The condominiums in question here were not built with the young families in mind for the long term. Affordable housing needs to be built that is suitable for young families.
Aloha - I urge you to support this legislation. I live in a condo community in Napili. The discussion of STRs is currently before our board. Many of us want to eliminate STRs in our community and for our condo community to be removed from the Minatoya list. Many have expressed concern about the erosion of the communities quality of life since STRs. Those that want to stay as STRs main concern is that eliminating STRs will lower their property values and the value of their investment, some are concerned about their ability to afford the property without STR income. They express no concern for our west side community. They consider their investment a business and not a home. This is a concerning trend throughout the country. I own businesses on the west side that employs over 300 employees. Our staff's biggest challenge is finding housing on the west side. If we could get all of the STR property back into the full time rental pool, it would help greatly with our housing shortage. Thank you all for the work you do and your consideration. Mahalo.
To the members of the Maui County Council,
My name is Heather Loughridge-Buono, and I assist 8 owners with 11 properties here on Maui as a short term rental island agent.
I know that many of the people testifying today will cover the numbers, and how it just doesn’t make sense for Maui County fiscally to push out STR. So I would like to tell you a little different story of who my clients are, and who we rent to.
I know most of my clients through living with them as neighbors, and have the advantage of a point of view of being a past long term renter on one of these properties. I loved living at Maui Sands Seaside for 15 years, but it was a challenge for my family as it really was not built for long term occupancy and the costs of renting could not keep up with the costs of expenses for the owner. Maui Sands, Maui Sands Seaside and Paki Maui where the units are that I oversee, are all properties that were built for vacation rental. They are on the water and perfectly suited for vacation units.
All of my clients purchased their units to use them for their own vacations, or to live in themselves. They all visit them as frequently as they are able, and they love their homes. When they purchased these homes they did so knowing that they always had the option of vacation rentals, some started out that way, others gradually found the need to turn them into STR to keep up with the increasing demands of Oceanside property that is aging. All of my client’s homes are 50+ years old. All of them have had assessments and increases in costs due to location.
The shoreline where all these properties sit is in the throes of global climate change issues. All have had major issues with shoreline erosion and that will sadly not change. It has become a fact of life that these lovely vintage Maui properties will always need special care. That care is expensive. The seawall repair for Maui Sands completed last year came with a price tag of $1.6mill, resulting in significant assessments for the owners. The aging of the buildings brings a constant need for maintenance and upkeep.
Being able to STR these units has kept them from crumbling into the ocean and they will never be affordable housing. My clients need to spend $3-3.5k a month for maintenance, leasehold and property taxes. They are the stewards of these properties and we are all acutely aware that the visitors we bring to Maui are people who want to be exposed to and benefit from the exposure to a unique island with a rich and unique culture in the middle of the Pacific. There is unique history on all of these properties.
There are visitors coming to Maui to stay at one of the big corporate resorts. These resorts do everything they can to keep those visitors on property, and to keep their spending there as well. They spend much less money at locally owned businesses. These big corporate resorts do employ a great deal of people, but I make sure our cleaners and maintenance people are paid a living wage. The profits big corporate resorts make leave the state! The money that the guests at my client’s homes spend on Maui goes to locally owned businesses almost exclusively. They are here to sun and sand for sure, but just as important to these guests is to be able to become a part of the community they are staying in, if only for a few short days. These visitors have the opportunity to learn about Hawaii outside of a commercial luau. These are the people who come to Maui and volunteer at local beach cleanups and give back to the community that has welcomed them!
It would be a sad shame to lose these guests to big corporate resorts. It would be a shame to lose their contributions to our communities. I have witnessed 1st hand how generous and special these guests are.
I am scratching my head trying to figure out how some of the condos would be affordable housing. Would the folks that currently live on Maui be able to afford a mortgage with a purchase price (conservatively) between $400k and $600k AND the HOA dues ranging from $500 to $1300 a month? What makes this affordable?
What happens when all of the transient tax is not collected? What about the higher property taxes the current owners are paying? What will the county budget look like with those funds being eliminated?
How is this affordable?
What about the jobs that these TVR’s have supported? Housekeepers, shopping local for furniture, handy men, contractors, plumbers, electricians…and all of the GE tax they pay to the county?
I completely understand the housing shortage. I get it. But eliminating the TVR’s will not make any sense.
Strongly oppose. As a small business owner on Maui, tourism supports my family and most of Maui's economy. This is a short-term bad idea to a long-term problem. This is a horrible idea
I purchased a property at Maui Kamaole in 2019. I was certainly under the understanding that this property was designated as vacation rental. We were hit really hard with Covid and was not able to rent the property. We greatly assist Maui city and Hawaii state by paying property tax, GET and TAT. My wife and I love Maui and plan to reside there during potions of our retirement.
Tourists need this accommodation. There isn’t enough hotels to satisfy tourist requirements and will greatly increase their already high prices.
The answer to the shortage of affordable accommodations for residents is to loosen up zoning restrictions, reduce development fees and reduce building permit fees.
Residents need housing but eliminating tourist accommodations is not the answer!
Paul and Sue Smeltzer
G108 - Maui Kamaole
2777 S Kihei rd.
This bill will drop property value and make reselling more difficult. In addition, many properties, such as our family condo, have huge association fees ($8,000 annual) that are offset by rental revenue. With out this additional source of income, many owners will not be able to afford association fees driving down the value of these currently amazing homes. The county will also lose a vast amount in renal tax and in general the hospitality industry will suffer with less rooms/homes available for tourists. In addition, our family condo pays near $12,000 in annual property tax. All these funds become questionable if you take away the opportunity to rent our family condo for a portion of the year. I urge you to please oppose this bill.
I oppose this piece of legislation. It will NOT cure the housing deficit we have. Please vote NO on this bill. It will NOT reduce tourists, instead it WILL HARM current property owners.
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" uses 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.
We are writing this letter on behalf of Maui PRMA, the Vacation Rental Trade Council under the Maui Chamber of Commerce, in strong opposition to the proposed ordinance phasing out transient accommodations in the Apartment Districts, amending Chapter 19.12, Maui County Code.
Passing the proposed ordinance will not create real opportunities for Maui residents to access housing that is truly affordable and suitable, but it will be catastrophic for the County Budget and for Maui taxpayers.
Maui PRMA strongly opposes HB 862 for the following reasons:
• It will further deplete the county budget. According to the County’s Finance Director, this proposed ordinance move would possibly lead to a negative revenue change at about $23 million per year.” The Realtor Association of Maui (RAM) has determined that these impacted properties represent upwards of $74 Million in property tax revenue annually, representing 8.7% of the County Budget.
• Such significant revenue loss would likely compromise the County’s ability to fund the 2021 Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan, maintain the County’s current services, and sustain the County’s bond rating.
• According to RAM, the properties affected by the proposal are generally not the type of housing needed by residents, and few (if any) are expected to sell at “workforce” or affordable” rates. With minimal parking and storage, high maintenance fees, special assessments, tax assessments, and aged infrastructure located in sea level rise exposure areas, most of these units would not be suitable for affordable housing.
• Although the proposed ordinance does not create affordable housing opportunities for residents, the legal challenges that may follow could cost the County time and money, resources which would be better used elsewhere.
• Since 2018, Maui’s vacation rentals have contributed $18.9 million towards affordable housing, exceeding the amount that all hotels, homeowners, and businesses have collectively contributed toward affordable housing in Maui.
Maui’s vacation rentals have generated a significant portion of affordable housing funding, and we are eager to work with the County so that we can continue finding solutions and best practices for our community. However, the proposed ordinance limits our ability to contribute to affordable housing funding and fails to create real, tangible affordable housing opportunities for Maui residents. To avoid the devastating financial impacts presented by this futile attempt to address affordable housing, we urge you oppose this proposed ordinance.
We welcome any discussion with you or a member of your administration and can be contacted at Mauiprma@gmail.com.
Mahalo,
John Kevan
Angela Leone
Co-Founders of Maui Professional Rental Management Association (Maui PRMA)
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.
Before more short term and vacation rentals are built or thought of, lets do something for our residents and not turn this into another Disneyworld or other tourist attraction. The islands are a very special place. We do not need more of the type of visitors that have shown up here in the last 18 months. Not to mention we do not have the infrastructure to handle what we have already. Do not let the greed cloud your judgement of what the islands should be.
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.
Dear Council,
While I am in support of limiting the number of new units being built, I oppose this bill. I am not a resident but I do own a unit in the Kihei area. Many of the complexes in the area, were built as vacation style units that have given many people access to what makes Maui beautiful as the hotels have formed an ultra luxury market that has priced most people out of vacations here. While the past year has shown us some of the darker sides of tourists, generally, the type of tourist that visit Maui are couples and small/young families. I look at the economic loss that this bill would have, although not immediate, but within 5 years the county would be losing over $25 Million dollars in tax revenue alone per year and it the loasses would be going up each year. As we are also aware of the TAT tax has also gone up by 3%, but again, in a few years, the amount collected would decline drastically each year. Would this not make a huge impact on Maui's annual budget and impact its ability to supply affordable housing. If it is funding for affordable housing, that is required, would it not be better have a dedicated tax for this purpose. That would show the world that you are putting a foot forward to help the residents. Most of South Kihei road is small business, Like Covid has shown communities worldwide, having no tourists to spend money in these shops will ultimately shut them down, and that shuts down an economy. The hotel district is not going to be sending people out to visit these areas, when they can provide all the tourist type goods and services themselves. I would firmly believe that you should be earmarking more of this revenue to put towards the housing situation and building schools. If this is to happen, how would all of these aging complexes be maintained and be kept up, and would there be the type of resident that would want the expense to keep it up and pay special assessments. Monthly rents would have to be very high to keep up with AOA fees. In closing, I firmly believe that there are many alternative methods to fund an affordable housing program.
As an advocate for residential housing here in Hawaii, I strongly support this bill. The State of Hawaii is experiencing an extreme shortage of housing on all Islands for our long term residents. Every housing unit that is used as a hotel room is one less unit available to our local community. Please put residents as a priority and pass this bill. Thank you.
Our family has owned a condo on Maui for 40 years and has lived there part time and rented out part time (before the term "transient vacation rental" was in use). Renting our property has allowed us to give back to the community through paying taxes, employing local workers, and purchasing local furnishings. We contribute our volunteer time and money through our Lahaina church ohana. We love Maui and feel we contribute to its community and economy through the fair use of our property. Please do not pass either of these proposals.
This law is not the right solution to affordable housing on Maui. It is just an unfair tactic to take away rights of one group to benefit another. The 7,300 units that will be impacted were never intended to house families based on the Minatoya Act. Our vested property rights were codified.
My husband and I purchased our vacation home 18 years ago with the knowledge that it was zoned as a “condotel” in 1980. We purchased it knowing it was never built with the intention of housing families on a long term basis. The units in our property are small, getting old, have very little storage and even more limited parking. The infrastructure of the properties cannot support needs of families on a long-term basis.
Owners like us will suffer loss of revenue and property values if this bill passes. The County will experience a loss of TAT taxes. 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.
Families needing affordable housing will not be able to afford the rent, utilities and amenity fees that we would need to pass on to cover costs.
And not only will the value of our property go down, but the small businesses that we support will also suffer such as housekeepers, property managers, the nearby restaurants who enjoy the business of our guests, the tour operators and so many more.
The solution to affordable housing needs to focus on “adding” and not “taking away”. Let’s focus on building the infrastructure to construct appropriate REAL affordable housing, but not on the backs of those who are already helping you raise the revenue to support this cause.
The condominiums in question here were not built with the young families in mind for the long term. Affordable housing needs to be built that is suitable for young families.
Aloha - I urge you to support this legislation. I live in a condo community in Napili. The discussion of STRs is currently before our board. Many of us want to eliminate STRs in our community and for our condo community to be removed from the Minatoya list. Many have expressed concern about the erosion of the communities quality of life since STRs. Those that want to stay as STRs main concern is that eliminating STRs will lower their property values and the value of their investment, some are concerned about their ability to afford the property without STR income. They express no concern for our west side community. They consider their investment a business and not a home. This is a concerning trend throughout the country. I own businesses on the west side that employs over 300 employees. Our staff's biggest challenge is finding housing on the west side. If we could get all of the STR property back into the full time rental pool, it would help greatly with our housing shortage. Thank you all for the work you do and your consideration. Mahalo.
The horse is out of the barn. This is a bad idea.
To the members of the Maui County Council,
My name is Heather Loughridge-Buono, and I assist 8 owners with 11 properties here on Maui as a short term rental island agent.
I know that many of the people testifying today will cover the numbers, and how it just doesn’t make sense for Maui County fiscally to push out STR. So I would like to tell you a little different story of who my clients are, and who we rent to.
I know most of my clients through living with them as neighbors, and have the advantage of a point of view of being a past long term renter on one of these properties. I loved living at Maui Sands Seaside for 15 years, but it was a challenge for my family as it really was not built for long term occupancy and the costs of renting could not keep up with the costs of expenses for the owner. Maui Sands, Maui Sands Seaside and Paki Maui where the units are that I oversee, are all properties that were built for vacation rental. They are on the water and perfectly suited for vacation units.
All of my clients purchased their units to use them for their own vacations, or to live in themselves. They all visit them as frequently as they are able, and they love their homes. When they purchased these homes they did so knowing that they always had the option of vacation rentals, some started out that way, others gradually found the need to turn them into STR to keep up with the increasing demands of Oceanside property that is aging. All of my client’s homes are 50+ years old. All of them have had assessments and increases in costs due to location.
The shoreline where all these properties sit is in the throes of global climate change issues. All have had major issues with shoreline erosion and that will sadly not change. It has become a fact of life that these lovely vintage Maui properties will always need special care. That care is expensive. The seawall repair for Maui Sands completed last year came with a price tag of $1.6mill, resulting in significant assessments for the owners. The aging of the buildings brings a constant need for maintenance and upkeep.
Being able to STR these units has kept them from crumbling into the ocean and they will never be affordable housing. My clients need to spend $3-3.5k a month for maintenance, leasehold and property taxes. They are the stewards of these properties and we are all acutely aware that the visitors we bring to Maui are people who want to be exposed to and benefit from the exposure to a unique island with a rich and unique culture in the middle of the Pacific. There is unique history on all of these properties.
There are visitors coming to Maui to stay at one of the big corporate resorts. These resorts do everything they can to keep those visitors on property, and to keep their spending there as well. They spend much less money at locally owned businesses. These big corporate resorts do employ a great deal of people, but I make sure our cleaners and maintenance people are paid a living wage. The profits big corporate resorts make leave the state! The money that the guests at my client’s homes spend on Maui goes to locally owned businesses almost exclusively. They are here to sun and sand for sure, but just as important to these guests is to be able to become a part of the community they are staying in, if only for a few short days. These visitors have the opportunity to learn about Hawaii outside of a commercial luau. These are the people who come to Maui and volunteer at local beach cleanups and give back to the community that has welcomed them!
It would be a sad shame to lose these guests to big corporate resorts. It would be a shame to lose their contributions to our communities. I have witnessed 1st hand how generous and special these guests are.
Aloha County Counsel,
I am scratching my head trying to figure out how some of the condos would be affordable housing. Would the folks that currently live on Maui be able to afford a mortgage with a purchase price (conservatively) between $400k and $600k AND the HOA dues ranging from $500 to $1300 a month? What makes this affordable?
What happens when all of the transient tax is not collected? What about the higher property taxes the current owners are paying? What will the county budget look like with those funds being eliminated?
How is this affordable?
What about the jobs that these TVR’s have supported? Housekeepers, shopping local for furniture, handy men, contractors, plumbers, electricians…and all of the GE tax they pay to the county?
I completely understand the housing shortage. I get it. But eliminating the TVR’s will not make any sense.
We need more housing for residents, not visitors.
Mahalo
Bobbie Best
280 Hauoli, Wailuku
Strongly oppose. As a small business owner on Maui, tourism supports my family and most of Maui's economy. This is a short-term bad idea to a long-term problem. This is a horrible idea
Hello,
I purchased a property at Maui Kamaole in 2019. I was certainly under the understanding that this property was designated as vacation rental. We were hit really hard with Covid and was not able to rent the property. We greatly assist Maui city and Hawaii state by paying property tax, GET and TAT. My wife and I love Maui and plan to reside there during potions of our retirement.
Tourists need this accommodation. There isn’t enough hotels to satisfy tourist requirements and will greatly increase their already high prices.
The answer to the shortage of affordable accommodations for residents is to loosen up zoning restrictions, reduce development fees and reduce building permit fees.
Residents need housing but eliminating tourist accommodations is not the answer!
Paul and Sue Smeltzer
G108 - Maui Kamaole
2777 S Kihei rd.
Sent from my iPhone
This bill will drop property value and make reselling more difficult. In addition, many properties, such as our family condo, have huge association fees ($8,000 annual) that are offset by rental revenue. With out this additional source of income, many owners will not be able to afford association fees driving down the value of these currently amazing homes. The county will also lose a vast amount in renal tax and in general the hospitality industry will suffer with less rooms/homes available for tourists. In addition, our family condo pays near $12,000 in annual property tax. All these funds become questionable if you take away the opportunity to rent our family condo for a portion of the year. I urge you to please oppose this bill.
Aloha Councilmembers,
I oppose this piece of legislation. It will NOT cure the housing deficit we have. Please vote NO on this bill. It will NOT reduce tourists, instead it WILL HARM current property owners.
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" uses 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.
Dear Maui County Councilmembers,
We are writing this letter on behalf of Maui PRMA, the Vacation Rental Trade Council under the Maui Chamber of Commerce, in strong opposition to the proposed ordinance phasing out transient accommodations in the Apartment Districts, amending Chapter 19.12, Maui County Code.
Passing the proposed ordinance will not create real opportunities for Maui residents to access housing that is truly affordable and suitable, but it will be catastrophic for the County Budget and for Maui taxpayers.
Maui PRMA strongly opposes HB 862 for the following reasons:
• It will further deplete the county budget. According to the County’s Finance Director, this proposed ordinance move would possibly lead to a negative revenue change at about $23 million per year.” The Realtor Association of Maui (RAM) has determined that these impacted properties represent upwards of $74 Million in property tax revenue annually, representing 8.7% of the County Budget.
• Such significant revenue loss would likely compromise the County’s ability to fund the 2021 Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan, maintain the County’s current services, and sustain the County’s bond rating.
• According to RAM, the properties affected by the proposal are generally not the type of housing needed by residents, and few (if any) are expected to sell at “workforce” or affordable” rates. With minimal parking and storage, high maintenance fees, special assessments, tax assessments, and aged infrastructure located in sea level rise exposure areas, most of these units would not be suitable for affordable housing.
• Although the proposed ordinance does not create affordable housing opportunities for residents, the legal challenges that may follow could cost the County time and money, resources which would be better used elsewhere.
• Since 2018, Maui’s vacation rentals have contributed $18.9 million towards affordable housing, exceeding the amount that all hotels, homeowners, and businesses have collectively contributed toward affordable housing in Maui.
Maui’s vacation rentals have generated a significant portion of affordable housing funding, and we are eager to work with the County so that we can continue finding solutions and best practices for our community. However, the proposed ordinance limits our ability to contribute to affordable housing funding and fails to create real, tangible affordable housing opportunities for Maui residents. To avoid the devastating financial impacts presented by this futile attempt to address affordable housing, we urge you oppose this proposed ordinance.
We welcome any discussion with you or a member of your administration and can be contacted at Mauiprma@gmail.com.
Mahalo,
John Kevan
Angela Leone
Co-Founders of Maui Professional Rental Management Association (Maui PRMA)
I support both bills pslu 28 and pslu 34
Aloha Councilmembers,
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.
Pacific Shores is zoned for “highest & best use”…keeping STR LEGAL.
Thank you,
Pam Jensen
Before more short term and vacation rentals are built or thought of, lets do something for our residents and not turn this into another Disneyworld or other tourist attraction. The islands are a very special place. We do not need more of the type of visitors that have shown up here in the last 18 months. Not to mention we do not have the infrastructure to handle what we have already. Do not let the greed cloud your judgement of what the islands should be.
Aloha Councilmembers,
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.
Mahalo,
Tracy O’Reilly
Dear Council,
While I am in support of limiting the number of new units being built, I oppose this bill. I am not a resident but I do own a unit in the Kihei area. Many of the complexes in the area, were built as vacation style units that have given many people access to what makes Maui beautiful as the hotels have formed an ultra luxury market that has priced most people out of vacations here. While the past year has shown us some of the darker sides of tourists, generally, the type of tourist that visit Maui are couples and small/young families. I look at the economic loss that this bill would have, although not immediate, but within 5 years the county would be losing over $25 Million dollars in tax revenue alone per year and it the loasses would be going up each year. As we are also aware of the TAT tax has also gone up by 3%, but again, in a few years, the amount collected would decline drastically each year. Would this not make a huge impact on Maui's annual budget and impact its ability to supply affordable housing. If it is funding for affordable housing, that is required, would it not be better have a dedicated tax for this purpose. That would show the world that you are putting a foot forward to help the residents. Most of South Kihei road is small business, Like Covid has shown communities worldwide, having no tourists to spend money in these shops will ultimately shut them down, and that shuts down an economy. The hotel district is not going to be sending people out to visit these areas, when they can provide all the tourist type goods and services themselves. I would firmly believe that you should be earmarking more of this revenue to put towards the housing situation and building schools. If this is to happen, how would all of these aging complexes be maintained and be kept up, and would there be the type of resident that would want the expense to keep it up and pay special assessments. Monthly rents would have to be very high to keep up with AOA fees. In closing, I firmly believe that there are many alternative methods to fund an affordable housing program.
As an advocate for residential housing here in Hawaii, I strongly support this bill. The State of Hawaii is experiencing an extreme shortage of housing on all Islands for our long term residents. Every housing unit that is used as a hotel room is one less unit available to our local community. Please put residents as a priority and pass this bill. Thank you.
Our family has owned a condo on Maui for 40 years and has lived there part time and rented out part time (before the term "transient vacation rental" was in use). Renting our property has allowed us to give back to the community through paying taxes, employing local workers, and purchasing local furnishings. We contribute our volunteer time and money through our Lahaina church ohana. We love Maui and feel we contribute to its community and economy through the fair use of our property. Please do not pass either of these proposals.
I oppose this bill.
This law is not the right solution to affordable housing on Maui. It is just an unfair tactic to take away rights of one group to benefit another. The 7,300 units that will be impacted were never intended to house families based on the Minatoya Act. Our vested property rights were codified.
My husband and I purchased our vacation home 18 years ago with the knowledge that it was zoned as a “condotel” in 1980. We purchased it knowing it was never built with the intention of housing families on a long term basis. The units in our property are small, getting old, have very little storage and even more limited parking. The infrastructure of the properties cannot support needs of families on a long-term basis.
Owners like us will suffer loss of revenue and property values if this bill passes. The County will experience a loss of TAT taxes. 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.
Families needing affordable housing will not be able to afford the rent, utilities and amenity fees that we would need to pass on to cover costs.
And not only will the value of our property go down, but the small businesses that we support will also suffer such as housekeepers, property managers, the nearby restaurants who enjoy the business of our guests, the tour operators and so many more.
The solution to affordable housing needs to focus on “adding” and not “taking away”. Let’s focus on building the infrastructure to construct appropriate REAL affordable housing, but not on the backs of those who are already helping you raise the revenue to support this cause.