Continuing to phase out Vacation rentals in the apartment zone will not have the impact this committee intends to accomplish for the following reasons:
1. Tax contributions to the affordable housing fund would decrease dramatically while the cost of ownership and rental cost will continue to be at the same levels as it is now. At Papakea, just to break even the monthly rent for a small single bedroom condo would be in excess of $2400 a month. Meanwhile, the loss of revenue from that same condo to the affordable housing fund would be about $1000 a month.
2. The real estate taxes that are collected from Papakea are substantial for the county of Maui. All total the property tax from non-residence payers at Papakea is in excess of 1.5 million dollars. Since most of us cannot afford rent, the condos would covert to Hawaiian residences at a substantial loss to the county. I know personally, my property taxes are $9,991 while the live-in resident next door with the same size property paid about $1600 in property taxes. That loss amounts to an 84% drop in money directly to the county of Maui. If you look at Papakea as a whole, the county of Maui will lose approximately 1.2 MILLION dollars in property taxes A YEAR.
In taxes alone, that bill comes to a conservative estimate of $5.5 MILLION dollars a year in lost revenue. Even if you round it down, where will the county of Maui and the State of Hawaii make up the difference of 5 Million dollars from only condo property???
3. Why does the county continue to give ENORMOUS gifts to the hotel industry? First you hiked the property tax rates up on all the STRs when you reclassified us at a higher rate, and now you want to put us out of business to benefit the hotel industry again? How does this help the economy of Maui? How does this help keep a productive work force?
4. How will Papakea become affordable housing? Our buildings are nearly 50 years old and require a lot more maintenance than most homes. Each year we have a special assessment to cover repairs to the seawall, the canal and many other projects for an aging property. The homeowners do it to maintain the value of their property. Low income families will not be able to keep this property.
5. Finally, the majority of these condos do not have enough parking, enough storage or enough space for low income families. The overwhelming majority of condos at Papakea are 1 bedroom or studios with little closet space designed for travelers. There is not enough room to make these spaces a home as our 10 live-in owners have discovered. Most of them have to rent space either on site or at another location for all there extra items like kayaks, cars, fishing gear or simply decorations. Condos were never intended to become low cost apartments.
I think we all understand the impact that tourism is having on Maui. We see the traffic, we see people that are not respecting the land. However, getting rid of STR’s or VRs that are contributing to the financial success of the islands is not the solution. Maui needs to curtail building permits of new hotel developments that continue to bring in far more people than places like Papakea. We need to educate people on the impacts they make on the land and the beauty that is Hawaii. We need to plant the hills that were once covered in Sugar Cane to retain rain water and prevent soil erosion.
Targeting VR’s or STR’s is not the solution you are looking for. Papakea has been in place since the late 70s and was completed in the early 80s, we have not contributed to the bad behavior that other properties are seeing. We work very hard to show respect to the land, the culture and those around us. It is not time to punish those who contribute to the ongoing success of Maui
The top 5 reasons why we oppose this legislation:
1. Basic Economics: The Director of the Department of Finance has already warned the County Council that this move “would possibly lead to a negative revenue change at about $23 MILLION per year.” Overall, RAM has determined that these impacted properties represent upwards of $74 Million in property tax revenue per year (that is about 8.7% of the entire budget!). Eliminating this much revenue would make it hard for the county to maintain current services, and it would jeopardize the county’s bond rating.
2. It Will Defund the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan: The 2021 Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan calls for the county to: (1)“Increase funding into the Affordable Housing Fund to $58 million annually;” and (2) For the County to use its bond rating to borrow against the increased Affordable Housing Fund as a means to fund infrastructure updates to support affordable housing development.The TVR Phase Out Bill would make both of these goals virtually impossible! Hawaiian Community Assets, the authors of the plan, agree with this assessment.
3. The Bill Does Not Create 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. This Bill is a Huge Gift to the Hotel Industry: 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. It is unclear if impacted property owners would win a legal challenge against the County of Maui, but it may cost our county a lot of money and time to find out.
Thank you,
Jennifer Spencer & Ryan Rawlyk
2777 S Kihei Rd I110
Kihei, Hawaii 96753
808-333-3069
Aloha Committee Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I am submitting this testimony in opposition to PSLU-34 on behalf of the REALTORS Association of Maui and our roughly 1,900 members in my capacity as their Government Affairs Director.
As a practical matter, these properties are allowed to conduct TVR use by virtue of the comprehensive zoning ordinance and the express language of Chapter 19.12.020, Maui County Code, which outlines the permitted uses in the A-1 and A-2 districts. TVR use is not an accessory use, or a nonconforming use, but an expressly permitted use that has been conducted in the A-1 and A-2 districts for decades by thousands of property owners. State law grants the county some authority to eliminate “nonconforming uses,” but based on history and the plain language of the law, TVR use for these subject properties is a vested property right that is far from a “nonconforming” use.
Aside from whether or not the County of Maui can eliminate TVR use in these subject condominiums, RAM would also like to address whether the county should eliminate the use. RAM has identified several reasons why the County of Maui should not eliminate TVR use for these subject condominiums:
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.
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.
RAM understands that this legislative proposal is based on good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. The only beneficiary of this legislation will be the hotel industry, while the county gets less revenue and has to play an even lesser role in housing development for our residents. I cannot say what this bill will do from a tourism management perspective, but I can assure you that it will not be good for housing. Please, just file away PSLU-34 and focus on something better.
Mahalo,
Jason Economou
Government Affairs Director, Realtors Association of Maui
My name is Meera Kohler. I am the president of the AOAO for Ma’alaea Yacht Marina where I have owned a condominium since 2009. Our building, like the other condominium buildings on Hauoli Street, is more than 40 years old. My apartment is a little under 900 square feet and is assessed at almost $470,000 - about $525 a square foot. Since I rent it out short term for about nine months a year, I pay more than $5,200 a year in property taxes. I pay another $7,000 a year in GET and TAT taxes.
Our building has 45 apartments. 12 units are owner-occupied and about 20 are in the STR market. Owners that live here full time are retirees who can afford the extremely high cost of living in an aging building. Our monthly dues and lease fees are about $1,800 a month. Add mortgage interest, insurance, property tax and routine upkeep and our monthly outlay approaches $3,000.
These apartments are not, and cannot be, affordable family housing. They are built for occupancy by one or two people. There is virtually no storage and only one parking space per unit. There are no children living in our building. I have never seen a school bus in Ma’alaea so I think it’s unlikely that any families live here now.
The concept of eliminating STRs in apartment buildings is one that has been promoted by the hotel industry for years. Their interest is not in enhancing affordable family housing - it is purely their self interest in increasing their occupancy rates and generating more profits for their shareholders. Do they remit property taxes of $5,200 per unit? The Fairmont Kea Lani paid $1,146 in property taxes per occupancy unit in 2021 and their room rates are more than triple ours.
Thousands of tradespeople that support these STRs will lose their jobs. We pay our housekeeper more than $40 an hour – double or triple what the hotels pay. Likewise our handyperson, electrician, plumber and many others. The trickle-down economic impact will be as significant as the direct impact.
This measure will dramatically reduce the County’s tax revenue, thereby stifling the ability to develop affordable housing. Property values for these buildings will plummet and units will become vacant because they will be unaffordable except for well-heeled retirees from the Mainland and elsewhere. Eventually they too will be driven out as homeowner dues increase to cover costs for unoccupied units.
This specter is real. It can happen in a matter of a few short years. The consequences of a bill such as this will resonate for years to come and the visitors who want to stay in homes and not in hotels will take their business somewhere other than Hawaii.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify,
Meera Kohler
30 Hauoli St., #107
Wailuku, HI 96793
907.952.6161
My husband and I are the owners of a condominium unit at Maui Kamaole, at 2777 S. Kihei Road. We purchased the property approximately 3 years ago. We have been spending time in Hawaii since 1986 and consider it our second home. When we purchased our condo, it was with the express intent of continuing to use it as a TVR when not on island ourselves. We have always maintained a legal vacation rental and have duly filed tax returns with the state. Previously to our Maui purchase, we owned a single family home on Kauai for 18 years which we also rented out. We have always been very conscientious of our environment and our neighbors in Maui. We do all that we can to support local businesses and to support the environment here. We strongly object to the proposed legislation PSLU-34, CC 21-422 for the following reasons.
When we purchased our condo, its price was in part determined by its ability to be operated as a vacation rental. It was situated in an area where all surrounding properties were used as vacation rentals. The properties in south Kihei were built and designed to be used as vacation rentals pursuant to Maui statute. They are not suitable for full time affordable housing.
To enact legislation that would prohibit the continued use of the property as a TVR upon sale or transfer to a third party, would absolutely constitute an unlawful taking without compensation as the property would be severely devalued due to it no longer being an income generating property. I submit that this taking would be unconstitutional and a violation of due process and equal protection under both Federal and State laws.
Moreover, the county has just imposed an additional 3% tax on TVR properties the funds for which will benefit the goals of affordable housing for Maui residents. We spend most of our rental income on supporting local businesses and taxes and expenses related to the property maintenance. All of this benefits local businesses.
This ordinance will not result in more affordable housing. It will increase the number of second home owners who can afford to not rent their vacation properties. If the properties in the apartment district become subject to this ordinance, a major source of revenue from property taxes and TAT revenue to the State will be lost. How will that create more affordable housing? Maui residents will have to make up the shortfall in the long run. I strongly oppose the passage of this ordinance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the phasing out of transient accommodations in apartment districts. As a life-long advocate for homelessness and low income housing, I believe this proposal will do more harm than good and misses the whole point. You need tax dollars to build your way out of this issue. To say you can't is just short-sighted. No you can't do it overnight and it will take years of commitment and funding to accomplish, but it can be accomplished. Other communities around the country are doing just that - taxing citizens and building affordable housing. By eliminating sources of revenue, you are biting the hand that feeds you.
Please reconsider this proposal. It may look good in the short run, but it doesn't solve the bigger issue.
We are owners from Canada, whom own a unit in the Maui Banyan. The proposed change could be devastating to our property values, and also tourism industry for Maui. We rent and provide our home to many Canadians we know at home, and we all go there and support local businesses, restaurants, shopping etc. Without our own home there, we would not be able to afford 3-4 trips a year to Maui. We are just an ownership group of 4, but the number of tourists we know and have from Canada, coming to your island to our home is exponential. This proposed change and rezoning is BAD NEWS.
Further, we have our home financed, based on its value. Changes such as this, will deplete the value, and home owners, including ourselves, will be upside down on our equity in the homes.
Doing this will only devalue Maui real estate across the board. Reduce tax base. Kill local businesses. and reduce tourism revenues as a whole.
We cannot afford a home in Maui unless we cash flow it when we are not using it, with short term rentals. The HOA dues and property taxes are very high, and cannot be covered, along with interest costs, unless the home is rented. The lack of rentals could cost us closer to $40K USD a year in maintaining our unit and covering all costs. We would be forced to sell the unit at a huge loss, which I anticipate could be over a 40% - 50% drop in value, simply due to this proposed change.
We also upkeep our home, and support local contractors, since the home is needing to always be in top shape to rent it. I have looked at condos there when visiting which are not short-term rentals, with the hope of purchasing another one, and they are not upkept, they are dirty and they do not attract tourism or any motivation to purchase them.
If they are not allowed to be short term rentals, the upkeep will not be there, hence, hurting your local construction industry as well.
This is BAD NEWS and will not be good for any home owners, tourism, local shopping, restaurants, or your overall tax base.
The tourism industry is extremely out of balance and is hurting the quality of life for everyone on our small island as well as our marine environment, coral reefs and sea life.
There are so many hotels on the west side that should never have been allowed...ENOUGH ALREADY . I support a moratorium on the building of HOTELS. I understand that some people with EXISTING STVR need the income but NO MORE permits should be granted for those.
However, the vast number of tourists stay in hotels.
Let’s be smart and find better ways of attaining income for our economy....growing hemp, utilizing bamboo for building, and others means that don’t pollute our beautiful, small island. We need to put a healthy LIMIT on the number of tourists that come here...and the airlines won’t do that.
Mahalo, a concerned full time resident.
To ban short term rentals in many condos to increase the availability of low cost housing is ludicrous. I have owned our Kamaole Sands 2 bedroom condo since 2004 and have lost money every year, some years substantially, even with good occupancy of short term rentals. I am able to do this as the income defrays a significant portion of the expenses. The costs of maintenance, Property/TA/GE taxes, interest on loans, association fees, etc. are well over $35,000 per year. To have a long term tenant pay over $2,900 per month just to cover our expenses will do nothing to help low income residents. The only winners here will be the giant luxury hotels that will be losing competition so will have no reason not to keep raising their already exorbitant rates. The income generated to the County of Maui from the over 14% GE/TA taxes will be lost which will place an extreme strain on state and county services, already reeling from the pandemic. I can not think of a worse idea that will do absolutely nothing for affordable housing while putting extreme pressure on older persons that have put much of their life savings into purchasing something which will be made essentially worthless and become an ever increasingly burden and endless money pit. Another important factor to keep in mind is what happened in Florida with the collapse to the large apartment building due to neglect last year. Most of the apartments that would be rezoned were build at least 30 or more years ago and with climate change and sea rise, protective measures to ensure that they don't become another disaster in the future requires that increasing financial support be available to proactively address the issues of building deterioration and protection against future challenges. If this bill passes, incentives to cut costs will inevitably result in neglect and future devastation on a scale which is difficult to imagine. I implore those who will be voting on this matter realize that this is not the solution to the very real issues of affordable housing and focus on real solutions which address the actual needs of those surviving on limited income.
I am a full time resident and teacher on the island of Molokai. We don’t have any large hotels here. All we have are a couple of condos that our Ohana can rent when they visit or that we ourselves can rent for special occasions I oppose this agenda item.
I have owned a legal TVR in Maui for seven years - I spend two months a year in our condo and rent it out the rest of the time. We use the rental income to cover the high costs of maintenance dues and property taxes. We almost never have a profit on the rental, we pay the vast majority of the income in taxes and fees to local vendors who manage our property. If it were phased out as a vacation rental, it would be bought by a wealthier family that could afford to have it sit empty most of the year (about half of the units in our complex already do this). This has been the fate of a lot of high end resort communities (like Aspen, CO), where housing units sit empty most of the year and bring no income to local restaurants or vendors. This ordinance will not result in more affordable housing, it will result in empty second homes and closed local businesses.
As a property owner in Maui County (Moloka’i) I OPPOSE THE TVR PHASE-OUT BILL! I also hope you oppose 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. Several reasons have been identified as to why the County of Maui should not eliminate TVR use in these subject condominiums:
1. Tax revenue from these rentals far exceeds the tax revenue being collected from hotels and resorts
2. Tax revenue for TRV is allocated to funding the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan
3. Eliminating TVR may actually jeopardize the affordable housing opportunities
4. The county of Maui will face many legal challenges costing the county millions of dollars
The Visitor Industry on Maui and throughout all of Hawaii, is a major part of the economic resources for the community and Government requirements needed to sustain all operations. I respectfully ask the Council to look for ways to groom the visitor industry and not destroy it. No other major industry is present to provide employment or economic resources for state and local governments. The shift away from
welcoming visitors will destroy the ability of many residents to survive. Hawaii always has been known as a destination of Aloha. Please keep vacation rentals available to all who wish to come. We need visitors to keep from becoming a place with no jobs or economic potential
My reason for opposing PSLU-34, I visit Kihei 3 to 4 times a year and the ability to rent out my unit helps me to afford the high taxes and fees on the property. I for one cannot afford long term renters that would take away from my use of the property
Thank You
Bill Hunter
While keeping in mind that money isn’t everything, prior to making a decision of this type, the immediate financial impact in tax revenues should be presented along with the proposed new economy projections to offset those revenues. If they aren’t offset, there will be harmful impacts to services and infrastructure. I’m assuming that there is a plan for the new industry(s) that will take this tax base over. Can we see that plan? For a measure of this magnitude, those plans and impacts should be included.
Let’s see a real plan that makes sense before proceeding down a bad path.
Thank you for your time. I am Keamalu Akini a concerned father with a growing family.
As a native Hawaiian I see my heritage slipping away from lack of leadership by our elected officials not upholding the duty they swore to uphold, the voices of the people. Everything that makes Hawaii the aloha state is slipping away because of outside influence and profit. We live in a place with limited resource and years of mismanagement of our land in the best interest of not the citizens that have lived here for a long time. We have witnessed for a long time increase of cost to live in our own land. Without the same increase for all of us to afford to live here with low wages that don’t coincide with the rapid increase in rates for sustaining even middle class lifestyle with a family.
Where are the politicians for the people?
People from different countries and from different states and even from this state have and are using Hawai’i for a payoff and literally draining the water dry. This isn’t what Hawai’i means. This isn’t what Hawai’i is.
We who ancestors have been here 4 or more generations have a right to have a prosperous life here. Not have to worry about living homeless or in a cardboard box. We deserve our voices being heard and listened to.
I support PSLU-28 and PSLU-34. Everyone can see this is the best step forward in the repairable damage our officials failed to foresee. The focus on the interest of our state motto and the voices of the citizens from this state have fallen on deaf ears far to long. Look into your hearts. Have an open mind. Listen with open ears.
All 49 other states have officials that uphold their promises they made to citizens there elected them for. They do there job for the needs for the citizens of their state and economy of their state, in that order. My elected officials in Hawai’i only focus on the tourism economy, citizens from other states and people of different countries . Why aren’t you officials representing we citizens? People that voted for you, put you in power in trusting you’d do the right thing for all of us of this land.
I strongly disagree with the proposal to phase out short term rentals in apartment districts on Maui for several reasons.
I am the owner of a condominium in Maui Vista that serves as a vacation rental for part of the year (high season) and used by family for the remainder of the year. This arrangement is necessary to help pay for the costs to maintain the unit. My family and I have visited Maui on a regular basis for over 20 years have gladly supported the local economy during our time there, as have my clients who rent the unit.
Maui depends on tourism as a revenue source. Limiting the use of condominiums as short-term rentals will make staying in Maui even more expensive and ultimately cost prohibitive, thus reducing a much-needed revenue source. What industries would then replace the lost tourism dollars?
Hotels are really not an option for most families who already face significant travel costs to get to Maui. Families like the ability to eat in or dine out in order to keep the vacation affordable, which allows them to direct funds toward other activities on the island. Hotel prices are exceedingly high and without competition from short-term rentals price increases are the likely end result.
Phasing out the rentals would negatively impact the local economy. Without tourism, more local businesses would surely close. The COVID-19 pandemic is a good indicator of this point. How many businesses were forced to close when there were no tourists allowed on the island? How did these residents supplement their income? Or think of people like my housecleaner who is also my property manager and has a young family to support. She would lose the job, and likely other property managers would as well, not to mention maintenance staff, grounds keepers, etc. the list goes on. What happens to them?
The condominium fees in Maui Vista are high and will not decrease based on the classification of the complex. The fees are used for maintenance etc. and that makes the units more expensive to maintain and operate. These routine cost increases are passed along to renters, making the units unattractive for long-term rentals due to high rents and the potential for regular increases to offset escalating costs. Although my unit is wonderful for the purpose of short-term rentals it has a small kitchen, limited storage space and no reserved parking. Reserved parking is an additional fee that would increase the rent.
Decreasing the condominium fees will result in buildings not being properly maintained and becoming run down. Special assessments would then be imposed on owners which make the units unattractive to sell. If repairs are required and the condominium association does not have a reserve fund, then a special assessment would be necessary by the association to pay for the repairs. If purchasers are aware of this, then the units decrease in value. The value of the condos will be decreased dramatically anyway if the classification changes from the short-term rentals to residential which will decrease the property tax revenue.
Thank you,
I am an owner of a condo at Maui Vista. I have used it as a legal vacation rental since I bought it 5 years ago years ago and pay all my taxes monthly. I don’t see how you can possibly expect to have my home , which the HOA fees ALONE are $760 a month become affordable housing,
I use my place at least 3 months a year for my own use, and my contribution to the island in revenue via transient accommodation and general excise tax ia a large sum which support the economy amd help improve the lives of residents. This proposed legislation is very short sighted and is bad for Maui.
To Whom it May Concern,
Continuing to phase out Vacation rentals in the apartment zone will not have the impact this committee intends to accomplish for the following reasons:
1. Tax contributions to the affordable housing fund would decrease dramatically while the cost of ownership and rental cost will continue to be at the same levels as it is now. At Papakea, just to break even the monthly rent for a small single bedroom condo would be in excess of $2400 a month. Meanwhile, the loss of revenue from that same condo to the affordable housing fund would be about $1000 a month.
2. The real estate taxes that are collected from Papakea are substantial for the county of Maui. All total the property tax from non-residence payers at Papakea is in excess of 1.5 million dollars. Since most of us cannot afford rent, the condos would covert to Hawaiian residences at a substantial loss to the county. I know personally, my property taxes are $9,991 while the live-in resident next door with the same size property paid about $1600 in property taxes. That loss amounts to an 84% drop in money directly to the county of Maui. If you look at Papakea as a whole, the county of Maui will lose approximately 1.2 MILLION dollars in property taxes A YEAR.
In taxes alone, that bill comes to a conservative estimate of $5.5 MILLION dollars a year in lost revenue. Even if you round it down, where will the county of Maui and the State of Hawaii make up the difference of 5 Million dollars from only condo property???
3. Why does the county continue to give ENORMOUS gifts to the hotel industry? First you hiked the property tax rates up on all the STRs when you reclassified us at a higher rate, and now you want to put us out of business to benefit the hotel industry again? How does this help the economy of Maui? How does this help keep a productive work force?
4. How will Papakea become affordable housing? Our buildings are nearly 50 years old and require a lot more maintenance than most homes. Each year we have a special assessment to cover repairs to the seawall, the canal and many other projects for an aging property. The homeowners do it to maintain the value of their property. Low income families will not be able to keep this property.
5. Finally, the majority of these condos do not have enough parking, enough storage or enough space for low income families. The overwhelming majority of condos at Papakea are 1 bedroom or studios with little closet space designed for travelers. There is not enough room to make these spaces a home as our 10 live-in owners have discovered. Most of them have to rent space either on site or at another location for all there extra items like kayaks, cars, fishing gear or simply decorations. Condos were never intended to become low cost apartments.
I think we all understand the impact that tourism is having on Maui. We see the traffic, we see people that are not respecting the land. However, getting rid of STR’s or VRs that are contributing to the financial success of the islands is not the solution. Maui needs to curtail building permits of new hotel developments that continue to bring in far more people than places like Papakea. We need to educate people on the impacts they make on the land and the beauty that is Hawaii. We need to plant the hills that were once covered in Sugar Cane to retain rain water and prevent soil erosion.
Targeting VR’s or STR’s is not the solution you are looking for. Papakea has been in place since the late 70s and was completed in the early 80s, we have not contributed to the bad behavior that other properties are seeing. We work very hard to show respect to the land, the culture and those around us. It is not time to punish those who contribute to the ongoing success of Maui
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
Susan Franzen
Craig Franzen
Papakea
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
The top 5 reasons why we oppose this legislation:
1. Basic Economics: The Director of the Department of Finance has already warned the County Council that this move “would possibly lead to a negative revenue change at about $23 MILLION per year.” Overall, RAM has determined that these impacted properties represent upwards of $74 Million in property tax revenue per year (that is about 8.7% of the entire budget!). Eliminating this much revenue would make it hard for the county to maintain current services, and it would jeopardize the county’s bond rating.
2. It Will Defund the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan: The 2021 Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan calls for the county to: (1)“Increase funding into the Affordable Housing Fund to $58 million annually;” and (2) For the County to use its bond rating to borrow against the increased Affordable Housing Fund as a means to fund infrastructure updates to support affordable housing development.The TVR Phase Out Bill would make both of these goals virtually impossible! Hawaiian Community Assets, the authors of the plan, agree with this assessment.
3. The Bill Does Not Create 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. This Bill is a Huge Gift to the Hotel Industry: 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. It is unclear if impacted property owners would win a legal challenge against the County of Maui, but it may cost our county a lot of money and time to find out.
Thank you,
Jennifer Spencer & Ryan Rawlyk
2777 S Kihei Rd I110
Kihei, Hawaii 96753
808-333-3069
Aloha Committee Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I am submitting this testimony in opposition to PSLU-34 on behalf of the REALTORS Association of Maui and our roughly 1,900 members in my capacity as their Government Affairs Director.
As a practical matter, these properties are allowed to conduct TVR use by virtue of the comprehensive zoning ordinance and the express language of Chapter 19.12.020, Maui County Code, which outlines the permitted uses in the A-1 and A-2 districts. TVR use is not an accessory use, or a nonconforming use, but an expressly permitted use that has been conducted in the A-1 and A-2 districts for decades by thousands of property owners. State law grants the county some authority to eliminate “nonconforming uses,” but based on history and the plain language of the law, TVR use for these subject properties is a vested property right that is far from a “nonconforming” use.
Aside from whether or not the County of Maui can eliminate TVR use in these subject condominiums, RAM would also like to address whether the county should eliminate the use. RAM has identified several reasons why the County of Maui should not eliminate TVR use for these subject condominiums:
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.
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.
RAM understands that this legislative proposal is based on good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. The only beneficiary of this legislation will be the hotel industry, while the county gets less revenue and has to play an even lesser role in housing development for our residents. I cannot say what this bill will do from a tourism management perspective, but I can assure you that it will not be good for housing. Please, just file away PSLU-34 and focus on something better.
Mahalo,
Jason Economou
Government Affairs Director, Realtors Association of Maui
Aloha Honorable Councilmembers,
My name is Meera Kohler. I am the president of the AOAO for Ma’alaea Yacht Marina where I have owned a condominium since 2009. Our building, like the other condominium buildings on Hauoli Street, is more than 40 years old. My apartment is a little under 900 square feet and is assessed at almost $470,000 - about $525 a square foot. Since I rent it out short term for about nine months a year, I pay more than $5,200 a year in property taxes. I pay another $7,000 a year in GET and TAT taxes.
Our building has 45 apartments. 12 units are owner-occupied and about 20 are in the STR market. Owners that live here full time are retirees who can afford the extremely high cost of living in an aging building. Our monthly dues and lease fees are about $1,800 a month. Add mortgage interest, insurance, property tax and routine upkeep and our monthly outlay approaches $3,000.
These apartments are not, and cannot be, affordable family housing. They are built for occupancy by one or two people. There is virtually no storage and only one parking space per unit. There are no children living in our building. I have never seen a school bus in Ma’alaea so I think it’s unlikely that any families live here now.
The concept of eliminating STRs in apartment buildings is one that has been promoted by the hotel industry for years. Their interest is not in enhancing affordable family housing - it is purely their self interest in increasing their occupancy rates and generating more profits for their shareholders. Do they remit property taxes of $5,200 per unit? The Fairmont Kea Lani paid $1,146 in property taxes per occupancy unit in 2021 and their room rates are more than triple ours.
Thousands of tradespeople that support these STRs will lose their jobs. We pay our housekeeper more than $40 an hour – double or triple what the hotels pay. Likewise our handyperson, electrician, plumber and many others. The trickle-down economic impact will be as significant as the direct impact.
This measure will dramatically reduce the County’s tax revenue, thereby stifling the ability to develop affordable housing. Property values for these buildings will plummet and units will become vacant because they will be unaffordable except for well-heeled retirees from the Mainland and elsewhere. Eventually they too will be driven out as homeowner dues increase to cover costs for unoccupied units.
This specter is real. It can happen in a matter of a few short years. The consequences of a bill such as this will resonate for years to come and the visitors who want to stay in homes and not in hotels will take their business somewhere other than Hawaii.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify,
Meera Kohler
30 Hauoli St., #107
Wailuku, HI 96793
907.952.6161
My husband and I are the owners of a condominium unit at Maui Kamaole, at 2777 S. Kihei Road. We purchased the property approximately 3 years ago. We have been spending time in Hawaii since 1986 and consider it our second home. When we purchased our condo, it was with the express intent of continuing to use it as a TVR when not on island ourselves. We have always maintained a legal vacation rental and have duly filed tax returns with the state. Previously to our Maui purchase, we owned a single family home on Kauai for 18 years which we also rented out. We have always been very conscientious of our environment and our neighbors in Maui. We do all that we can to support local businesses and to support the environment here. We strongly object to the proposed legislation PSLU-34, CC 21-422 for the following reasons.
When we purchased our condo, its price was in part determined by its ability to be operated as a vacation rental. It was situated in an area where all surrounding properties were used as vacation rentals. The properties in south Kihei were built and designed to be used as vacation rentals pursuant to Maui statute. They are not suitable for full time affordable housing.
To enact legislation that would prohibit the continued use of the property as a TVR upon sale or transfer to a third party, would absolutely constitute an unlawful taking without compensation as the property would be severely devalued due to it no longer being an income generating property. I submit that this taking would be unconstitutional and a violation of due process and equal protection under both Federal and State laws.
Moreover, the county has just imposed an additional 3% tax on TVR properties the funds for which will benefit the goals of affordable housing for Maui residents. We spend most of our rental income on supporting local businesses and taxes and expenses related to the property maintenance. All of this benefits local businesses.
This ordinance will not result in more affordable housing. It will increase the number of second home owners who can afford to not rent their vacation properties. If the properties in the apartment district become subject to this ordinance, a major source of revenue from property taxes and TAT revenue to the State will be lost. How will that create more affordable housing? Maui residents will have to make up the shortfall in the long run. I strongly oppose the passage of this ordinance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the phasing out of transient accommodations in apartment districts. As a life-long advocate for homelessness and low income housing, I believe this proposal will do more harm than good and misses the whole point. You need tax dollars to build your way out of this issue. To say you can't is just short-sighted. No you can't do it overnight and it will take years of commitment and funding to accomplish, but it can be accomplished. Other communities around the country are doing just that - taxing citizens and building affordable housing. By eliminating sources of revenue, you are biting the hand that feeds you.
Please reconsider this proposal. It may look good in the short run, but it doesn't solve the bigger issue.
Sincerely,
Lewis Murray
We are owners from Canada, whom own a unit in the Maui Banyan. The proposed change could be devastating to our property values, and also tourism industry for Maui. We rent and provide our home to many Canadians we know at home, and we all go there and support local businesses, restaurants, shopping etc. Without our own home there, we would not be able to afford 3-4 trips a year to Maui. We are just an ownership group of 4, but the number of tourists we know and have from Canada, coming to your island to our home is exponential. This proposed change and rezoning is BAD NEWS.
Further, we have our home financed, based on its value. Changes such as this, will deplete the value, and home owners, including ourselves, will be upside down on our equity in the homes.
Doing this will only devalue Maui real estate across the board. Reduce tax base. Kill local businesses. and reduce tourism revenues as a whole.
We cannot afford a home in Maui unless we cash flow it when we are not using it, with short term rentals. The HOA dues and property taxes are very high, and cannot be covered, along with interest costs, unless the home is rented. The lack of rentals could cost us closer to $40K USD a year in maintaining our unit and covering all costs. We would be forced to sell the unit at a huge loss, which I anticipate could be over a 40% - 50% drop in value, simply due to this proposed change.
We also upkeep our home, and support local contractors, since the home is needing to always be in top shape to rent it. I have looked at condos there when visiting which are not short-term rentals, with the hope of purchasing another one, and they are not upkept, they are dirty and they do not attract tourism or any motivation to purchase them.
If they are not allowed to be short term rentals, the upkeep will not be there, hence, hurting your local construction industry as well.
This is BAD NEWS and will not be good for any home owners, tourism, local shopping, restaurants, or your overall tax base.
The tourism industry is extremely out of balance and is hurting the quality of life for everyone on our small island as well as our marine environment, coral reefs and sea life.
There are so many hotels on the west side that should never have been allowed...ENOUGH ALREADY . I support a moratorium on the building of HOTELS. I understand that some people with EXISTING STVR need the income but NO MORE permits should be granted for those.
However, the vast number of tourists stay in hotels.
Let’s be smart and find better ways of attaining income for our economy....growing hemp, utilizing bamboo for building, and others means that don’t pollute our beautiful, small island. We need to put a healthy LIMIT on the number of tourists that come here...and the airlines won’t do that.
Mahalo, a concerned full time resident.
To ban short term rentals in many condos to increase the availability of low cost housing is ludicrous. I have owned our Kamaole Sands 2 bedroom condo since 2004 and have lost money every year, some years substantially, even with good occupancy of short term rentals. I am able to do this as the income defrays a significant portion of the expenses. The costs of maintenance, Property/TA/GE taxes, interest on loans, association fees, etc. are well over $35,000 per year. To have a long term tenant pay over $2,900 per month just to cover our expenses will do nothing to help low income residents. The only winners here will be the giant luxury hotels that will be losing competition so will have no reason not to keep raising their already exorbitant rates. The income generated to the County of Maui from the over 14% GE/TA taxes will be lost which will place an extreme strain on state and county services, already reeling from the pandemic. I can not think of a worse idea that will do absolutely nothing for affordable housing while putting extreme pressure on older persons that have put much of their life savings into purchasing something which will be made essentially worthless and become an ever increasingly burden and endless money pit. Another important factor to keep in mind is what happened in Florida with the collapse to the large apartment building due to neglect last year. Most of the apartments that would be rezoned were build at least 30 or more years ago and with climate change and sea rise, protective measures to ensure that they don't become another disaster in the future requires that increasing financial support be available to proactively address the issues of building deterioration and protection against future challenges. If this bill passes, incentives to cut costs will inevitably result in neglect and future devastation on a scale which is difficult to imagine. I implore those who will be voting on this matter realize that this is not the solution to the very real issues of affordable housing and focus on real solutions which address the actual needs of those surviving on limited income.
I am a full time resident and teacher on the island of Molokai. We don’t have any large hotels here. All we have are a couple of condos that our Ohana can rent when they visit or that we ourselves can rent for special occasions I oppose this agenda item.
I have owned a legal TVR in Maui for seven years - I spend two months a year in our condo and rent it out the rest of the time. We use the rental income to cover the high costs of maintenance dues and property taxes. We almost never have a profit on the rental, we pay the vast majority of the income in taxes and fees to local vendors who manage our property. If it were phased out as a vacation rental, it would be bought by a wealthier family that could afford to have it sit empty most of the year (about half of the units in our complex already do this). This has been the fate of a lot of high end resort communities (like Aspen, CO), where housing units sit empty most of the year and bring no income to local restaurants or vendors. This ordinance will not result in more affordable housing, it will result in empty second homes and closed local businesses.
As a property owner in Maui County (Moloka’i) I OPPOSE THE TVR PHASE-OUT BILL! I also hope you oppose 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. Several reasons have been identified as to why the County of Maui should not eliminate TVR use in these subject condominiums:
1. Tax revenue from these rentals far exceeds the tax revenue being collected from hotels and resorts
2. Tax revenue for TRV is allocated to funding the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan
3. Eliminating TVR may actually jeopardize the affordable housing opportunities
4. The county of Maui will face many legal challenges costing the county millions of dollars
The Visitor Industry on Maui and throughout all of Hawaii, is a major part of the economic resources for the community and Government requirements needed to sustain all operations. I respectfully ask the Council to look for ways to groom the visitor industry and not destroy it. No other major industry is present to provide employment or economic resources for state and local governments. The shift away from
welcoming visitors will destroy the ability of many residents to survive. Hawaii always has been known as a destination of Aloha. Please keep vacation rentals available to all who wish to come. We need visitors to keep from becoming a place with no jobs or economic potential
I oppose PSLU-34. It would result in a significant loss in tax revenue and would not create any low income housing.
My reason for opposing PSLU-34, I visit Kihei 3 to 4 times a year and the ability to rent out my unit helps me to afford the high taxes and fees on the property. I for one cannot afford long term renters that would take away from my use of the property
Thank You
Bill Hunter
While keeping in mind that money isn’t everything, prior to making a decision of this type, the immediate financial impact in tax revenues should be presented along with the proposed new economy projections to offset those revenues. If they aren’t offset, there will be harmful impacts to services and infrastructure. I’m assuming that there is a plan for the new industry(s) that will take this tax base over. Can we see that plan? For a measure of this magnitude, those plans and impacts should be included.
Let’s see a real plan that makes sense before proceeding down a bad path.
Dear reader,
Thank you for your time. I am Keamalu Akini a concerned father with a growing family.
As a native Hawaiian I see my heritage slipping away from lack of leadership by our elected officials not upholding the duty they swore to uphold, the voices of the people. Everything that makes Hawaii the aloha state is slipping away because of outside influence and profit. We live in a place with limited resource and years of mismanagement of our land in the best interest of not the citizens that have lived here for a long time. We have witnessed for a long time increase of cost to live in our own land. Without the same increase for all of us to afford to live here with low wages that don’t coincide with the rapid increase in rates for sustaining even middle class lifestyle with a family.
Where are the politicians for the people?
People from different countries and from different states and even from this state have and are using Hawai’i for a payoff and literally draining the water dry. This isn’t what Hawai’i means. This isn’t what Hawai’i is.
We who ancestors have been here 4 or more generations have a right to have a prosperous life here. Not have to worry about living homeless or in a cardboard box. We deserve our voices being heard and listened to.
I support PSLU-28 and PSLU-34. Everyone can see this is the best step forward in the repairable damage our officials failed to foresee. The focus on the interest of our state motto and the voices of the citizens from this state have fallen on deaf ears far to long. Look into your hearts. Have an open mind. Listen with open ears.
All 49 other states have officials that uphold their promises they made to citizens there elected them for. They do there job for the needs for the citizens of their state and economy of their state, in that order. My elected officials in Hawai’i only focus on the tourism economy, citizens from other states and people of different countries . Why aren’t you officials representing we citizens? People that voted for you, put you in power in trusting you’d do the right thing for all of us of this land.
Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono
The land will be perpetuated in righteousness.
I strongly disagree with the proposal to phase out short term rentals in apartment districts on Maui for several reasons.
I am the owner of a condominium in Maui Vista that serves as a vacation rental for part of the year (high season) and used by family for the remainder of the year. This arrangement is necessary to help pay for the costs to maintain the unit. My family and I have visited Maui on a regular basis for over 20 years have gladly supported the local economy during our time there, as have my clients who rent the unit.
Maui depends on tourism as a revenue source. Limiting the use of condominiums as short-term rentals will make staying in Maui even more expensive and ultimately cost prohibitive, thus reducing a much-needed revenue source. What industries would then replace the lost tourism dollars?
Hotels are really not an option for most families who already face significant travel costs to get to Maui. Families like the ability to eat in or dine out in order to keep the vacation affordable, which allows them to direct funds toward other activities on the island. Hotel prices are exceedingly high and without competition from short-term rentals price increases are the likely end result.
Phasing out the rentals would negatively impact the local economy. Without tourism, more local businesses would surely close. The COVID-19 pandemic is a good indicator of this point. How many businesses were forced to close when there were no tourists allowed on the island? How did these residents supplement their income? Or think of people like my housecleaner who is also my property manager and has a young family to support. She would lose the job, and likely other property managers would as well, not to mention maintenance staff, grounds keepers, etc. the list goes on. What happens to them?
The condominium fees in Maui Vista are high and will not decrease based on the classification of the complex. The fees are used for maintenance etc. and that makes the units more expensive to maintain and operate. These routine cost increases are passed along to renters, making the units unattractive for long-term rentals due to high rents and the potential for regular increases to offset escalating costs. Although my unit is wonderful for the purpose of short-term rentals it has a small kitchen, limited storage space and no reserved parking. Reserved parking is an additional fee that would increase the rent.
Decreasing the condominium fees will result in buildings not being properly maintained and becoming run down. Special assessments would then be imposed on owners which make the units unattractive to sell. If repairs are required and the condominium association does not have a reserve fund, then a special assessment would be necessary by the association to pay for the repairs. If purchasers are aware of this, then the units decrease in value. The value of the condos will be decreased dramatically anyway if the classification changes from the short-term rentals to residential which will decrease the property tax revenue.
Thank you,
I am an owner of a condo at Maui Vista. I have used it as a legal vacation rental since I bought it 5 years ago years ago and pay all my taxes monthly. I don’t see how you can possibly expect to have my home , which the HOA fees ALONE are $760 a month become affordable housing,
I use my place at least 3 months a year for my own use, and my contribution to the island in revenue via transient accommodation and general excise tax ia a large sum which support the economy amd help improve the lives of residents. This proposed legislation is very short sighted and is bad for Maui.
If this ill conceived proposition is allowed to go through it will destroy the economy on the Island. You think COVID was bad think again!