Dear County of Maui Officials, Congresspersons, and Citizens of Maui:
My name is Dr. Ninh Nguyen. I am on the economics faculty at San Jose State University where I teach finance, economics, and investments. I hold both graduate and doctoral degrees in economics and business, emphasizing specifically in finance. I examined this piece of legislation through the lens of an economist, with an understanding of the potential impact of PSLU-34 on Maui.
I agree in the spirit of PSLU-34, whereby affordable housing should be available for Maui residents, however, PSLU-34 will not have the actual impact its drafters intended it to have. Instead, PSLU-34 will create a cascading economic effect adversely impacting current Maui residents, Maui business owners, Maui real estate investors, and Maui tourism.
By approving PSLU-34, you will be creating a substantial economic windfall for hotels and general real estate zones, zoned as H1, H2, and HM. The pricing effects on H1, H2, and HM accommodations will increase the price for visitors going to Maui, and notably, lessen the number of visitors as a whole traveling to Maui - Maui business owners will thereby suffer considerably by the reduction of visitors. The result, more likely, for Maui business owners, is the brutal necessity of increasing the price for their goods and services, at the impact and expense of Maui residents and visitors. In other words, Maui business owners would suffer if they do not create noticeable price increases against locals and tourists in order to make up the difference from reduced economic activity. Such a headwind will not be good for Maui.
Maui residents would simply not see any great benefit with PSLU-34’s approval. Moreover, if PSLU-34 is approved, Maui property owners will most likely hold their properties longer because of the wealth-punitive and wealth-confiscatory nature to current Maui property owners’ wealth under PSLU-34's approval. Usually these apartment zoned A1 and A2 properties, that are currently being used as short-term rentals, have higher HOA costs and higher valued property taxes. By approving PSLU-34, you are confiscating the Maui property owners’ wealth, forcing windfall profits for hotels and large resorts zoned as H1, H2, and HM, and lowering property tax revenues to the County of Maui, as these A1, A2 properties turnover at sale.
More broadly, if PSLU-34 passes, the cascading economic effects will force Maui property owners hold on to property longer. Hotels will charge more, and Maui residents and business owners simply will not benefit from the lower levels of economic activity. Although I do agree with the spirit of PSLU-34, which is to help Maui obtain affordable housing, I simply cannot support this piece of legislation and I am opposing its approval. PSLU-34 will not work as intended. I urge you to contact me and other experts experienced in economics to find viable solutions that actually help, rather than hurt, Maui residents. While the spirit of PSLU-34 is correct, the economic practice and application is not.
again - PLEASE provide housing for our residents - especially kanaka maoli....i have a transplant neighbor - house bought remotely/sight unseen 2 years ago - he lives here 6 months a year - and is upset he canʻt rent it out as a TVR the other 6 months! - i try to explain the kanaka situation - his reply is ʻtoo bad for themʻ - ʻi want the incomeʻ - western thinking that money is the priority for everything... please save us! the cuture and the ʻāina needs HELP!. mahalo...
This proposal to phase out TVRs is a shortsighted political narrative designed to curry favor with those disenfranchised home owners/renters and which does nothing to address, much less solve, the current difficulties we face concerning affordable housing on our island.
Whether we like it or not, tourism is integral to our island economy – Maui’s competitive advantage. Many other areas of diversification – tech, manufacturing etc. - have been bandied about over the years with no meaningful progress and these activities will be beneficial to our economy only at the margin in a best-case scenario.
We need to build more affordable housing through a consortium of government and private business augmented through the meaning tax dollars provided by TVRs. Rules and regulations need to be streamlined and made more efficient. The NIMBYism which so pervades this county must addressed.
TRV owners contribute meaningful to the economy through tax dollars, providing employment for island residents and the purchase of supplies and equipment from local merchants. Many owners of TVRs have had their property for many years and live or spend a great deal of time on the island therefore having “skin in the game” unlike the owners (shareholders) of the faceless corporations who own the hotels and who will surely be the real beneficiaries if this proposal is made law.
I support this action. The 2014 decision to allow 10,000 units to be rented short term has contributed to the lack of housing for residents. Bill Greenleaf
What everyone needs to understand is that these islands are 100% dependent on tourism. It’s the outrageous 17.25% taxes (MCTAT, TAT and GE taxes) that keep county employees working, property taxes low and people here employed. Like it or not, that is our commodity and that will not change. Phasing out STR condos is a short sighted approach that hurts locals more than helps them. How many contractors, handymen and cleaners rely on these rentals? And believe it or not, a lot of STR condos are owned by locals trying to make ends meet legally. If this were to pass, the value of these units would be drastically reduced creating a chaotic landscape for local investors. And if the value does decrease what is to make anyone think they are going to sell or rent to locals?
This is a sad push by the overreaching hotels to capitalize even more. Why not phase out hotels instead? More taxes are paid by STR owners than the hotels anyway.
Maui will lose badly needed funds from the over 7,000 short-term rental properties if the TVR Phase Out Bill is passed, not only from the increased property tax, but also from the GET and TAT taxes, and the significant amount of revenue brought in by the vacationers who use our rental property. We will pay Maui $11,000 this year alone in GET, TAT, and Property taxes, and we are a mid-scale property! Multiply this by the 7,000 properties and that's $77 MILLION Maui will lose. This bill is not going to do anyone any good. Affordable homes can be built much better than our 30-year old apartment, using the funds we pay in the various taxes. In addition, many residents will make better salaries because we rent to vacationers who enjoy Maui's local restaurants rather than eating at a hotel complex and buying locally made and sold gifts, not to mention going on whale watching and other paid excursions Maui offers. Submitted by K. Weeks
I am in agreement to limit new rentals and to strictly enforce illegal rentals, but to eliminate existing rentals that have positively impacted the Maui economy for many years is totally unfair and unreasonable. We love Maui and are part of the community.
No short term rentals anywhere on the island.
Let the visitor stay in a hotel in the hotel district
Unbelievable the amount os visitors/strangers in our residential ares
Make it stop now
Aloha,
I oppose this bill for several reasons, one being that most of these condos are not what Maui residents are looking for to raise their families, we need more affordable houses and I see mostly affordable condo's in the $350,000 range being approved and then they have an HOA dues that could equate to an additional $100,000 +/- in house price which gets the house price up in the $450,000++ range which I think could be more cost effective for developers . Secondly, these TVR condo's have very high HOA dues, again not what a family needs when it is a studio, one or two bedroom condo which most of the TVR's are. Third, the TAT and GET taxes we lose would be exorbitant. Fourth, can you imagine the amount of blue collar jobs that would end, again, exorbitant. Fifth, the impact for existing owners/heirs from a lending and value point, I can only imagine how the banks will re-evaluate making loans in the future as the value of the property would possibly change, an owner now is getting short term rents but if dies or if they want to refinance, that structure changes and what happens to existing loans? What about the existing owner when they go to sell, what happens to the value or god forbid will lenders start to call the loans thinking their collateral now is in jeopardy?
I don't think this has been really thought through with the snowball effect that reaches even beyond my 5 points. If your purpose is affordable housing, go back to my bullet point #1.
I strongly oppose this bill - this is clearly helping the big guys like hotels and resorts, they continue to expand while small owners like us suffer higher cost, higher tax, and now even not allowed to legally operate. We've been doing everything we can to follow ever-changing rules, struggling to survive through the pandemic. And instead of helping the small owners like us, the county tries to help the big guys by suppressing owners to reduce competitions to big hotels.
This is absolutely unfair! This rental unit is an important income that helps our family survive this inflation, and instead of supporting us, the county is looking to help hotels gain more profit.
How do you plan to replace the money lost from declining tourism and loss of both TAT and GET? And, if you think that these units, suddenly available, will be inexpensive, do the math!
I oppose this bill. We bought our two condos as rental investment properties. This entire bill makes no sense as far as the revenue Maui would lose. I can assure you that the amount of rent required to cover my costs wouldn’t come close to an affordable rental rate. I can foresee multiple families moving into condos causing parking shortages, noise complaints and a huge devaluation of our property. I have no intention of selling my property but can foresee all the problems this bill will cause Maui as well as the property owners. Stop biting the hand that feeds you, place some common sense into this process and get a total picture of what this destructive bill could cause.
Sherri Williams
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
We all agree that Maui residents need more affordable housing and housing units. The units of housing being used for TVR are NOT the types of housing that Maui families need and the loss of tax revenue that TVR generate would debestate our local economy. Please do not support this legislation and vote NO on phasing out TVR.
Aloha, and mahalo for considering my feeling on this bill. I oppose this measure as it would not only punish condo owners, but also eliminate the jobs of so many of us who clean and manage those vacation rentals. These accommodations allow people who find it difficult to afford pricy hotels afford to enjoy the beauty of Maui that we get to enjoy every day. Maui will lose all of the tax income from these rentals. I believe others have covered that point better than I could in previous comments.
I believe a better solution would be for the county to build more affordable homes if the goal is to house all of the people arriving on Maui who want to live here. With the price of most Maui property, it's hard for property owners to offer affordable rentals considering the costs they are paying. Real estate prices are exploding everywhere and we still live with a ridiculous minimum wage. Maybe that should be the issue here.
I strongly oppose the proposed legislation to phase out transient accommodations in apartment districts.
I am a senior who lives in Wailuku and who owns a TVR in Kihei and I rely heavily on the income from my TVR. Without this income, I would not be able to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, monthly association dues, periodic special assessments levied by the association (to deal with significant repairs in the aging complex), and other upkeep expenses associated with my Kihei condo. The rental amount I would need to charge a long-term renter (even just to break even) would not be at all affordable. The proposed legislation would also have a serious negative impact on the resale value of my unit (resulting in another significant financial impact for me, and ultimately the County). I already incurred a major financial impact due to lost rents during the pandemic shut down, but I managed to hang on to my condo. The proposed legislation, if approved, would be devastating. My unit is perfect for short-term visitors who want to spend time in a place with a home-like feel (vs hotel accommodations); however, it would not even be suitable for affordable housing, since it would not be "affordable" and it does not have features that would likely be needed by a permanent resident (e.g., I have only one compact parking stall, there is no on-site visitor parking, my condo is small and there is no on-site storage for large items like bikes, boards, and other sports equipment, etc.).
In addition to the negative financial impacts on owners, it is my understanding that the proposed elimination of TVRs would result in a serious loss of revenue for the County, due to the loss of property taxes, GET, and TAT, including the new 3% TAT specifically for Maui. The County would also lose revenue generated from local business owners who receive substantial business from visitors who occupy the TVRs (nearby restaurants, markets, gift shops, surf/dive shops, etc.). If this proposed legislation will result in negative financial impacts on condo owners, local small businesses, and the County of Maui, and it will NOT provide appropriate and truly affordable residential housing, who is it really helping (other than potentially the large hotel/resort industry)?
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this input and respectfully request that you do not approve the proposed legislation.
Mahalo,
Neda West
Aloha, I fully support BOTH PSLU-28 AND PSLU-34. I have owned a condominium in Kahana since 1984 and still live there. They are unique duplexes that were either owner occupied or long term rentals up until 8-9 yrs. ago. Our neighborhood was an ohana community, young and old, and we all knew each other. I raised my daughter here with other kids her age in a safe huge green belt, with pools and everyone looked out for each other. Sadly, many of our friends have moved away due to the influx of short term rentals that also raised rent prices for long term units. Now that most of the units are short term rentals, we no longer have neighbors but are surrounded by foreigners coming and going every few days using, some abusing our facilities that we pay $1k plus in dues for, monthly. Majority or the people who own rentals here are also visitors who do not live on Maui full time, therefore, do not realize the issues we see ongoing with the overload of tourism. Visitors should stay in the hotels, that's what they were built for. Government allowed these hotels and timeshares to take away access to all of our most prime beaches, and soon all of our neighborhoods will be gone. Stop the hustle for the money hungry, preserve our island and quality of life. Our government should fully support the full time residents over tourism. Enough already....!!
I strongly oppose this bill. Owning a small condo in Maui has been our dream for many, many years and we finally took the plunge earlier this year. We hope to spend more and more time on island and feel home sick when we aren't there. Renting it out when not on island is the only way we can afford to keep it. I understand that this bill intends to grandfather us in and allow the rental use until we were to sell it. However, limiting it's use will definitely affect the desirability and market value, narrowing the buyer pool. My husband and I have worked hard our entire lives and are nearing retirement. We aren't rich and buying a condo in Maui was very scary financially for us, but very exciting because the island feels like home and we are home sick when we aren't there. Limiting the use and the overall market value at the time of resale will be a huge financial blow to us that we did not anticipate when we purchased our unit just 6 months ago. If we'd known this was on the books to be looked at, we may have had to rethink our purchase. We felt like this was safe, because if we ever needed to get our money out of it, we could sell it. Never dreaming that government would impose something like this that would directly harm our ability to sell and for what price. I would also think that this would directly harm the local government, as the taxes on our short term rental are insanely high. Seems like that would eventually be a ton of lost revenue. I urge you not to pass this bill....it will financially harm the property owners a well as local government.
Dear County of Maui Officials, Congresspersons, and Citizens of Maui:
My name is Dr. Ninh Nguyen. I am on the economics faculty at San Jose State University where I teach finance, economics, and investments. I hold both graduate and doctoral degrees in economics and business, emphasizing specifically in finance. I examined this piece of legislation through the lens of an economist, with an understanding of the potential impact of PSLU-34 on Maui.
I agree in the spirit of PSLU-34, whereby affordable housing should be available for Maui residents, however, PSLU-34 will not have the actual impact its drafters intended it to have. Instead, PSLU-34 will create a cascading economic effect adversely impacting current Maui residents, Maui business owners, Maui real estate investors, and Maui tourism.
By approving PSLU-34, you will be creating a substantial economic windfall for hotels and general real estate zones, zoned as H1, H2, and HM. The pricing effects on H1, H2, and HM accommodations will increase the price for visitors going to Maui, and notably, lessen the number of visitors as a whole traveling to Maui - Maui business owners will thereby suffer considerably by the reduction of visitors. The result, more likely, for Maui business owners, is the brutal necessity of increasing the price for their goods and services, at the impact and expense of Maui residents and visitors. In other words, Maui business owners would suffer if they do not create noticeable price increases against locals and tourists in order to make up the difference from reduced economic activity. Such a headwind will not be good for Maui.
Maui residents would simply not see any great benefit with PSLU-34’s approval. Moreover, if PSLU-34 is approved, Maui property owners will most likely hold their properties longer because of the wealth-punitive and wealth-confiscatory nature to current Maui property owners’ wealth under PSLU-34's approval. Usually these apartment zoned A1 and A2 properties, that are currently being used as short-term rentals, have higher HOA costs and higher valued property taxes. By approving PSLU-34, you are confiscating the Maui property owners’ wealth, forcing windfall profits for hotels and large resorts zoned as H1, H2, and HM, and lowering property tax revenues to the County of Maui, as these A1, A2 properties turnover at sale.
More broadly, if PSLU-34 passes, the cascading economic effects will force Maui property owners hold on to property longer. Hotels will charge more, and Maui residents and business owners simply will not benefit from the lower levels of economic activity. Although I do agree with the spirit of PSLU-34, which is to help Maui obtain affordable housing, I simply cannot support this piece of legislation and I am opposing its approval. PSLU-34 will not work as intended. I urge you to contact me and other experts experienced in economics to find viable solutions that actually help, rather than hurt, Maui residents. While the spirit of PSLU-34 is correct, the economic practice and application is not.
Mahalo,
Ninh Nguyen, Ph.D.
again - PLEASE provide housing for our residents - especially kanaka maoli....i have a transplant neighbor - house bought remotely/sight unseen 2 years ago - he lives here 6 months a year - and is upset he canʻt rent it out as a TVR the other 6 months! - i try to explain the kanaka situation - his reply is ʻtoo bad for themʻ - ʻi want the incomeʻ - western thinking that money is the priority for everything... please save us! the cuture and the ʻāina needs HELP!. mahalo...
OPPOSED
This proposal to phase out TVRs is a shortsighted political narrative designed to curry favor with those disenfranchised home owners/renters and which does nothing to address, much less solve, the current difficulties we face concerning affordable housing on our island.
Whether we like it or not, tourism is integral to our island economy – Maui’s competitive advantage. Many other areas of diversification – tech, manufacturing etc. - have been bandied about over the years with no meaningful progress and these activities will be beneficial to our economy only at the margin in a best-case scenario.
We need to build more affordable housing through a consortium of government and private business augmented through the meaning tax dollars provided by TVRs. Rules and regulations need to be streamlined and made more efficient. The NIMBYism which so pervades this county must addressed.
TRV owners contribute meaningful to the economy through tax dollars, providing employment for island residents and the purchase of supplies and equipment from local merchants. Many owners of TVRs have had their property for many years and live or spend a great deal of time on the island therefore having “skin in the game” unlike the owners (shareholders) of the faceless corporations who own the hotels and who will surely be the real beneficiaries if this proposal is made law.
I support this action. The 2014 decision to allow 10,000 units to be rented short term has contributed to the lack of housing for residents. Bill Greenleaf
What everyone needs to understand is that these islands are 100% dependent on tourism. It’s the outrageous 17.25% taxes (MCTAT, TAT and GE taxes) that keep county employees working, property taxes low and people here employed. Like it or not, that is our commodity and that will not change. Phasing out STR condos is a short sighted approach that hurts locals more than helps them. How many contractors, handymen and cleaners rely on these rentals? And believe it or not, a lot of STR condos are owned by locals trying to make ends meet legally. If this were to pass, the value of these units would be drastically reduced creating a chaotic landscape for local investors. And if the value does decrease what is to make anyone think they are going to sell or rent to locals?
This is a sad push by the overreaching hotels to capitalize even more. Why not phase out hotels instead? More taxes are paid by STR owners than the hotels anyway.
Maui will lose badly needed funds from the over 7,000 short-term rental properties if the TVR Phase Out Bill is passed, not only from the increased property tax, but also from the GET and TAT taxes, and the significant amount of revenue brought in by the vacationers who use our rental property. We will pay Maui $11,000 this year alone in GET, TAT, and Property taxes, and we are a mid-scale property! Multiply this by the 7,000 properties and that's $77 MILLION Maui will lose. This bill is not going to do anyone any good. Affordable homes can be built much better than our 30-year old apartment, using the funds we pay in the various taxes. In addition, many residents will make better salaries because we rent to vacationers who enjoy Maui's local restaurants rather than eating at a hotel complex and buying locally made and sold gifts, not to mention going on whale watching and other paid excursions Maui offers. Submitted by K. Weeks
I am in agreement to limit new rentals and to strictly enforce illegal rentals, but to eliminate existing rentals that have positively impacted the Maui economy for many years is totally unfair and unreasonable. We love Maui and are part of the community.
No short term rentals anywhere on the island.
Let the visitor stay in a hotel in the hotel district
Unbelievable the amount os visitors/strangers in our residential ares
Make it stop now
Aloha,
I oppose this bill for several reasons, one being that most of these condos are not what Maui residents are looking for to raise their families, we need more affordable houses and I see mostly affordable condo's in the $350,000 range being approved and then they have an HOA dues that could equate to an additional $100,000 +/- in house price which gets the house price up in the $450,000++ range which I think could be more cost effective for developers . Secondly, these TVR condo's have very high HOA dues, again not what a family needs when it is a studio, one or two bedroom condo which most of the TVR's are. Third, the TAT and GET taxes we lose would be exorbitant. Fourth, can you imagine the amount of blue collar jobs that would end, again, exorbitant. Fifth, the impact for existing owners/heirs from a lending and value point, I can only imagine how the banks will re-evaluate making loans in the future as the value of the property would possibly change, an owner now is getting short term rents but if dies or if they want to refinance, that structure changes and what happens to existing loans? What about the existing owner when they go to sell, what happens to the value or god forbid will lenders start to call the loans thinking their collateral now is in jeopardy?
I don't think this has been really thought through with the snowball effect that reaches even beyond my 5 points. If your purpose is affordable housing, go back to my bullet point #1.
Mahalo
Fran Mitsumura
I strongly oppose this bill - this is clearly helping the big guys like hotels and resorts, they continue to expand while small owners like us suffer higher cost, higher tax, and now even not allowed to legally operate. We've been doing everything we can to follow ever-changing rules, struggling to survive through the pandemic. And instead of helping the small owners like us, the county tries to help the big guys by suppressing owners to reduce competitions to big hotels.
This is absolutely unfair! This rental unit is an important income that helps our family survive this inflation, and instead of supporting us, the county is looking to help hotels gain more profit.
How do you plan to replace the money lost from declining tourism and loss of both TAT and GET? And, if you think that these units, suddenly available, will be inexpensive, do the math!
I oppose this bill. We bought our two condos as rental investment properties. This entire bill makes no sense as far as the revenue Maui would lose. I can assure you that the amount of rent required to cover my costs wouldn’t come close to an affordable rental rate. I can foresee multiple families moving into condos causing parking shortages, noise complaints and a huge devaluation of our property. I have no intention of selling my property but can foresee all the problems this bill will cause Maui as well as the property owners. Stop biting the hand that feeds you, place some common sense into this process and get a total picture of what this destructive bill could cause.
Sherri Williams
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
I oppose this proposition!!!
I support
We all agree that Maui residents need more affordable housing and housing units. The units of housing being used for TVR are NOT the types of housing that Maui families need and the loss of tax revenue that TVR generate would debestate our local economy. Please do not support this legislation and vote NO on phasing out TVR.
Warmest Aloha,
Jillian Hochstetler
3200 Wailea Alanui Drive
Aloha, and mahalo for considering my feeling on this bill. I oppose this measure as it would not only punish condo owners, but also eliminate the jobs of so many of us who clean and manage those vacation rentals. These accommodations allow people who find it difficult to afford pricy hotels afford to enjoy the beauty of Maui that we get to enjoy every day. Maui will lose all of the tax income from these rentals. I believe others have covered that point better than I could in previous comments.
I believe a better solution would be for the county to build more affordable homes if the goal is to house all of the people arriving on Maui who want to live here. With the price of most Maui property, it's hard for property owners to offer affordable rentals considering the costs they are paying. Real estate prices are exploding everywhere and we still live with a ridiculous minimum wage. Maybe that should be the issue here.
Housekeeping business will be done, I will go out of business and lose everything and will my employees. Oppose is the only way.
Aloha Committee Members/County Council Members,
I strongly oppose the proposed legislation to phase out transient accommodations in apartment districts.
I am a senior who lives in Wailuku and who owns a TVR in Kihei and I rely heavily on the income from my TVR. Without this income, I would not be able to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, monthly association dues, periodic special assessments levied by the association (to deal with significant repairs in the aging complex), and other upkeep expenses associated with my Kihei condo. The rental amount I would need to charge a long-term renter (even just to break even) would not be at all affordable. The proposed legislation would also have a serious negative impact on the resale value of my unit (resulting in another significant financial impact for me, and ultimately the County). I already incurred a major financial impact due to lost rents during the pandemic shut down, but I managed to hang on to my condo. The proposed legislation, if approved, would be devastating. My unit is perfect for short-term visitors who want to spend time in a place with a home-like feel (vs hotel accommodations); however, it would not even be suitable for affordable housing, since it would not be "affordable" and it does not have features that would likely be needed by a permanent resident (e.g., I have only one compact parking stall, there is no on-site visitor parking, my condo is small and there is no on-site storage for large items like bikes, boards, and other sports equipment, etc.).
In addition to the negative financial impacts on owners, it is my understanding that the proposed elimination of TVRs would result in a serious loss of revenue for the County, due to the loss of property taxes, GET, and TAT, including the new 3% TAT specifically for Maui. The County would also lose revenue generated from local business owners who receive substantial business from visitors who occupy the TVRs (nearby restaurants, markets, gift shops, surf/dive shops, etc.). If this proposed legislation will result in negative financial impacts on condo owners, local small businesses, and the County of Maui, and it will NOT provide appropriate and truly affordable residential housing, who is it really helping (other than potentially the large hotel/resort industry)?
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this input and respectfully request that you do not approve the proposed legislation.
Mahalo,
Neda West
Aloha, I fully support BOTH PSLU-28 AND PSLU-34. I have owned a condominium in Kahana since 1984 and still live there. They are unique duplexes that were either owner occupied or long term rentals up until 8-9 yrs. ago. Our neighborhood was an ohana community, young and old, and we all knew each other. I raised my daughter here with other kids her age in a safe huge green belt, with pools and everyone looked out for each other. Sadly, many of our friends have moved away due to the influx of short term rentals that also raised rent prices for long term units. Now that most of the units are short term rentals, we no longer have neighbors but are surrounded by foreigners coming and going every few days using, some abusing our facilities that we pay $1k plus in dues for, monthly. Majority or the people who own rentals here are also visitors who do not live on Maui full time, therefore, do not realize the issues we see ongoing with the overload of tourism. Visitors should stay in the hotels, that's what they were built for. Government allowed these hotels and timeshares to take away access to all of our most prime beaches, and soon all of our neighborhoods will be gone. Stop the hustle for the money hungry, preserve our island and quality of life. Our government should fully support the full time residents over tourism. Enough already....!!
I strongly oppose this bill. Owning a small condo in Maui has been our dream for many, many years and we finally took the plunge earlier this year. We hope to spend more and more time on island and feel home sick when we aren't there. Renting it out when not on island is the only way we can afford to keep it. I understand that this bill intends to grandfather us in and allow the rental use until we were to sell it. However, limiting it's use will definitely affect the desirability and market value, narrowing the buyer pool. My husband and I have worked hard our entire lives and are nearing retirement. We aren't rich and buying a condo in Maui was very scary financially for us, but very exciting because the island feels like home and we are home sick when we aren't there. Limiting the use and the overall market value at the time of resale will be a huge financial blow to us that we did not anticipate when we purchased our unit just 6 months ago. If we'd known this was on the books to be looked at, we may have had to rethink our purchase. We felt like this was safe, because if we ever needed to get our money out of it, we could sell it. Never dreaming that government would impose something like this that would directly harm our ability to sell and for what price. I would also think that this would directly harm the local government, as the taxes on our short term rental are insanely high. Seems like that would eventually be a ton of lost revenue. I urge you not to pass this bill....it will financially harm the property owners a well as local government.