Thank you for allowing our community to have a voice here. We need to learn from our experiences through Covid and create an alternative economy without all our resources and reliance upon tourism.
Please stop building more visitor accommodations.
Please reduce the existing number of visitor accommodations.
Aloha Planning and Sustainable Land Use Committee,
I support PHASING OUT TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE APARTMENT DISTRICTS. It is a fair and intelligent way to wean Maui County off our overreliance on tourism while increasing the housing stock. This resolution allows people who bought intending to own a vacation rental to continue making a profit. When apartments are sold or transferred, the new owners will be well aware that in Maui County, the purpose of the Apartment district is to "be occupied on a long term residential basis" (MCC 19.12.010).
When developers propose building new luxury developments, a common argument is that any new housing will make housing more affordable because of the increase in supply. Funny enough, when we talk about phasing out vacation rentals to increase housing supply, the argument is that it would be too expensive for the people who live here. Truthfully some of them may be too expensive for residents and will be sold to the luxury second home market; still a win because Maui won't have to build new luxury homes to meet that demand. However, some of them are expensive because they are vacation rentals. The more money a property is likely to make, the higher the mortgage that can be justified.
Unintended consequences: yes, choices may have unintended consequences, like codifying the Minatoya opinion in 2014. The intention was to allow TVR that had previously been active in the apartment district to continue to operate. The unintended consequence was the number of apartments used as transient vacation rentals started to creep up. As older, small, and somewhat affordable apartments were sold to investors, the price for the remaining long-term housing rose to match demand.
The resolution before you has a lot of foresight. Phasing out vacation rentals will ensure that there is not a sudden drop in tax revenue, because current owners will continue to operate and pay taxes. This will allow housekeepers and property managers who serve the TVR owners to stay in business and transition slowly as business needs change.
Please vote in support of Maui County Residents and this resolution to phase out transient accommodations in apartment districts.
Thank you for your time,
Karen J. Comcowich
Lahaina, HI
i am completely in support of this bill - i find it sad that majority (if not ALL) of the ‘opposed’ testimony talks ONLY OF MONEY!…..when did that become the thing that drives all the decisions??? culture, kanaka maoli, neighborhood quality etc are way down - or not even on -the list …PLEASE stop the western way of ‘money is god’ be the determiner for decisions…mahalo…
i am completely in support of this bill - i find it sad that majority (if not ALL) of the ‘opposed’ testimony talks ONLY OF MONEY!…..when did that become the thing that drives all the decisions??? culture, kanaka maoli, neighborhood quality etc are way down - or not even on -the list …PLEASE stop the western way of ‘money is god’ be the determiner for decisions…mahalo…
Apartments are one of the last semi affordable places to live on Maui. When they are rented out as short term rentals it takes away from the available housing for the working class on the island and takes away from the sense of community in the apartments.
I don’t know the exact figures but to eliminate transient accommodations will wreck financial havoc on the Maui community.
It will not be successful in promoting local rentals because I doubt that locals will not be able to afford annual increases in the HOA FEES. My wife, Linda and I bought our condo in 2003. The HOA fees have increased from just over $300 to about $700 per month. Furthermore there are the occasional special assessments as these properties get older. Currently we can pass these onto our guests but what would a local resident be able to do?
Simply stated, this a bad idea for the Maui Community.
Most of the people who oppose this bill do not live on the island as permanent residents and use these units as a generator for income or to pay their mortgage. They do not experience the issues that Maui resident have to deal with on a daily basis - overcrowding with tourists, ever raising rents, lack of affordable housing and low wages. I strongly support both the moratorium and the conversion of short term rentals
I am an owner of a condo at Maui Vista, which I purchased in June, 2021. I am retired. While I had hoped that I would immediately use the condo as my permanent residence, my commitment to my children and grandchildren in Seattle made me decide to postpone that decision. If I want to keep the possibility of using the condo as my permanent residence in the future, I need to open it in the near term to short term rentals in order to cover the mortgage. I purchased the condo with the understanding that this was a viable option.
I understand the burden that tourists put on the local infrastructure and services of Maui county. I appreciate that the county needs more affordable housing. However the GET and TAT provide essential income to the county. Please do not adopt this short-sighted ordinance. I believe that it will be detrimental to the tax base for the island. I do not believe that enactment of this legislation will stop short term rentals. Owners of rental property will figure out other ways to generate personal income but without revenue to the county.
My wife and I are hard working entrepreneurs. Over a span of a decade we acquired 3 condominiums, invested with our after tax money close to 2 million US dollars in the Maui economy, and generate countless tax for the county year after year.
And we paid just as much property tax in 2020 as we hardly were allowed to rent our places.
We strive to have affordable rates, and pay competitive rates for maintenance, housekeeping, inspection. We also maintain our places professionally. Keep in mind that we have guests from Hawaii, including Maui just as frequently as people from the mainland and overseas.
Here is what a sample of our guests say:
"Thanks for having us. Staying at your place was the best decision as the trip was short and we got to explore both west and east side of Maui…"
"xxx's place is in a great location. The entire place is very beautiful. xxx was a great host and answered any questions we had"
"What a fabulous find! xxx's place is so close to everything without putting you in the middle of it all. The space was very clean, had wonderful amenities, and a picturesque view of the mountain and the bay amongst the surrounding flora. As economic travelers, we were so happy to find such a great place as a backdrop to our visit! We couldn't recommend xxx's place enough!"
We have 72 more of these that I am happy to share.
Upon seeking professional advice, Ms Tamara Paltin's proposal, if effective, would instantly halve our investment and a net loss of likely 1 million dollars.
It is unconscionable to propose this. Ms Paltin must be a very bad person.
People like us are the ones creating jobs, and livelihood for a lot of people and making Maui what it is.
We're sorry to say this, but people like Tamara Paltin should really take a good look at themselves and ponder whether they are indeed good people?
Here is our solution to the housing situation: bring up to 10$ a square foot the property tax for the very people who are proposing this measure,
starting with Tamara Paltin, this should apply to every square foot of housing and land that they own, effective immediately,
Here is our second solution: Require Ms Tamara Paltin to disclose *all* her conflicts of interests and relationship with the hotel industry.
Should this go through, it is equal to rewarding bad behavior and there will be negative consequences for everyone, not just us: be warned
I am an owner of a Short Term Rental Unit in Maui and I oppose this ordnance and ask you for reconsideration. As a Mom & Pop owner who has invested in your state as a future retirement home and a permanent resident. My expected returns as a short term rental is computed to reimburse my investment. My current tax rate at an estimated 50% occupancy and income of $27,000 and taxed; GET @4%, TAT @ 10.75%, State Property Tax,and now with the 3% proposed tax for the County of Maui will total over $4650. In addition we have HOA fees of $6000, Property Insurance and Repairs. This projected income would net less than $10000 per year.
It should be noted that Short Term Rental properties are taxed at higher rate than Hotels and local property owners, (doubled) If this ordnance is passed, Short Term Rental Units should get immediate relief from the current increased property tax.
The loss of this income, loss of jobs, local business closures supported by tourists when converted to long term rental or affordable housing should be a serious concern of elected members. A portion of this tax should be designated as Affordable Housing Funds and used as such. Don't lose this source of income. Maholo
Aloha Planning Commission and Maui County Council Members:
This bill will not create affordable housing.
These properties support our tax base and provide jobs for our families. These apartments were built to be vacation rentals with vacation appealing pools, grounds and ocean frontage. They have high maintenance fees and expensive caring costs. They are small with out enough storage or parking for full time families. They are also 40-50 years old thus even if a local family somehow secured a loan with the current high maintenance fees added on to their mortgage they will be burdened with every increasing fees and assessments.
I ran a report showing the maintenance fees and interior square footage for 2 bedrooms in 17 of these 40 year old vacation rental West Maui apartments: I wasn't able to copy it or attached to this letter. However the average interior was 949 SF and the average montly maintenance fee was $1,253/apartment. Add on a mortgage payment + electric + cable + parking fees + assessments. This isn't affordable housing. Best have the accounting team check this out.
If this bill is passed and prices come down "work from anywhere in the world" second home buyers will be the buyers not local families who can't afford them.
What affordable housing was created when North Beach Kaanapali was built or the Timeshare conversions of the Hyatt, Marriott and Westin's was completed? Can you name one Lahaina long term or affordable housing apartment project that was built by these Fortune Five Hundred Companies? The real problem with traffic on Maui and over-crowding of West Maui began in the past 10 years as the thousands of Timeshares and vacation rentals in North Kaanapali Beach were completed. These projects are the ones to be levied and taxed to create their share of affordable housing.
Help find affordable housing that doesn't hurt the Kamaaina who have supported us with tax payments and jobs for over 40 years.
I am in full support of this ordinance. Maui needs affordable workforce housing, and the apartment district areas are the some of the best places for Maui residents to own their first homes, or find a long-term rental. Allowing transient accommodations in these areas has taken away some of the only affordable housing we have existing on Maui. We must give it back to the community members who needs it, those same people who work hard to help our economy thrive, before they all move away and we have no one to support the industry here on the island.
My wife and I own a vacation rental condo in Kihei and we are very strongly opposed to this PSLU-34 Measure. We have been coming to Maui for more than 30 years and have dreams of retiring here someday. We have always operated our property legally and paid very high taxes to the state and county. Without short term rentals to support our 2-bedroom unit the expenses would amount to $3200/ mo to rent it on a long-term basis. Most of our guests are repeat visitors that do not want to stay in a resort bubble hotel where they will spend all their time and money. They want to support the local community in Maui. They love the people of Maui and shop at the small and local businesses. They go out to the local restaurants. The big hotel guests don’t do that. We as owners employ local electricians, cleaners, locksmiths, painters, AC technicians, property managers etc. which support the local economy. If we need to buy a large appliance like a refrigerator, washer or dryer (which we have) we buy it locally because it’s too expensive to ship it on island.
If this measure were to go through, it would have a huge negative impact on local businesses and workers. It would not translate into local housing because of the high rent that would have to charged and also because it’s not really suitable for long term renters.
Somehow, I think the responsible STVR owners were lumped in with other owners that were renting bedrooms and other “under the table” situations to avoid taxes and compliance with the rules. The apartment condo owners are not part of that group.
If this goes through, we would definitely not be retiring in Hawaii, we would be the victim of government overreach that would devastate our property value. It would not result in anything near affordable housing in Maui.
While I very much support having more housing available to local families, I don't support this bill because I do not believe it will have the intended consequences; 1. I do not think local families want this type of housing and 2. I believe more local families should invest in this type of apartment housing and with the vacation rental use. Additionally, I believe this use should be incentivized for Maui residents as it is a great source of passive income which many local residents need.
Apartment style housing is not the appropriate housing for local families. Simply put, they are too small for most local families. Many of the units this would affect are studios and one-bedroom apartments with one dedicated parking stall and very little to no, storage space. Resident/local families will not fit in these. Even 2 person households here generally have 2 vehicles. I am a 22 yr resident of Maui (born and raised on Oahu, my father's family is from Maui) and I am a real estate agent here. I can't tell you the number of local folks I've tried to encourage to purchase apartments as starter homes. Many local families refuse to live in apartments, or they are just too small and don't fit their families, cars, and pets. Today, these apartments are still some of the least expensive housing options on the market and I'm just not seeing many resident/local families buying them.
Secondly, these properties make great investment properties that produce passive income as long-term and vacation rentals. I own one in Kuau Plaza. The income from this unit has helped tremendously in supplementing my family’s income. There are many, approximately 20%, of short-term rental owners in apartment zoned buildings are Maui and Hawaii State residents. I believe this use should be supported and even incentivized for Maui residents, not taken away. We need more resident owners. But overall, any family-owned unit, is better to me than the hotel corporations having a monopoly on our visitor industry, which I believe will be another consequence if this bill is passed.
Legal avenues for residents to generate income for themselves and their families (small businesses) should be encouraged and not taken away or otherwise diminish. Off the top of my head, I can think of 20 local Maui families who own these types of condos. We are the voting population here, we are the folks spending all of our money here, we are the folks raising our kids here and we live in this community. We have numerous sub-contractors we hire and pay on a regular basis; we support many different businesses, and we give back in the form of donations to a variety of charity and nonprofit organizations because these streams of income allow us to.
As a resident, and on behalf of other residents who might like to purchase a condo to use in this way someday, this is one of the few avenues and opportunities for our families to directly benefit from the tourism industry. This bill would effectively hand over these benefits to offshore hotel corporations, which in turn would take AWAY income from our families and away from our islands. We are the "host culture" indigenous Hawaiians and all other residents living here, based on Sustainable Tourism principles, we ought to be “DIRECTLY BENEFITING TO THE GREATEST DEGREE POSSIBLE” from our visitor industry, we should not be handing all the benefits of visitor industry, monetary or otherwise, to offshore corporate entities, we need to keep the benefits here and we have a right as the host culture to have ownership in our visitor industry.
Thank you very much for your time,
Colleen P. Medeiros
I strongly support this because it’s a small island and I remember being here when it wasn’t taken over by air bnb and rent was once affordable. Now, being a family of 5 and our rent being triple what income is for most, we can’t afford to live in a 1 bedroom for 3G a month and with housing being super limited. Specifically west side, we are desperate for a place since we don’t want to pay almost 3 grand for our 1 bedroom, we have been looking day and night and most apartments have become air bnb and finding a place to live, where my kids are from is nearly impossible. There are 2 year waitlist for families in “ affordable housing” yet finding a place to rent is out of the question since places like kahana manor aren’t an option for local families. Why is our home being more accommodating to tourism then our own local community. One way to help with homelessness & actual native Hawaiians would be to accommodate locals first especially for housing. We already have more tourism population the residents and that is so disturbing. Taking care of our families should be first priority over anything else. Kids who come from homes, accommodating homes are far more successful then those who don’t. Our kids should be the future, not some tourist 1 week of fun just to make some cash. Most air bnb aren’t even owned by local families.
Aloha Ladies and Gentlemen:
While the issue in question does not affect me personally, I am still scratching my head about the logical thinking behind this proposal.
Let me give you an example: Many years ago the politicians of the Southern California City of Santa Monica came up with the idea of rental control, in order to give people with lesser income a chance to fetch an apartment for rent in that city. The result was disastrous. While many people in Southern California refer to Santa Monica as the “Peoples Republic of Santa Monica”, landlords quickly found a way to circumvent the new law. Yes, they did not increase the rent to the next renter, but the next renter could not get the place, unless he or she paid an enormous amount of money under the table. Who lost? Not the landlord, but the renters and even more the City of Santa Monica, getting not the taxes they would have gotten with higher rent.
Please don’t make the same mistake. Even though this is not about rent control, but in fact it is. The county wants to control landlords and tell them what to do in their own homes. That is if I would come to your house and demand, that you rent your second bedroom to a homeless man.
Changing the law the way it is proposed has several consequences:
Most landlords will not rent their places long term because most landlords want to use their homes for themselves on occasion. Result: No additional long-term apartments and a huge loss of taxes to the county and state. While the state already cut the county’s share of the TAT, the county now imposes its own TAT to balance the budget. That money will be gone too?
Can anyone explain me why the people who work for the county (THE PEOPLE) are trying to cut the branch they are sitting on?
Aloha Ladies and Gentlemen:
While the issue in question does not affect me personally, I am still scratching my head about the logical thinking behind this proposal.
Let me give you an example: Many years ago the politicians of the Southern California City of Santa Monica came up with the idea of rental control, in order to give people with lesser income a chance to fetch an apartment for rent in that city. The result was disastrous. While many people in Southern California refer to Santa Monica as the “Peoples Republic of Santa Monica”, landlords quickly found a way to circumvent the new law. Yes, they did not increase the rent to the next renter, but the next renter could not get the place, unless he or she paid an enormous amount of money under the table. Who lost? Not the landlord, but the renters and even more the City of Santa Monica, getting not the taxes they would have gotten with higher rent.
Please don’t make the same mistake. Even though this is not about rent control, but in fact it is. The county wants to control landlords and tell them what to do in their own homes. That is if I would come to your house and demand, that you rent your second bedroom to a homeless man.
Changing the law the way it is proposed has several consequences:
Most landlords will not rent their places long term because most landlords want to use their homes for themselves on occasion. Result: No additional long-term apartments and a huge loss of taxes to the county and state. While the state already cut the county’s share of the TAT, the county now imposes its own TAT to balance the budget. That money will be gone too?
Can anyone explain me why the people who work for the county (THE PEOPLE) are trying to cut the branch they are sitting on?
We visit Maui every year and are dismayed to hear that there is a proposal to ban vacation rentals. We never stay in a hotel prefer a house or condo. We would choose to travel elsewhere if we couldn’t rent a home
I want any council member who might actually be reading these comments to note that all the opposed comments are from Guest Users. Why is that? Because this ordinance and social media have helped to demonize vacation rental owners on Maui. For example, there's no distinction in their mind between illegal and legal units. They tend to think that vacation rentals are the cause of too much tourism which is unproven and not the case and thanks to this ordinance they equate unavailability of rental choices to the presence of vacation rentals (in districts near the beaches for most part). So they persecute vacation rental property owners and they are forced to remain anonymous here. Why are hotels being awarded and protected while local owners being vilified? It's shameful and you are feeding the frenzy with misguided ordinances like this one.
Thank you for allowing our community to have a voice here. We need to learn from our experiences through Covid and create an alternative economy without all our resources and reliance upon tourism.
Please stop building more visitor accommodations.
Please reduce the existing number of visitor accommodations.
Mahalo,
Zane
Aloha Planning and Sustainable Land Use Committee,
I support PHASING OUT TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE APARTMENT DISTRICTS. It is a fair and intelligent way to wean Maui County off our overreliance on tourism while increasing the housing stock. This resolution allows people who bought intending to own a vacation rental to continue making a profit. When apartments are sold or transferred, the new owners will be well aware that in Maui County, the purpose of the Apartment district is to "be occupied on a long term residential basis" (MCC 19.12.010).
When developers propose building new luxury developments, a common argument is that any new housing will make housing more affordable because of the increase in supply. Funny enough, when we talk about phasing out vacation rentals to increase housing supply, the argument is that it would be too expensive for the people who live here. Truthfully some of them may be too expensive for residents and will be sold to the luxury second home market; still a win because Maui won't have to build new luxury homes to meet that demand. However, some of them are expensive because they are vacation rentals. The more money a property is likely to make, the higher the mortgage that can be justified.
Unintended consequences: yes, choices may have unintended consequences, like codifying the Minatoya opinion in 2014. The intention was to allow TVR that had previously been active in the apartment district to continue to operate. The unintended consequence was the number of apartments used as transient vacation rentals started to creep up. As older, small, and somewhat affordable apartments were sold to investors, the price for the remaining long-term housing rose to match demand.
The resolution before you has a lot of foresight. Phasing out vacation rentals will ensure that there is not a sudden drop in tax revenue, because current owners will continue to operate and pay taxes. This will allow housekeepers and property managers who serve the TVR owners to stay in business and transition slowly as business needs change.
Please vote in support of Maui County Residents and this resolution to phase out transient accommodations in apartment districts.
Thank you for your time,
Karen J. Comcowich
Lahaina, HI
i am completely in support of this bill - i find it sad that majority (if not ALL) of the ‘opposed’ testimony talks ONLY OF MONEY!…..when did that become the thing that drives all the decisions??? culture, kanaka maoli, neighborhood quality etc are way down - or not even on -the list …PLEASE stop the western way of ‘money is god’ be the determiner for decisions…mahalo…
i am completely in support of this bill - i find it sad that majority (if not ALL) of the ‘opposed’ testimony talks ONLY OF MONEY!…..when did that become the thing that drives all the decisions??? culture, kanaka maoli, neighborhood quality etc are way down - or not even on -the list …PLEASE stop the western way of ‘money is god’ be the determiner for decisions…mahalo…
Apartments are one of the last semi affordable places to live on Maui. When they are rented out as short term rentals it takes away from the available housing for the working class on the island and takes away from the sense of community in the apartments.
I don’t know the exact figures but to eliminate transient accommodations will wreck financial havoc on the Maui community.
It will not be successful in promoting local rentals because I doubt that locals will not be able to afford annual increases in the HOA FEES. My wife, Linda and I bought our condo in 2003. The HOA fees have increased from just over $300 to about $700 per month. Furthermore there are the occasional special assessments as these properties get older. Currently we can pass these onto our guests but what would a local resident be able to do?
Simply stated, this a bad idea for the Maui Community.
We need more housing for people who live and work here and are a part of the community, not for temporary people or tourists.
Most of the people who oppose this bill do not live on the island as permanent residents and use these units as a generator for income or to pay their mortgage. They do not experience the issues that Maui resident have to deal with on a daily basis - overcrowding with tourists, ever raising rents, lack of affordable housing and low wages. I strongly support both the moratorium and the conversion of short term rentals
I am an owner of a condo at Maui Vista, which I purchased in June, 2021. I am retired. While I had hoped that I would immediately use the condo as my permanent residence, my commitment to my children and grandchildren in Seattle made me decide to postpone that decision. If I want to keep the possibility of using the condo as my permanent residence in the future, I need to open it in the near term to short term rentals in order to cover the mortgage. I purchased the condo with the understanding that this was a viable option.
I understand the burden that tourists put on the local infrastructure and services of Maui county. I appreciate that the county needs more affordable housing. However the GET and TAT provide essential income to the county. Please do not adopt this short-sighted ordinance. I believe that it will be detrimental to the tax base for the island. I do not believe that enactment of this legislation will stop short term rentals. Owners of rental property will figure out other ways to generate personal income but without revenue to the county.
My wife and I are hard working entrepreneurs. Over a span of a decade we acquired 3 condominiums, invested with our after tax money close to 2 million US dollars in the Maui economy, and generate countless tax for the county year after year.
And we paid just as much property tax in 2020 as we hardly were allowed to rent our places.
We strive to have affordable rates, and pay competitive rates for maintenance, housekeeping, inspection. We also maintain our places professionally. Keep in mind that we have guests from Hawaii, including Maui just as frequently as people from the mainland and overseas.
Here is what a sample of our guests say:
"Thanks for having us. Staying at your place was the best decision as the trip was short and we got to explore both west and east side of Maui…"
"xxx's place is in a great location. The entire place is very beautiful. xxx was a great host and answered any questions we had"
"What a fabulous find! xxx's place is so close to everything without putting you in the middle of it all. The space was very clean, had wonderful amenities, and a picturesque view of the mountain and the bay amongst the surrounding flora. As economic travelers, we were so happy to find such a great place as a backdrop to our visit! We couldn't recommend xxx's place enough!"
We have 72 more of these that I am happy to share.
Upon seeking professional advice, Ms Tamara Paltin's proposal, if effective, would instantly halve our investment and a net loss of likely 1 million dollars.
It is unconscionable to propose this. Ms Paltin must be a very bad person.
People like us are the ones creating jobs, and livelihood for a lot of people and making Maui what it is.
We're sorry to say this, but people like Tamara Paltin should really take a good look at themselves and ponder whether they are indeed good people?
Here is our solution to the housing situation: bring up to 10$ a square foot the property tax for the very people who are proposing this measure,
starting with Tamara Paltin, this should apply to every square foot of housing and land that they own, effective immediately,
Here is our second solution: Require Ms Tamara Paltin to disclose *all* her conflicts of interests and relationship with the hotel industry.
Should this go through, it is equal to rewarding bad behavior and there will be negative consequences for everyone, not just us: be warned
I am an owner of a Short Term Rental Unit in Maui and I oppose this ordnance and ask you for reconsideration. As a Mom & Pop owner who has invested in your state as a future retirement home and a permanent resident. My expected returns as a short term rental is computed to reimburse my investment. My current tax rate at an estimated 50% occupancy and income of $27,000 and taxed; GET @4%, TAT @ 10.75%, State Property Tax,and now with the 3% proposed tax for the County of Maui will total over $4650. In addition we have HOA fees of $6000, Property Insurance and Repairs. This projected income would net less than $10000 per year.
It should be noted that Short Term Rental properties are taxed at higher rate than Hotels and local property owners, (doubled) If this ordnance is passed, Short Term Rental Units should get immediate relief from the current increased property tax.
The loss of this income, loss of jobs, local business closures supported by tourists when converted to long term rental or affordable housing should be a serious concern of elected members. A portion of this tax should be designated as Affordable Housing Funds and used as such. Don't lose this source of income. Maholo
Aloha Planning Commission and Maui County Council Members:
This bill will not create affordable housing.
These properties support our tax base and provide jobs for our families. These apartments were built to be vacation rentals with vacation appealing pools, grounds and ocean frontage. They have high maintenance fees and expensive caring costs. They are small with out enough storage or parking for full time families. They are also 40-50 years old thus even if a local family somehow secured a loan with the current high maintenance fees added on to their mortgage they will be burdened with every increasing fees and assessments.
I ran a report showing the maintenance fees and interior square footage for 2 bedrooms in 17 of these 40 year old vacation rental West Maui apartments: I wasn't able to copy it or attached to this letter. However the average interior was 949 SF and the average montly maintenance fee was $1,253/apartment. Add on a mortgage payment + electric + cable + parking fees + assessments. This isn't affordable housing. Best have the accounting team check this out.
If this bill is passed and prices come down "work from anywhere in the world" second home buyers will be the buyers not local families who can't afford them.
What affordable housing was created when North Beach Kaanapali was built or the Timeshare conversions of the Hyatt, Marriott and Westin's was completed? Can you name one Lahaina long term or affordable housing apartment project that was built by these Fortune Five Hundred Companies? The real problem with traffic on Maui and over-crowding of West Maui began in the past 10 years as the thousands of Timeshares and vacation rentals in North Kaanapali Beach were completed. These projects are the ones to be levied and taxed to create their share of affordable housing.
Help find affordable housing that doesn't hurt the Kamaaina who have supported us with tax payments and jobs for over 40 years.
Thank you,
Mark Marchello, R
Lahaina Resident
I am in full support of this ordinance. Maui needs affordable workforce housing, and the apartment district areas are the some of the best places for Maui residents to own their first homes, or find a long-term rental. Allowing transient accommodations in these areas has taken away some of the only affordable housing we have existing on Maui. We must give it back to the community members who needs it, those same people who work hard to help our economy thrive, before they all move away and we have no one to support the industry here on the island.
My wife and I own a vacation rental condo in Kihei and we are very strongly opposed to this PSLU-34 Measure. We have been coming to Maui for more than 30 years and have dreams of retiring here someday. We have always operated our property legally and paid very high taxes to the state and county. Without short term rentals to support our 2-bedroom unit the expenses would amount to $3200/ mo to rent it on a long-term basis. Most of our guests are repeat visitors that do not want to stay in a resort bubble hotel where they will spend all their time and money. They want to support the local community in Maui. They love the people of Maui and shop at the small and local businesses. They go out to the local restaurants. The big hotel guests don’t do that. We as owners employ local electricians, cleaners, locksmiths, painters, AC technicians, property managers etc. which support the local economy. If we need to buy a large appliance like a refrigerator, washer or dryer (which we have) we buy it locally because it’s too expensive to ship it on island.
If this measure were to go through, it would have a huge negative impact on local businesses and workers. It would not translate into local housing because of the high rent that would have to charged and also because it’s not really suitable for long term renters.
Somehow, I think the responsible STVR owners were lumped in with other owners that were renting bedrooms and other “under the table” situations to avoid taxes and compliance with the rules. The apartment condo owners are not part of that group.
If this goes through, we would definitely not be retiring in Hawaii, we would be the victim of government overreach that would devastate our property value. It would not result in anything near affordable housing in Maui.
Aloha Council Members,
While I very much support having more housing available to local families, I don't support this bill because I do not believe it will have the intended consequences; 1. I do not think local families want this type of housing and 2. I believe more local families should invest in this type of apartment housing and with the vacation rental use. Additionally, I believe this use should be incentivized for Maui residents as it is a great source of passive income which many local residents need.
Apartment style housing is not the appropriate housing for local families. Simply put, they are too small for most local families. Many of the units this would affect are studios and one-bedroom apartments with one dedicated parking stall and very little to no, storage space. Resident/local families will not fit in these. Even 2 person households here generally have 2 vehicles. I am a 22 yr resident of Maui (born and raised on Oahu, my father's family is from Maui) and I am a real estate agent here. I can't tell you the number of local folks I've tried to encourage to purchase apartments as starter homes. Many local families refuse to live in apartments, or they are just too small and don't fit their families, cars, and pets. Today, these apartments are still some of the least expensive housing options on the market and I'm just not seeing many resident/local families buying them.
Secondly, these properties make great investment properties that produce passive income as long-term and vacation rentals. I own one in Kuau Plaza. The income from this unit has helped tremendously in supplementing my family’s income. There are many, approximately 20%, of short-term rental owners in apartment zoned buildings are Maui and Hawaii State residents. I believe this use should be supported and even incentivized for Maui residents, not taken away. We need more resident owners. But overall, any family-owned unit, is better to me than the hotel corporations having a monopoly on our visitor industry, which I believe will be another consequence if this bill is passed.
Legal avenues for residents to generate income for themselves and their families (small businesses) should be encouraged and not taken away or otherwise diminish. Off the top of my head, I can think of 20 local Maui families who own these types of condos. We are the voting population here, we are the folks spending all of our money here, we are the folks raising our kids here and we live in this community. We have numerous sub-contractors we hire and pay on a regular basis; we support many different businesses, and we give back in the form of donations to a variety of charity and nonprofit organizations because these streams of income allow us to.
As a resident, and on behalf of other residents who might like to purchase a condo to use in this way someday, this is one of the few avenues and opportunities for our families to directly benefit from the tourism industry. This bill would effectively hand over these benefits to offshore hotel corporations, which in turn would take AWAY income from our families and away from our islands. We are the "host culture" indigenous Hawaiians and all other residents living here, based on Sustainable Tourism principles, we ought to be “DIRECTLY BENEFITING TO THE GREATEST DEGREE POSSIBLE” from our visitor industry, we should not be handing all the benefits of visitor industry, monetary or otherwise, to offshore corporate entities, we need to keep the benefits here and we have a right as the host culture to have ownership in our visitor industry.
Thank you very much for your time,
Colleen P. Medeiros
I strongly support this because it’s a small island and I remember being here when it wasn’t taken over by air bnb and rent was once affordable. Now, being a family of 5 and our rent being triple what income is for most, we can’t afford to live in a 1 bedroom for 3G a month and with housing being super limited. Specifically west side, we are desperate for a place since we don’t want to pay almost 3 grand for our 1 bedroom, we have been looking day and night and most apartments have become air bnb and finding a place to live, where my kids are from is nearly impossible. There are 2 year waitlist for families in “ affordable housing” yet finding a place to rent is out of the question since places like kahana manor aren’t an option for local families. Why is our home being more accommodating to tourism then our own local community. One way to help with homelessness & actual native Hawaiians would be to accommodate locals first especially for housing. We already have more tourism population the residents and that is so disturbing. Taking care of our families should be first priority over anything else. Kids who come from homes, accommodating homes are far more successful then those who don’t. Our kids should be the future, not some tourist 1 week of fun just to make some cash. Most air bnb aren’t even owned by local families.
Aloha Ladies and Gentlemen:
While the issue in question does not affect me personally, I am still scratching my head about the logical thinking behind this proposal.
Let me give you an example: Many years ago the politicians of the Southern California City of Santa Monica came up with the idea of rental control, in order to give people with lesser income a chance to fetch an apartment for rent in that city. The result was disastrous. While many people in Southern California refer to Santa Monica as the “Peoples Republic of Santa Monica”, landlords quickly found a way to circumvent the new law. Yes, they did not increase the rent to the next renter, but the next renter could not get the place, unless he or she paid an enormous amount of money under the table. Who lost? Not the landlord, but the renters and even more the City of Santa Monica, getting not the taxes they would have gotten with higher rent.
Please don’t make the same mistake. Even though this is not about rent control, but in fact it is. The county wants to control landlords and tell them what to do in their own homes. That is if I would come to your house and demand, that you rent your second bedroom to a homeless man.
Changing the law the way it is proposed has several consequences:
Most landlords will not rent their places long term because most landlords want to use their homes for themselves on occasion. Result: No additional long-term apartments and a huge loss of taxes to the county and state. While the state already cut the county’s share of the TAT, the county now imposes its own TAT to balance the budget. That money will be gone too?
Can anyone explain me why the people who work for the county (THE PEOPLE) are trying to cut the branch they are sitting on?
I rest my case.
Sincerely yours
Peter Trunk
Aloha Ladies and Gentlemen:
While the issue in question does not affect me personally, I am still scratching my head about the logical thinking behind this proposal.
Let me give you an example: Many years ago the politicians of the Southern California City of Santa Monica came up with the idea of rental control, in order to give people with lesser income a chance to fetch an apartment for rent in that city. The result was disastrous. While many people in Southern California refer to Santa Monica as the “Peoples Republic of Santa Monica”, landlords quickly found a way to circumvent the new law. Yes, they did not increase the rent to the next renter, but the next renter could not get the place, unless he or she paid an enormous amount of money under the table. Who lost? Not the landlord, but the renters and even more the City of Santa Monica, getting not the taxes they would have gotten with higher rent.
Please don’t make the same mistake. Even though this is not about rent control, but in fact it is. The county wants to control landlords and tell them what to do in their own homes. That is if I would come to your house and demand, that you rent your second bedroom to a homeless man.
Changing the law the way it is proposed has several consequences:
Most landlords will not rent their places long term because most landlords want to use their homes for themselves on occasion. Result: No additional long-term apartments and a huge loss of taxes to the county and state. While the state already cut the county’s share of the TAT, the county now imposes its own TAT to balance the budget. That money will be gone too?
Can anyone explain me why the people who work for the county (THE PEOPLE) are trying to cut the branch they are sitting on?
I rest my case.
Sincerely yours
Peter Trunk
We visit Maui every year and are dismayed to hear that there is a proposal to ban vacation rentals. We never stay in a hotel prefer a house or condo. We would choose to travel elsewhere if we couldn’t rent a home
I want any council member who might actually be reading these comments to note that all the opposed comments are from Guest Users. Why is that? Because this ordinance and social media have helped to demonize vacation rental owners on Maui. For example, there's no distinction in their mind between illegal and legal units. They tend to think that vacation rentals are the cause of too much tourism which is unproven and not the case and thanks to this ordinance they equate unavailability of rental choices to the presence of vacation rentals (in districts near the beaches for most part). So they persecute vacation rental property owners and they are forced to remain anonymous here. Why are hotels being awarded and protected while local owners being vilified? It's shameful and you are feeding the frenzy with misguided ordinances like this one.