in the foot’.
SUGGESTIONS: implement a hefty tourist tax (money to be used to address issues resulting from over tourism, limit visitors per day (1 visitor per 25 residents), moratorium on building to accommodate visitors (if we limit the amount of visitors, there should already be enough accommodations), reduce the current number of visitor accommodations, LIMIT the number of vacation rentals so that there is more housing available for local residents.
There MUST be an honorable balance that we can strike so that local families are valued and protected as we share this island CONSCIOUSLY with visitors who want to enjoy this island.
Do NOT wait till it’s too late to do anything about protecting this beautiful island. The vision must go beyond ‘money in the pocket now’ at the expense of marring and destroying Maui in the future….PLEASE look ahead….forward thinking will go a long way
We bought this property and paid EXTRA to be in the vacation zone area. We could have paid $200,000 less if we just wanted to have a condo in Maui without STR option. This is an insanity what you are proposing and in a way taking away ownership rights to properties. Shame on you for even proposing this. If you need more affordable housing, please consider building out into the mountain area - there's plenty of land. No need to take away and re-distribute my ownership rights!!!!
Hello, I strongly oppose this bill!!! We purchased a property in October 2020 and since then I’ve been able to use it as a vacation rental, your proposed date of cut off of September 2020 is extremely concerning to us!!! Please re-evaluate, decline it!!
I oppose! This would cause extreme financial hardship for owners whom depend on rent to make their mortgage and expenses. Also agree with all of the points RAM has made. Finally I think all the council members should be require to disclose any relationships financial or otherwise with the hotel industry publicly.
My wife and I are Canadian “snowbirds.” We have been coming to Maui for over 40 years, always in the same condo complex. We retired 13 years ago and since then our average stay is about two months. During our stay we rent a car from a local company, do our grocery shopping at local stores, and gon Scuba diving with local operators.
We read with alarm about the desire to eliminate temporary vacation rentals within the hotel zone. If this happens then we will no longer be able to afford to come to Maui. We can’t afford the big luxury hotel chain room rates, compounded by their lack of in-room cooking facilities which would force us to eat many of our meals in their expensive restaurants.
If this passes then we will be forced to move our winter get-away to Mexico or the Caribbean, taking a few thousand dollars with us. I suspect that this will also be true for many of the seasonal friends that we have met here.
Yeds, it will be “Aloha” in the “goodbye” sense.
It is awful to allow visitors to stay in residential neighborhoods. I can only imagine the negative impact on working families. I feel that only Bed & Breakfasts, with host owner/operators living on the premises, should be allowed to operate on Maui. Visitors need supervision! One only has to imagine how it would feel to be a working parent who has to be up early to get the family going and a nearby unit has vacationers partying into the night.
The housing crisis is disgraceful. The greed of speculation on residences is destroying our community! Mahalo for your work to balance it!
Mahalo for your consideration of the impacts on our residents!
Aloha mai kākou my name is Kahala Johnson, I am a Kanaka Maoli and Filipino resident who is one paycheck away from being homeless in my own homeland. I stand in strong support of PSLU-34 relating to the phasing out of transient accommodations. Despite being recognized as the Indigenous peoples of Hawaii, Kanaka Maoli are the most overrepresented demographic in homeless statistics comprising 40% of the unsheltered population. This harrowing statistic is made even more abhorrent when non-Hawaiians and paid lobbyists testify on behalf of transient vacation rentals on Maui, conveniently ignoring my people on the streets by locking their cars whenever they see a Hawaiian homeless on their own land. In response to their tone-deaf classism, I am here to testify that housing is indeed an issue but not for folks with enough class privilege to buy and rent houses that stay empty until parasitized by tourists coming to colonize the islands while homeless Hawaiians struggle to survive day-to-day.
I oppose this piece of legislation. It will NOT cure the housing deficit we have. It will only create lawsuits from the owners and cost the county millions in legal fees PLUS reduced property tax revenues. Please vote NO on this bill. It will NOT reduce tourists, instead it WILL HARM current property owners.
Unfortunately, I cannot support you in the next election if you do not support property rights.
Please do the right thing and Oppose the TVR Phase Out Bill and focus on legislation that will actually help our community. The proposed TVR phase out legislation will not create affordable housing and it won't benefit anyone other than the hotel industry. RAM has identified several reasons why the County of Maui should not eliminate TVR use in these subject condominiums, and I agree with them. I hope you agree with this logic as well:
1. Economic Benefit: The County of Maui has identified approximately 7,302 condominium units that have the ability to conduct TVR use under the comprehensive zoning ordinance's permitted uses for the A-1 and A-2 districts. Based on recent changes to our real property tax laws, these properties are generally placed in the short-term rental tax classification by default. On 10/21/2021, the Director of the Department of Finance publicly stated that eliminating TVR use in these properties "would possibly lead to a negative revenue change at about $23 million per year." According to data provided by the Selected Real Property Statistics for Budget Consideration: FY 2021-2022, the average amount of revenue expected to be provided by each property in the STR tax class in 2022 is $10,241.00. Therefore, these 7,302 condominiums represent approximately $74.7 million in annual RPT revenue overall. According to Moody's, "the county's reliance on generally stable and predictable property taxes that are paid primarily by out-of-state owners of timeshares, vacation rentals and second homes'' is a significant factor related to our excellent bond rating. It makes no financial sense to eliminate such a reliable and substantial source of revenue for the county, especially at the risk of jeopardizing our bond rating.
2. Funding the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan: The Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan calls for the County of Maui to "increase funding into the Affordable Housing Fund to $58 million annually." Similarly, the plan calls for the County of Maui to use its excellent bond rating to borrow against the Affordable Housing Fund in order to fund other components of the plan. As discussed above, eliminating TVR use from these subject condominiums would result in a possible loss of $23 million in revenue annually, and upwards of $74 million in annual revenue lost overall. Such a loss in revenue and reduction in our tax base would make it impossible to fully fund the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan, and it would jeopardize our ability to borrow enough money to fund various components of the plan. Please, do not defund the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan before any housing is even made available. These impacted condominiums will not provide the housing our community needs, but they can fund the development of the housing our community needs. Hawaiian Community Assets agrees with this point, and so should you.
3. Eliminating TVR Use May Actually Jeopardize Long-Term Affordable Housing Opportunities for Residents: TVR use in the subject condominiums is an incentive for investment purchasers to seek out and purchase these aging condominiums instead of other residential properties on the island. If there is no difference between the permitted uses allowed in an aging 1 bedroom condominium in Kihei or a 3 bedroom home in Waihee or Makawao, but the prices are comparable, an investment purchaser might as well buy the 3 bedroom home that would have been more suitable for one of our residents. Also, even if these properties lose TVR use, they are generally not the type of housing our residents need, and they will likely not sell at rates many of our residents can afford. The subject properties are all 30+ years old, primarily built and designed as TVRs, largely located in the sea level rise exposure area, and have aged infrastructure that has been used hard for many years. That means they have minimal parking, minimal storage, high maintenance fees, high special assessments, high tax assessments, and are in the areas most susceptible to climate change. Given the current prices of comparable non-TVR units and the average monthly maintenance fees of these units, few (if any) can be expected to sell at "affordable" or even "workforce" rates.
4. Empowering the Hotels and Maximizing Advertising Dollars: Eliminating TVR use in the subject condominiums only benefits the hotel industry, as it will be eliminating their only real competition while negatively impacting county revenue and affordable housing development. With no competition, the hotels will maximize their capacity and realize huge gains in revenue. Naturally, much of this revenue will go back into advertising Maui as a destination, thereby increasing the numbers of tourists visiting the islands. Throughout the pandemic period, the County of Maui already demonstrated great preference for the hotels and resorts, and this further gift of eliminating their competition almost entirely is alarming and arguably inappropriate.
5. Legal Challenges: Many property owners have already contacted RAM and expressed their intent to take legal action against the County of Maui if their property rights are abridged. Though HRS Section 46-4 ostensibly provides the counties authority to phase out "nonconforming" usese in the Apartment zoning districts, it is difficult to classify TVR use as "nonconforming" for these subject properties. TVR use is expressly permitted in the language of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and has been stated as expressly permitted in several pieces of legislation over the past 7 years. TVR use has been conducted in the A-1 and A-2 districts by thousands of property owners, throughout hundreds of buildings, over the course of decades. I don't know if impacted property owners would win a legal challenge against the County of Maui, but I have a feeling it will cost our county a lot of money and time to find out.
Hopefully you can see that a TVR phase out is not a good idea and it won't help our community in the way this legislation claims it will. Please focus your attention on providing the housing we need, instead of looking for ways to punish property owners for doing what the County of Maui expressly allows them to do.
Maui County SHOULD phase out TVR's in Apartment Zoning. ANY dwelling in Apartment Zoning IS intended for Long-Term renting NOT Short-Term renting. This has had so many repercussions that has had negative impact on the whole of Maui. Short-term renting is killing the Aloha of Maui not embracing it and the visitors that come to Maui. There is Hotel Zoning for tourists to come visit the beautiful island of Maui. Visitors should be staying at a resort which is intended to accommodate visitors. The Minatoya list is not relevant anymore, it is outdated and out of line for what is in the best intention for Maui residents and visitors. Also, when looking at Maui County Code, the TVR code is in need to be executed for the better quality of life for the residents of Maui and those who oppose it have a stakeholder in it with investments in TVR's that do NOT improve the visitors experience but hinders the economy, most are not sowing their gains back into Maui. Please show the research and the numbers of how many TVR's are owned by out of County and State people. People are just making money with no care to locals or Maui itself. People who do not believe this need to do their research and the Council to get a consultant to report on these issues so there is no reasoning as the public states "we believe", etc. Please make a change, what we have now is NOT working.
Dan and Michelle Edgington. Owners at 760 Spinnaker.
Dear Chair and Members of the Committee,
Aloha, my name is Adam Thongsavat and I serve on Airbnb's Public Policy team. We are disappointed to see Maui considering legislation to effectively ban short-term rental eligibility for properties in its apartment districts sold or transferred after the end of this year.
First, this proposal comes on heels of other short-term rental restrictions, including limiting the number of available short-term rental permits in certain neighborhoods. Together, these measures will only serve to reduce a valuable source of tax revenue for the County, further limit alternative visitor-serving accommodations across the Island, and hamper Maui homeowners' ability to benefit from Island tourist activity.
Second, this proposal runs counter to our recent MOU with the County, which is designed to usher in a transparent and effective regulatory regime for short-term rentals and online platforms. In accordance with this MOU, platforms have already undertaken changes on their end to ensure the County, hosts, and guests are aware of relevant tax and registration related information for short-term rental advertisements on their sites. Maui's new proposal threatens to undermine this MOU by creating new and ever-evolving regulatory requirements that make it harder for hosts, platforms, and the County itself to understand STR regulations for the Island.
Third, Maui's proposal is likely preempted by Hawaii state law, specifically Section 46-4, which provides significant limitations on local zoning powers. In particular, we are concerned with how Maui's proposal squares with this state law provision, which prohibits the amortization or phasing out of nonconforming uses for existing buildings or premises used for residential uses. This is consistent with longstanding advice from Maui's Corporation Counsel that prior attempts to prohibit short-term rental use in the Apartment Districts did not apply to those "grandfathered" listings that have been operating on or before March 4, 1991 OR had a lawfully issued permit approval on April 20, 1989.
We urge the County to withhold acting on this legislation now. Rather than continue to go down the road of ad-hoc and patchwork regulatory amendments, we welcome the opportunity to engage with the County in the coming months to identify a comprehensive framework that serves the needs of the County and residents.
We firmly believe that together we can strike a balance that recognizes that our host and guest community can meaningfully contribute to Maui's vision of managed and responsible tourism.
For the council to even consider such a proposition is scary for the people of Maui. PLSU-34 would possible defund affordable housing for the county of Maui by losing 74M in real property taxes from property classified as transit accommodation and 69M in TAT revenue for the state not to mention the thousand of small and medium size business that rely on these STR for their living(cleaning services, property management services, food services, tourism services, transportation services, etc). This should have been analysis before this "ideal" was even brought up and the proposition thrown out.
Aloha Chair Rawlins-Fernandez and Members of the Committee,
My name is Jade Chihara and I am born and raised in Lahaina. I support Councilmember Paltin’s bill PLSU-34. Vacation rentals in the areas of apartments, where locals should live is unacceptable and adds to the competing race to find an affordable place to live. Apartments should be for locals and long term residents who can have an opportunity to build a community with each other and their families together.
I oppose any further restrictions from the legally existing transit accommodation in the vacation rental zones and what the zoning currently permits. No need for further changes just enforce the rules by making the various platform(Airbnb/VRBO) verify the accommodations on there sites are legal and paying taxes. In addition, the current legal transient accommodations provides various income for the people staying on Maui(cleaning services, property management services, restaurants, grocery store, diving shops, car rentals, tourism shops) for low to middle income resident on Maui. To deprive them of making a living is wrong. The council could better use the tax dollars the transit accommodations are generating to fund moderate to low income housing developments for the residents of Maui instead of approving these restrictions.
PLSU-34 could potentially defund affordable housing for Maui County at a time when we need it most. The intent of this proposed phase out bill is to create affordable housing; however, most of these properties would not be affordable to rent. Many of these properties do not have storage, parking or ample space for children to play that would be appropriate for affordable housing.
This bill could result in a potential loss of $74M in Real Property Tax revenue for the county of Maui, and a loss of $69M in TAT Revenue for the State. The result will be an increase in taxes for Maui residents.
We are in agreement with RAM’s below proposed reasons for opposing these two bills:
1. Economic Benefit: The County of Maui has identified approximately 7,302 condominium units that have the ability to conduct TVR use under the comprehensive zoning ordinance's permitted uses for the A-1 and A-2 districts. Based on recent changes to our real property tax laws, these properties are generally placed in the short-term rental tax classification by default. These 7,302 condominiums represent approximately $74.7 million in annual RPT revenue overall. It makes no financial sense to eliminate such a reliable and substantial source of revenue for the county, especially at the risk of jeopardizing our bond rating.
2. Funding the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan: The Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan calls for the County of Maui to "increase funding into the Affordable Housing Fund to $58 million annually." Similarly, the plan calls for the County of Maui to use its excellent bond rating to borrow against the Affordable Housing Fund in order to fund other components of the plan. Eliminating TVR use from these subject condominiums would result in a possible loss of $74 million in annual revenue lost overall. Such a loss in revenue and reduction in our tax base would make it impossible to fully fund the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan.
3. Eliminating TVR Use May Actually Jeopardize Long-Term Affordable Housing Opportunities for Residents: TVR use in the subject condominiums is an incentive for investment purchasers to seek out and purchase these aging condominiums instead of other residential properties on the island.
4. Empowering the Hotels and Maximizing Advertising Dollars: Eliminating TVR use in the subject condominiums only benefits the hotel industry, as it will be eliminating their only real competition while negatively impacting county revenue and affordable housing development.
5. Legal Challenges: Many property owners have already contacted RAM and expressed their intent to take legal action against the County of Maui if their property rights are abridged.
On behalf of PRMA, our members, employees and vendors, we ask that you please focus your attention on providing the housing we need, instead of looking for ways to punish property owners for doing what the County of Maui expressly allows them to do.
Aloha Honorable Councilmembers,
My name is John Uhl. I am the president of the AOAO for Ma’alaea Banyans, 190 Hauoli St, in Ma'alaea. We have owned a condominium there for over 30 years. We now live full time in Makani a Kai, 300 Hauoli St, Ma'alaea, and our ohana nui owns 4 condos there.
Hauoli St in Ma'alaea has 10 condominium complexes, built between 1972 and 1980. They range in size from 24 to 83 units, with 564 total units. Full time owner occupancy ranges from 5% to 67%, and is about 30% overall. But the majority of owners live here part time--weeks or months per year, and most rent out their units when they are not here. That has worked out extremely well for both owners and renters. Both have generally loved their Maui experience, and appreciate the option to avoid large expensive hotels. It is far more advantageous to the Maui economy to have the units rented to vacationers who spend money throughout the economy than to have the units sit vacant when the owners are not there.
The complexes were never meant to be family homes. They are small, and storage is quite limited. They are mostly 1 bedroom, some 2 bedrooms, most with only one parking space. Very few children live there. These 40+ year old buildings also need and will need substantial, and expensive repairs, which preclude them ever being affordable housing.
Their design and repair needs make them useless to address the needs of local families looking for more affordable housing. Eliminating them from short term rentals benefits only hotels by eliminating their competition. But that takes away a very popular option for vacationers, who still have the option to travel to other destinations.
We also generate significant tax revenues. As you are no doubt aware, property tax rates are substantially higher for non-owner occupied and short term rental property than for owner occupied properties. Transient Occupancy taxes are 10.25%. Landlords need to pay Hawaiian income tax on rental income, even if they live outside of Hawaii. Loss of short term vacation rentals could also cost thousands of tradespeople their jobs. We pay our housekeeper more than $50 an hour – double or triple what the hotels pay We also support handypersons, electricians, plumbers, resident managers, gardeners, and many others. The trickle-down economic impact could be as significant as the direct impact.
The concept of eliminating short term rentals in apartment buildings is one that has been promoted by the hotel industry for years. Their interest is not in enhancing affordable family housing - it is purely their self interest in increasing their occupancy rates and generating more profits for their shareholders.
A moratorium on new short term rental units might be reasonable. But how cynical is it to try to eliminate Ma'alaea's 564 potential short term rentals, which have been vacation rentals for 40 years, while allowing the building of 388 new timeshares at Maui Bay Villas by Hilton Grand Vacations at the old Maui Lu site?
This measure would dramatically reduce the County’s tax revenue, thereby stifling the ability to develop affordable housing. Property values for these buildings would plummet , buildings may deteriorate as necessary repairs become unaffordable, and units might become vacant except for well-heeled retirees from the Mainland and elsewhere. Eventually they too could be driven out as homeowner dues increase to cover costs for unoccupied units.
This specter is real. It can happen in a matter of a few short years. The consequences of a bill such as this would resonate for years to come and the visitors who want to stay in homes and not in hotels will take their business somewhere other than Maui.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify,
President of Ma'alaea Banyans AOAO
First of all I want to let you know that I love Maui and I respect Hawaiian culture and traditions !
But I strongly oppose to this proposal.
I am an owner of one bedroom short term vacation rental condo since 2018.
I personally think we should focus on cracking down and stopping illegal vacation rentals on the island and not punishing owners who happily obey all your laws.
I also would like you to know that I do not make any profit by renting my place, short term vacation rental does not even cover my costs.
And that's ok I did not buy my condo to make a profit, I simply love Maui and want to live with Aloha Spirit.
As a working class person with full time job, I come and stay in my place twice a year.
I proudly hire local contractors and businesses. Maui property management company represent me and rent my unit. Please think how this proposal will affect them since I will be forced not to use their services, if this proposal passes.
I pay all my taxes and bills on time.
As you know effective November 1st, 2021 County of Maui is implementing 3% County TAT, that's on top of 10.25% State TAT (House Bill 862, H.D. 2, S.D.2, C.D.1), which I understand.
County of Maui loss in revenue will be devastating if this proposal passes and it would not help affordable housing found.
My AOAO fees and property taxes are really high, but I am not complaining. I am hard working person, working 70 hours a week to make sure all my bills are paid on time.
I really don't see how this proposal will create long term affordable housing.
Maui will lose millions of dollars in TAT Revenue.
This proposal not only affects me and other owners, but many local businesses and County of Maui.
Please reconsider this proposal.
Mahalo for taking your valuable time and reading my letter.
Mahalo for this legislation to phase out short term rentals in our apartment districts. We residents feel strongly that our apartment districts suffer from unfair competition between visitors running up the prices in these areas and making rents unaffordable for long-term residents. For the folks in apartment districts, having neighbors who are truly from the community is a benefit that can't be understated. Living next to a revolving door of visitors is a very poor replacement for having a resilient neighborhood of long-term locals. Please phase out STR, especially in our apartment districts. We need to take back our spaces because we already share more than enough resources with the visitor industry and the relationship has become parasitic.
I oppose PSLU-34 CC 21-422 PHASING OUT TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE APARTMENT DISTRICTS (PSLU-34)