First and foremost, I recommend that this resolution be filed and NOT sent to the planning commissions for review and comment. This measure proposes caps that are neither practical nor enforceable. And the basis of how this measure proposes to manage tourism is simply not good policy.
This measure contains visitor accommodation counts in each community plan area but does not explain exactly what properties are represented by the cap numbers. I expect these numbers came from Real property tax records, but it is important to understand that RPT classifications show some hotels as short term rentals and other visitor accommodations are not even classified as either Hotel, Short Term Rental or Timeshare.
This measure completely ignores the largest and fastest growing group of visitor accommodations and that is properties in the non owner occupied tax classification that are used exclusively as second homes. It is important to note that when the Hawaiian Tourism Authority (HTA) calculates the number of visitors in its daily counts, it include all part time residents as visitors. These part time residents stay in their own homes condos or long term rentals. As I have previously testified, there are more than 10,000 second home units on Maui and that number is growing every year.
For point of reference, Maui County has 150 permitted Bed and Breakfast homes, 180 permitted Short Term Rental Homes, approximately 3000 time share units, 8000 hotel rooms and approximately 12,000 short term rental condos located in apartment and hotel zoning and more than 10,000 second homes. Yet this Council has spent the majority of its time and efforts trying to eliminate the 330 B&Bs and STRHs and now seeks to cap hotel rooms and condo type Short term rentals while second homes continue to proliferate throughout the island.
This measure claims its purpose as establishing a balance between residents and visitors. But I don’t believe it will in any way achieve that purpose. It is most unfortunate that the Temporary Investigative Group (TIG) did not use its time to actually “Investigate” the topic of its study and instead jumped straight to legislative actions without consideration of the broader aspects of how these actions would impact the island.
The TIG should be re-established to perform actual study of the issue of tourism management to allow the members to better understand Maui’s largest industry, how it works and include the issue of Maui’s 10,000 second homes and how Council’s recent actions have aggravated this issue by encouraging condo owners in apartment and hotel zoning to move to residential and agricultural zoning where they find much lower tax rates for their second homes.
I would have hoped the TIG would have attempted to define the specific problems caused by over tourism and have sought specific ways to better manage those problems rather than simply take an axe to some visitor accommodations and ignoring the largest growing segment of visitor accommodations.
It is most disingenuous of Council members not to acknowledge that this measure is essentially a permanent extension of the transient accommodations moratorium. Anyone who could or would support this measure is simply showing complete ignorance of sound zoning principles, Maui’s fundamental economics, and the actual over tourism problems in need of solutions. Please file this measure before it further divides our community.
Aloha e PSLU chair Paltin and Committee,
I support this resolution, we have an overabundance of vacation units and too few for residents. Our infrastructure and natural resources are being overused by the sheer volume of visitors. This is a good step and a great way to scale back the number of visitors without having a takings issue.
Possibly affordable housing funds could be used to turn some of these units into workforce housing, as these apartments have as much space as the newer affordable and workforce housing and are in phenomenal locations for residents to live.
As you can see again the paid lobbiests have come out in opposition. Thank you for showing the broader community's values and best interest are your priority!
I am opposed to this resolution as it would negatively affect everyone involved. Existing rules and compliance efforts are effective here without eroding tax collections. Mahalo for your work on this!
In the months that I've been following this I've asked countless Maui residents, friends, family, clients, and coworkers, "should we have more hotels on Maui" — without exception every single person's answer was "no"
It's apparent to almost every Maui resident that bringing more people to this island will lead to decreasing the quality of life we are so fortunate to enjoy.
While I hold no sympathy for the gazillionaires conniving to profit at the expense of Maui, I can empathize with those individuals hoping to make an income operating a vacation rental, specifically if they are Maui residents.
If we could limit hotels, large developments, and out-of-state investors but allow the island residents an avenue to earn I feel that might lead to a good balance.
If we successfully limit the inventory, the price will go up. Of course, there's no guarantee that prices will rise at the former rate of development growth, but I don't believe that's a good enough reason to allow for short-term thinking driven by investment groups that view Maui only as an avenue for profit.
The resounding question I've been hearing from those opposing a moratorium is, "Where will we get our tax dollars?"
We are at the brink of a new era, not just for Maui but the world. The recent shutdowns have radically transformed business, leading to never-before-imagined job opportunities that can be done entirely remotely.
We should be incentivizing technology and media investors — companies that can generate revenue comparable to that of a large hotel but that does not bring a significant amount of people to prance around our home like it's the set of Jurassic Park or Temptation Island.
I'm one of many concerned Maui citizens that understand how precious this Island is and that we must protect its resources.
Also, selfishly, I wish to avoid simple frustrations like traffic, lack of parking, crowded beaches, and the many other negatives that come with an overabundance of tourists.
Aloha Chair Paltin, Vice-chair King and committee members,
On behalf of the Hawai'i Hotel Alliance, I am submitting testimony to express our concerns on Resolution 22-70. Earlier this year, ordinance 5316, the Moratorium, was established, placing a temporary cap on all transient accommodations for the next two (2) years. In that 2-year period, the county's purpose was to study the overall effectiveness of tourism management. It has nearly been a little over 2 months, and we are now being challenged with Resolution 22-70, placing a permanent cap on transient accommodations.
In the 2-month period of the implementation of the moratorium, has there been any data collection or economic impact study of the effects that the cap of transient accommodations will have? And if so, is 2-months a logical period of time to provide an efficient report?
Has the committee explored further solutions with interested parties aimed at finding a balanced solution?
What is the loss of revenue generated by the hotel/visitor industry by placing a cap on transient accommodations? Has the committee found another stream of revenue to fill that void? Again, hotels contribute significant taxes in GET and the TAT.
Has the committee had any discussions with local vendors who supply our hotels with its desired necessities? Local farmers, local ranchers, local fisherman, local jewelry makers, local entertainers, local distillers, local breweries, local bakers, local designers, local artists, local lei makers, and the list goes on.
Has the committee collected data on the amount of illegal short-term rentals we have in Maui county? The last report from the Planning Department reported an estimated 245 unpermitted STR's sometime towards the ending of 2021, yet Air BnB reportedly pulled close to 1300 illegal rentals from their site just last month. And that's just Air BnB...there are still a number of other vacation rental sites that haven't pulled its illegal units from their sites.
These are only five (5) questions that I ask of what can generate numerous questions due to taking action, in what I believe to be premature.
Since the establishment of the moratorium, HHA has reached out to the council to start laying a foundation in hopes of finding balanced solutions to address the issue at hand. We have reached out to some of our local vendors that supply our hotels its needs to familiarize ourselves with the impact the moratorium will have on them. We have reached out to a few of our community leaders to discuss some issues they have or have heard from their peers within the community regarding the hotel and visitor industry. We have brought on a consulting firm made up of undergrad business fraternity students from the University of Michigan to identify the illegal or unpermitted STR's in Maui county and to provide the loss of revenue Maui county is losing by having these illegal STR's operate. HHA is finding ways to partner and to help provide the necessities for our islands main resources, such as water. We are aggressively looking for partnerships to fill the gaps, to address the issues, and to be good stewards of our island, our home. These are just some of the steps that HHA has started taking in working towards a solution. The hotel industry is the base of a diversified economy. We have the resources to help provide to our local watersheds, we source local products that are available to us, equipping our local vendors with what they need to maintain a flourishing business, and again, this is our farmers, our ranchers, our fisherman, our entertainers, our lei makers, etc. At a recent visit to the Kea Lani, I counted approximately 20 vendors selling their items in the lobby area. When asked what the fee was for the vendor space, I was told that it's $5.00. I'm not aware of any other place that vendors lease space for only $5.00, that's unheard of. But this is just an example of one hotel being able to host 20 local vendors at a very low fee, and it's helping people right here on our island. HHA has been in multiple discussions with our construction brothers and sisters, who through this pandemic, have been able to continue to provide for their families with the help of most jobs coming from the hotel industry. We have met with our brothers and sisters in ILWU who have shared similar concerns in regards to the establishment of the moratorium. HHA intends on continuing its work in finding a balanced solution and working with the county council, the community, and our partners...it is part of our kuleana to maintain a lifestyle that we can all enjoy and to create an environment that we can all live in.
I ask the committee not to adopt resolution 22-70 and to not refer it to the planning commissions and advisory committees. I ask the council to allow the moratorium to fulfill its purpose of the overall effectiveness of tourism management, to do the research on the economic impact as a result of the temporary moratorium, address the illegal activities of the STR's and the camper vehicles, and when the research is complete, if a balanced solution hasn't been met up to that date, to then have further discussions on such implementations.
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
This has been an unprecedented time of financial struggle for me and my fellow Hawaii residents who rely on the tourism industry for their income. Tourism is the biggest industry here in Hawaii and we have been suffering greatly from this Global pandemic!
We grew up here on Maui and work really hard to make it here in Hawaii so we can stay where we grew up.
We are fully self-employed and because of that, we didn't have any paid vacation to rely on during the pandemic or paid sick time from a corporation.
We happen to have 2 legitimate condos in properly zoned areas for short term rental however I believe you should make short term rental easier for any property owner on Maui to help the average local residents benefit from the tourism industry here. The low wages and the high cost of living here are really challenging for those of us who grew up here and as well for those who have moved here.
It would be nice if the little guy was able to take a market share of the tourism industry that thrives here. Not to mention super helpful to get people out of the financial challenges that the pandemic has brought.
We had to pull money out of our retirements to get us through the pandemic. Please help those of us who are self-employed in the tourism sector here on Maui and across Hawaii. Please do not only help the big hotel corporations, please also help the small business owners like us. Thanks so much for your time. Aloha
Dear Chair Paltin, Vice Chair King, and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Airbnb, mahalo for the opportunity to comment on the proposed transient accommodation caps. Airbnb has worked to advocate for sensible short-term rental policy that allows our community to be compliant and supports the local tourism industry in Maui County. We are deeply concerned by this proposal to cap transient accommodations, which could have many negative consequences on the local economy, disregards ongoing compliance efforts, and raises legal concerns.
--Negative impacts on local economy--
Airbnb has played a critical role in the County’s recovery from the pandemic, lifting up local Hosts as well as entire local economies. The typical Host in Hawaii earned more than $11,500 in 2021, which represents about two extra months of pay for the median US household and is far more than most Americans received in government-provided stimulus payments. Women Hosts in the US, who make up 59 percent of our US Host community, earned more than $4 billion in the first three quarters of 2021. In addition, since 2010, Hosts in Hawaii have earned a total of approximately $2 billion. According to the January 2022 Hawaii Tourism Authority’s Vacation Rental Performance Report, the average daily rate of vacation rental in Maui was $363, providing a more affordable lodging option than hotels which have an average daily rate of $619. Moreover, each Host and property supports several other local small businesses including but not limited to maintenance, housekeeping, management, and landscaping. Capping transient accommodations in Maui County will therefore have significant negative impacts on hosts, guests, and the local economy.
--Disregards ongoing compliance efforts--
Airbnb has been playing an active role in promoting responsible hosting in Maui County. As you are likely aware, Airbnb and Expedia recently implemented compliance agreements with Maui County, similar to an agreement that has been in effect with Kauai County with great results for over a year. These compliance agreements provide powerful tools to support the counties’ enforcement of their short-term rental regulations, and are part of our ongoing commitment to partner with the communities our Hosts and guests call home. Pursuant to its agreement with Maui County, Airbnb took down more than 1,300 listings without TMK numbers in late January. Here on out, Airbnb will provide monthly reports to the County that can be used to verify TMK numbers of active listings on our platform. We believe this type of collaboration with the County can help maximize benefits of transient accommodations to Maui County, its residents and its visitors, while helping weed out bad actors. As such, we urge the Committee to give these compliance agreements a chance to be effective before considering new restrictions on transient accommodations.
--Raises legal concerns--
We are concerned that the transient accommodation cap could run afoul of state law, which regulates the ability of counties to institute land use changes. Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 46-4, ensures that nonconforming residential uses, which includes transient accommodation uses, cannot be amortized or phased out by local laws. Since it is unclear how the proposed caps would square with this provision, we urge the Committee to carefully consider the issue. Past litigation supports this position (see, e.g., Robert D. Ferris Trust v. Planning Commission of County of Kauai, 138 Hawaii 307 (2016) (“preexisting lawful uses of property are generally considered to be vested rights that zoning ordinances may not abrogate”); Kendrick v. County of Kauai, No. CAAP-20-00057, Haw. Intermediate Ct. App (2020) (“plain and obvious meaning of the state statute [HRS, Section 46-4] . . .provides that a nonconforming use shall not be lost unless discontinued”)).
* * *
Mahalo for taking our comments and concerns into consideration. As always, we welcome an opportunity for continued discussion and collaboration on fair, reasonable regulations of transient accommodations in Maui County.
Sincerely,
Toral Patel
Airbnb Public Policy, Hawaii
Testimony of
Mufi Hannemann
President & CEO
Hawai‘i Lodging & Tourism Association
Maui County Council
Planning & Sustainable Land Use Committee
Resolution 22-70
March 17, 2022
Chair Paltin and members of the Committee, mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Hawai‘i Lodging & Tourism Association, the state’s largest and oldest private sector visitor industry organization.
The Hawai‘i Lodging & Tourism Association—nearly 700 members strong, representing more than 50,000 hotel rooms and nearly 40,000 lodging workers—recognizes that the intent of this measure is to place limitations on the overall numbers of travelers that can stay on Maui on any given day. However, it remains our position that placing arbitrary caps on the number of transient accommodations will not achieve this goal. Reducing or limiting the number of available accommodations for prospective travelers will not address the demand for travel to Hawai‘i or Maui County for that matter. Even if the proposed legislation were to pass, it will not reduce the number of flights or travelers that head for Maui to vacation. These travelers, faced with a shortage of available accommodations caused by this proposed measure, will ultimately seek out alternative lodging options like short-term rentals—both legal and not.
As we have noted in previous testimony before the Maui County Council and other legislative bodies around the state, it has become glaringly clear over the past several years that the explosive growth in transient accommodation units is not occurring in traditional, brick-and-mortar lodging operations but in short-term rental units. This has happened in both resort and residential zoned areas, and Maui residents continue to suffer the consequences. Limiting the number of available accommodations while not enacting clear measures and oversight of short-term rentals will ultimately drive more travelers to these units and will place further stress on Maui’s affordable housing market. We believe this is where more emphasis needs to be placed by government and a collaborative effort made with the private sector and labor groups to make our neighborhoods more affordable for local residents.
As it stands, Maui relies upon tourism for its economic well-being; this was evident throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. It provides outside dollars that residents rely upon for employment, not only in the lodging industry, but also in retail, dining, activities and attractions, and even the agricultural sector which counts tourism among its most consistent customers. If visitors are forced away from resort zones toward short-term rentals, Maui’s hospitality sector will suffer, and Maui residents will find fewer and fewer housing and career opportunities.
For these reasons, HLTA opposes Resolution 22-70.
Mahalo for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
Aloha Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I am trying to understand how you can pass a two year moratorium and then after just two months attempt to make it permanent. It is impossible to have a full understanding of the impact after just two months. What has happened in this short time that makes you believe it should be permanent?
Our entire community benefits from the visitor industry. Yes, there are trade offs but it is still the primary driver of our economy. We need to make sure this industry stays healthy and vibrant while balancing it with the overall needs of our community. Making this moratorium permanent has the potential to negatively impact our number one industry.
While I oppose the concept of making the moratorium permanent due to this potential negative impact, I also oppose this resolution because it comes just two months after the initial passage. Until the overall affect of the initial resolution is analyzed, there should be no effort to make the moratorium permanent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barry Helle
Waikapu
Aloha Chair Paltin, Vice-Chair King and Committee members,
The Maui Hotel & Lodging Association (MHLA) is the legislative arm of the visitor industry for Maui County. We represent over 170 property and allied business members and more than 12,000 workers. These employees rely on their jobs at the hotels, restaurants, activity companies, construction to provide for their families, send their children to college, and plan for their futures here in the islands.
The Resolution being heard 22-70, Relating to Transient Accommodation Caps (PSLU-49) is now seeking to make the Temporary Moratorium [Bill 148], just established in January of this year, permanent. The moratorium that is already in effect should be reviewed for its overall effectiveness in tourism management before another moratorium overrides and makes it permanent.
The moratorium being discussed will not have the overall desired effect of limiting arrivals to the islands. In fact, by introducing a cap, another accommodation platform could surface to accommodate the loss. Our hotels and timeshares contribute significant taxes in RPT, GET, TAT, and provide substantial charitable giving to the community. Other platforms could operate illegally without paying any taxes.
Additionally, this could be seen as taking of vested rights and could be challenged in court. This is taking away the value of someone's property by placing an indefinite moratorium on their use of that property. There is a very real possibility this could lead to years of litigation wasting taxpayers' dollars.
MHLA is respectfully asking for the Council to have a more in-depth review of the current temporary moratorium before seeking its permanence.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony,
Lisa Paulson
Executive Director
Maui Hotel & Lodging Association
I'm a long-time Maui resident, born and raised in Hawaii, and am writing to share my concerns about this resolution. The County JUST passed a two-year moratorium on transient accommodations, with the idea that the two-year period would give us time to gather more information and make recommendations on how to make things better. Now it feels like we are rushing to implement changes without taking the time to truly do what we said we would.
In my personal experience, broad moratoriums do not necessarily achieve good results due to unintended consequences, for example, by creating a kind of black market among individuals who find ways to circumvent the moratorium.
I am no fan of over-tourism, but I believe a healthy visitor industry is valuable to our economy and social fabric. I ask the Council to please table this resolution and instead, make full use the two-year period to further study and understand the challenges, gather diverse insights from a broad cross-section of experts and residents, and consider a range of thoughtful approaches to making improvements.
Aloha Committee Chair Paltin, Committee Vice-Chair King, and Committee Members,
I am submitting the following testimony on behalf of the REALTORS Association of Maui and our 1,900+ members. The REALTORS Association of Maui is currently “Neutral” on the proposed cap legislation, but we have deep concerns regarding how the caps will be set and enforced. It is our hope that the committee will directly address these concerns before sending the legislation to the Planning Commissions for review.
Our top concern related to this legislation is the preservation of vested property rights for current and future property owners. Through past legislation, the explicit language of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and direct communications with RAM and other interested parties, the County of Maui has repeatedly recognized the right to conduct transient accommodations for many property owners throughout the county. These property owners have reasonable investment-backed expectations that their rights will be protected, yet we have seen numerous proposals recently that seek to revoke these vested rights. RAM is concerned that this legislation will turn into yet another vehicle to try and strip property owners of their rights.
To assure that property rights are maintained, RAM strongly urges the committee to ensure that the caps in each zoning district and community area are inclusive of all properties that have a vested right to conduct transient accommodations, regardless of whether they are currently doing so or not. Moreover, we ask for clarification in the legislation regarding enforcement of the caps. Specifically, it should be noted that transient vacation rentals in multi-family structures, such as condominiums in the Apartment Districts, have always been administered and enforced by the Planning Department on a property-wide basis, not on a unit-by-unit basis. Therefore, the administration and enforcement of future TVR unit caps should also occur on a property wide basis. Similarly, the language of the legislation should clearly state the criteria and methodology for determining properties that qualify to fall under the proposed cap, and allow for the cap to be raised to accommodate any properties that should be included under that criteria, but are not.
Though the edits to the county code are clear, the method by which these changes are being made is still too ambiguous. Please provide clarity on how the caps were determined, which properties are intended to be included under the caps, and how the caps will be administered and enforced before sending this to the Planning Commissions for review. These are key pieces of information that are not outlined in the legislation, and have not been clearly established in council discussions of the legislation either.
Mahalo,
Jason A. Economou
Government Affairs Director
REALTORS Association of Maui
I am a respectful home owner and love to share my beautiful home w guests. I am careful and particular about my guests and my home, which is well maintained by well paid Maui residents I am honored to be in a position to share it w others. There are many many STR owners who provide a high quality service, support my housekeepers, maintenance people and refer my guests to restaurants and activities in our area. I also pay taxes monthly( 3 different taxes). Please consider the small and respectful owners!
Thank you
Kelly
Aloha, My name is Patrick Reichert. I am an owner of a unit at the Kihei Bay Surf, 715 So. Kihei Rd. I purchased this unit 11 years ago and have been operating transient accommodations there since then when we are not staying there. I have a GET and TAT tax number and have been paying all my taxes. I bought the property because it was zoned for this type of activity. There is 118 studio apartments in the complex, it was built in 1980, and most all of the units are used for transient accommodations. I have watched the property taxes skyrocket with the property value and I have watched the TAT percentage skyrocket to where I am paying the same percentage as the big resorts on the island.
This complex is not suitable for family living as they are all studio apartments, the HOA fees alone are prohibitive as well as the cost to purchase a unit and the square footage is only enough for 2 people. The county claims it is a residential neighborhood but allowed a resort to build a 300 unit complex 1 block down the street at the old Maui Lu site. There are many hotels across the street and down the So. Kihei Rd from our location. Our property has been operating as Transient rental for many many years.
Now the county wants to change the rules about transient rentals, phasing out select units and complexes, while allowing others to continue operating, using the reasoning that they want to create housing for the residents and curbing tourist numbers. While these are noble and worthwhile goals to achieve, I do NOT believe this is the way to achieve those goals.
I believe being so selective about who to eliminate and who can continue is prejudicial. If you don't want transient accommodations, eliminate them all, don't cherry pick which can stay and which have to go. It seems to me that elimination of illegal transient activity and not allowing future new activity is much more just and fair. To allow a new 300 bed resort to be built 1 block away from a complex that has been operating for many years and then eliminating the complex just has a bad smell to me...hotels to the left and right of our complex but we are being judged to be residential...It just is not right, just or fair.
We are to be allowed to continue our transient operations by being "grandfathered" in but when we sell the new owner will not be allowed to operate transient, which will create problems within the complex as residents and transient activities do not mix well, will drive down property values resulting in lost tax revenue that could be used for building suitable resident housing, loss of TAT and GET tax revenue for both the county and state, as well as the legal conflicts that are sure to materialize over selective legislation such as this.
I urge the planning board to reject this proposal and put their talents to work to come up with a plan that moves forward with the goals they seem to have, affordable and suitable housing for residents and limiting tourism to more manageable numbers. Do not attempt to meet your goals by throwing honest, hard working tax paying property owners under the bus with a plan that will not meet the goals that you have set out to achieve. Pono...Do the right thing!
Respectfully submitted
Patrick Reichert
Owner of a unit at Kihei Bay Surf
What the committee is proposing appears to be illegal. You cannot have an indeterminate moratorium without just compensation. If you are permanently taking away someone's development rights granted under their approved zoning you must compensate them for the loss in value in that taking. You cannot afford that and you are headed for a legal quagmire which is totally irresponsible and more to the point unnecessary for good government.
If your goal is to control tourism, you should direct tourism into masterplanned destination resorts which have been zoned for 60 years for that purpose. These destination resort areas are already capped by existing zoning which cannot be exceeded. In most cases the lands are fully developed. There is some room for foreseeable future growth through expansions or redevelopment of older properties but these are all still capped by maximum densities established when the zoning was granted. It is in short controlled. It cannot exceed allowable densities.
What the council has done which unleashed uncontrollable growth in tourism was approving an ordinance to allow visitors to occupy single family residential units as hotels. 800 short term rental "hotels" were initially authorized through the TVR and STRH legislation. This has proven to be a disaster to the neighborhoods in which they operate. It escalates property values to the point where residents can no longer afford the property taxes for their own homes. The council made a mistake by passing these ordinances and should correct their error by rescinding both ordinances and making these uses no longer legal. When the existing permits expire they should not be renewed. This would be an effective means of correcting a past mistake and restoring some sense of sanity to our residential neighborhoods. In short, it would absolutely control overtourism.
Instead of doing this, the council has taken a meat axe approach to the problem and directed their wrath at well planned destination resorts and short term rental homes with no distinction between the two. You are in fact throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You need to accommodate future demand. You should do so by directing growth to destination areas where tourism can be controlled and limited. Not prohibiting growth in these areas which is what you are now proposing. Failure to accommodate growth in planned areas will result in growth of illegal operations in all neighborhoods. If that is your goal you will certainly achieve uncontrolled overtourism rather than control it.
You don't correct a past mistake by doubling down and making the problem even worse. Do your job. Control tourism by controlling uncontrolled growth in residential neighborhoods and restricting growth to master planned, zoned, and limited destination areas.
Homes are now costing over a million dollars for residents. Who can afford that? Not our local people for sure. It is your fault and you should be working to fix this problem. If you don't, the public should remove you from office. You consider developers as the enemy and government as the solution. The opposite is true. Get out of the way to pave the way for sane prices for homes. Government housing is only an extension of the welfare state and is doomed to create crime ridden "projects".
Please do not prove to the world that you are not competent to hold office.
Aloha,
Wayne N. Hedani
President
Kaanapali Operations Association, Inc.
Dear Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I sincerely hope this email finds you all in good health. I am submitting testimony in opposition to Resolution 22-70 relating to transient accommodations, which seeks to make a temporary moratorium permanent. It was only a few short months ago that ordinance 5316 was established, placing a temporary moratorium on any new transient permits. The ordinance was to place a pause on increasing transient accommodations and permits were to be limited for an interim period of time. The tourism question was to be studied and discussed and we were led to believe this process might take up to two years. Amazing how fast two short months have gone by and already there is a call to make the temporary mandate permanent. It all seems like an exceptionally quick rush to judgement on a subject that is vital to the economic success of Maui County. I ask for your consideration in opposing this legislation and to start discussions with all stakeholders. Mahalo
Gregg Nelson
General Manager
Napili Kai Beach Resort
Aloha - I tried sending this question a few weeks ago to Keani Rawlins-Fernandez’ office, but didn’t receive a response, so I’ll try here.
There are a couple of condo complexes on the Minatoya list in South Maui that are in Planned Developments, so they are zoned both A1 and PUD. Although Section 19.12.20 establishes caps on properties in the A1 and A2 districts, Section 19.32.040 caps all properties in planned developments in Kihei-Makena at 0.
QUESTION: Should the Kihei-Makena units be capped to the currently-approved PUD-zoned properties in that district, rather than 0?
The relevant sections in the TIG report are included in the email I sent to Keani Rawlins-Fernandez’ office on 2/25/22.
Visitor accommodations caps
Resolution 22-70
First and foremost, I recommend that this resolution be filed and NOT sent to the planning commissions for review and comment. This measure proposes caps that are neither practical nor enforceable. And the basis of how this measure proposes to manage tourism is simply not good policy.
This measure contains visitor accommodation counts in each community plan area but does not explain exactly what properties are represented by the cap numbers. I expect these numbers came from Real property tax records, but it is important to understand that RPT classifications show some hotels as short term rentals and other visitor accommodations are not even classified as either Hotel, Short Term Rental or Timeshare.
This measure completely ignores the largest and fastest growing group of visitor accommodations and that is properties in the non owner occupied tax classification that are used exclusively as second homes. It is important to note that when the Hawaiian Tourism Authority (HTA) calculates the number of visitors in its daily counts, it include all part time residents as visitors. These part time residents stay in their own homes condos or long term rentals. As I have previously testified, there are more than 10,000 second home units on Maui and that number is growing every year.
For point of reference, Maui County has 150 permitted Bed and Breakfast homes, 180 permitted Short Term Rental Homes, approximately 3000 time share units, 8000 hotel rooms and approximately 12,000 short term rental condos located in apartment and hotel zoning and more than 10,000 second homes. Yet this Council has spent the majority of its time and efforts trying to eliminate the 330 B&Bs and STRHs and now seeks to cap hotel rooms and condo type Short term rentals while second homes continue to proliferate throughout the island.
This measure claims its purpose as establishing a balance between residents and visitors. But I don’t believe it will in any way achieve that purpose. It is most unfortunate that the Temporary Investigative Group (TIG) did not use its time to actually “Investigate” the topic of its study and instead jumped straight to legislative actions without consideration of the broader aspects of how these actions would impact the island.
The TIG should be re-established to perform actual study of the issue of tourism management to allow the members to better understand Maui’s largest industry, how it works and include the issue of Maui’s 10,000 second homes and how Council’s recent actions have aggravated this issue by encouraging condo owners in apartment and hotel zoning to move to residential and agricultural zoning where they find much lower tax rates for their second homes.
I would have hoped the TIG would have attempted to define the specific problems caused by over tourism and have sought specific ways to better manage those problems rather than simply take an axe to some visitor accommodations and ignoring the largest growing segment of visitor accommodations.
It is most disingenuous of Council members not to acknowledge that this measure is essentially a permanent extension of the transient accommodations moratorium. Anyone who could or would support this measure is simply showing complete ignorance of sound zoning principles, Maui’s fundamental economics, and the actual over tourism problems in need of solutions. Please file this measure before it further divides our community.
Please see attached testimony.
Aloha e PSLU chair Paltin and Committee,
I support this resolution, we have an overabundance of vacation units and too few for residents. Our infrastructure and natural resources are being overused by the sheer volume of visitors. This is a good step and a great way to scale back the number of visitors without having a takings issue.
Possibly affordable housing funds could be used to turn some of these units into workforce housing, as these apartments have as much space as the newer affordable and workforce housing and are in phenomenal locations for residents to live.
As you can see again the paid lobbiests have come out in opposition. Thank you for showing the broader community's values and best interest are your priority!
Karen Comcowich
Lahaina, HI
96761
I am opposed to this resolution as it would negatively affect everyone involved. Existing rules and compliance efforts are effective here without eroding tax collections. Mahalo for your work on this!
In the months that I've been following this I've asked countless Maui residents, friends, family, clients, and coworkers, "should we have more hotels on Maui" — without exception every single person's answer was "no"
It's apparent to almost every Maui resident that bringing more people to this island will lead to decreasing the quality of life we are so fortunate to enjoy.
While I hold no sympathy for the gazillionaires conniving to profit at the expense of Maui, I can empathize with those individuals hoping to make an income operating a vacation rental, specifically if they are Maui residents.
If we could limit hotels, large developments, and out-of-state investors but allow the island residents an avenue to earn I feel that might lead to a good balance.
If we successfully limit the inventory, the price will go up. Of course, there's no guarantee that prices will rise at the former rate of development growth, but I don't believe that's a good enough reason to allow for short-term thinking driven by investment groups that view Maui only as an avenue for profit.
The resounding question I've been hearing from those opposing a moratorium is, "Where will we get our tax dollars?"
We are at the brink of a new era, not just for Maui but the world. The recent shutdowns have radically transformed business, leading to never-before-imagined job opportunities that can be done entirely remotely.
We should be incentivizing technology and media investors — companies that can generate revenue comparable to that of a large hotel but that does not bring a significant amount of people to prance around our home like it's the set of Jurassic Park or Temptation Island.
I'm one of many concerned Maui citizens that understand how precious this Island is and that we must protect its resources.
Also, selfishly, I wish to avoid simple frustrations like traffic, lack of parking, crowded beaches, and the many other negatives that come with an overabundance of tourists.
Please find attached the testimony for ARDA Hawaii in OPPOSITION to PSLU-49.
Aloha Chair Paltin, Vice-chair King and committee members,
On behalf of the Hawai'i Hotel Alliance, I am submitting testimony to express our concerns on Resolution 22-70. Earlier this year, ordinance 5316, the Moratorium, was established, placing a temporary cap on all transient accommodations for the next two (2) years. In that 2-year period, the county's purpose was to study the overall effectiveness of tourism management. It has nearly been a little over 2 months, and we are now being challenged with Resolution 22-70, placing a permanent cap on transient accommodations.
In the 2-month period of the implementation of the moratorium, has there been any data collection or economic impact study of the effects that the cap of transient accommodations will have? And if so, is 2-months a logical period of time to provide an efficient report?
Has the committee explored further solutions with interested parties aimed at finding a balanced solution?
What is the loss of revenue generated by the hotel/visitor industry by placing a cap on transient accommodations? Has the committee found another stream of revenue to fill that void? Again, hotels contribute significant taxes in GET and the TAT.
Has the committee had any discussions with local vendors who supply our hotels with its desired necessities? Local farmers, local ranchers, local fisherman, local jewelry makers, local entertainers, local distillers, local breweries, local bakers, local designers, local artists, local lei makers, and the list goes on.
Has the committee collected data on the amount of illegal short-term rentals we have in Maui county? The last report from the Planning Department reported an estimated 245 unpermitted STR's sometime towards the ending of 2021, yet Air BnB reportedly pulled close to 1300 illegal rentals from their site just last month. And that's just Air BnB...there are still a number of other vacation rental sites that haven't pulled its illegal units from their sites.
These are only five (5) questions that I ask of what can generate numerous questions due to taking action, in what I believe to be premature.
Since the establishment of the moratorium, HHA has reached out to the council to start laying a foundation in hopes of finding balanced solutions to address the issue at hand. We have reached out to some of our local vendors that supply our hotels its needs to familiarize ourselves with the impact the moratorium will have on them. We have reached out to a few of our community leaders to discuss some issues they have or have heard from their peers within the community regarding the hotel and visitor industry. We have brought on a consulting firm made up of undergrad business fraternity students from the University of Michigan to identify the illegal or unpermitted STR's in Maui county and to provide the loss of revenue Maui county is losing by having these illegal STR's operate. HHA is finding ways to partner and to help provide the necessities for our islands main resources, such as water. We are aggressively looking for partnerships to fill the gaps, to address the issues, and to be good stewards of our island, our home. These are just some of the steps that HHA has started taking in working towards a solution. The hotel industry is the base of a diversified economy. We have the resources to help provide to our local watersheds, we source local products that are available to us, equipping our local vendors with what they need to maintain a flourishing business, and again, this is our farmers, our ranchers, our fisherman, our entertainers, our lei makers, etc. At a recent visit to the Kea Lani, I counted approximately 20 vendors selling their items in the lobby area. When asked what the fee was for the vendor space, I was told that it's $5.00. I'm not aware of any other place that vendors lease space for only $5.00, that's unheard of. But this is just an example of one hotel being able to host 20 local vendors at a very low fee, and it's helping people right here on our island. HHA has been in multiple discussions with our construction brothers and sisters, who through this pandemic, have been able to continue to provide for their families with the help of most jobs coming from the hotel industry. We have met with our brothers and sisters in ILWU who have shared similar concerns in regards to the establishment of the moratorium. HHA intends on continuing its work in finding a balanced solution and working with the county council, the community, and our partners...it is part of our kuleana to maintain a lifestyle that we can all enjoy and to create an environment that we can all live in.
I ask the committee not to adopt resolution 22-70 and to not refer it to the planning commissions and advisory committees. I ask the council to allow the moratorium to fulfill its purpose of the overall effectiveness of tourism management, to do the research on the economic impact as a result of the temporary moratorium, address the illegal activities of the STR's and the camper vehicles, and when the research is complete, if a balanced solution hasn't been met up to that date, to then have further discussions on such implementations.
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
Lahela Aiwohi
Hawai'i Hotel Alliance
To whom it may concern,
This has been an unprecedented time of financial struggle for me and my fellow Hawaii residents who rely on the tourism industry for their income. Tourism is the biggest industry here in Hawaii and we have been suffering greatly from this Global pandemic!
We grew up here on Maui and work really hard to make it here in Hawaii so we can stay where we grew up.
We are fully self-employed and because of that, we didn't have any paid vacation to rely on during the pandemic or paid sick time from a corporation.
We happen to have 2 legitimate condos in properly zoned areas for short term rental however I believe you should make short term rental easier for any property owner on Maui to help the average local residents benefit from the tourism industry here. The low wages and the high cost of living here are really challenging for those of us who grew up here and as well for those who have moved here.
It would be nice if the little guy was able to take a market share of the tourism industry that thrives here. Not to mention super helpful to get people out of the financial challenges that the pandemic has brought.
We had to pull money out of our retirements to get us through the pandemic. Please help those of us who are self-employed in the tourism sector here on Maui and across Hawaii. Please do not only help the big hotel corporations, please also help the small business owners like us. Thanks so much for your time. Aloha
Dear Chair Paltin, Vice Chair King, and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Airbnb, mahalo for the opportunity to comment on the proposed transient accommodation caps. Airbnb has worked to advocate for sensible short-term rental policy that allows our community to be compliant and supports the local tourism industry in Maui County. We are deeply concerned by this proposal to cap transient accommodations, which could have many negative consequences on the local economy, disregards ongoing compliance efforts, and raises legal concerns.
--Negative impacts on local economy--
Airbnb has played a critical role in the County’s recovery from the pandemic, lifting up local Hosts as well as entire local economies. The typical Host in Hawaii earned more than $11,500 in 2021, which represents about two extra months of pay for the median US household and is far more than most Americans received in government-provided stimulus payments. Women Hosts in the US, who make up 59 percent of our US Host community, earned more than $4 billion in the first three quarters of 2021. In addition, since 2010, Hosts in Hawaii have earned a total of approximately $2 billion. According to the January 2022 Hawaii Tourism Authority’s Vacation Rental Performance Report, the average daily rate of vacation rental in Maui was $363, providing a more affordable lodging option than hotels which have an average daily rate of $619. Moreover, each Host and property supports several other local small businesses including but not limited to maintenance, housekeeping, management, and landscaping. Capping transient accommodations in Maui County will therefore have significant negative impacts on hosts, guests, and the local economy.
--Disregards ongoing compliance efforts--
Airbnb has been playing an active role in promoting responsible hosting in Maui County. As you are likely aware, Airbnb and Expedia recently implemented compliance agreements with Maui County, similar to an agreement that has been in effect with Kauai County with great results for over a year. These compliance agreements provide powerful tools to support the counties’ enforcement of their short-term rental regulations, and are part of our ongoing commitment to partner with the communities our Hosts and guests call home. Pursuant to its agreement with Maui County, Airbnb took down more than 1,300 listings without TMK numbers in late January. Here on out, Airbnb will provide monthly reports to the County that can be used to verify TMK numbers of active listings on our platform. We believe this type of collaboration with the County can help maximize benefits of transient accommodations to Maui County, its residents and its visitors, while helping weed out bad actors. As such, we urge the Committee to give these compliance agreements a chance to be effective before considering new restrictions on transient accommodations.
--Raises legal concerns--
We are concerned that the transient accommodation cap could run afoul of state law, which regulates the ability of counties to institute land use changes. Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 46-4, ensures that nonconforming residential uses, which includes transient accommodation uses, cannot be amortized or phased out by local laws. Since it is unclear how the proposed caps would square with this provision, we urge the Committee to carefully consider the issue. Past litigation supports this position (see, e.g., Robert D. Ferris Trust v. Planning Commission of County of Kauai, 138 Hawaii 307 (2016) (“preexisting lawful uses of property are generally considered to be vested rights that zoning ordinances may not abrogate”); Kendrick v. County of Kauai, No. CAAP-20-00057, Haw. Intermediate Ct. App (2020) (“plain and obvious meaning of the state statute [HRS, Section 46-4] . . .provides that a nonconforming use shall not be lost unless discontinued”)).
* * *
Mahalo for taking our comments and concerns into consideration. As always, we welcome an opportunity for continued discussion and collaboration on fair, reasonable regulations of transient accommodations in Maui County.
Sincerely,
Toral Patel
Airbnb Public Policy, Hawaii
I am opposed to this resolution.
Testimony of
Mufi Hannemann
President & CEO
Hawai‘i Lodging & Tourism Association
Maui County Council
Planning & Sustainable Land Use Committee
Resolution 22-70
March 17, 2022
Chair Paltin and members of the Committee, mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Hawai‘i Lodging & Tourism Association, the state’s largest and oldest private sector visitor industry organization.
The Hawai‘i Lodging & Tourism Association—nearly 700 members strong, representing more than 50,000 hotel rooms and nearly 40,000 lodging workers—recognizes that the intent of this measure is to place limitations on the overall numbers of travelers that can stay on Maui on any given day. However, it remains our position that placing arbitrary caps on the number of transient accommodations will not achieve this goal. Reducing or limiting the number of available accommodations for prospective travelers will not address the demand for travel to Hawai‘i or Maui County for that matter. Even if the proposed legislation were to pass, it will not reduce the number of flights or travelers that head for Maui to vacation. These travelers, faced with a shortage of available accommodations caused by this proposed measure, will ultimately seek out alternative lodging options like short-term rentals—both legal and not.
As we have noted in previous testimony before the Maui County Council and other legislative bodies around the state, it has become glaringly clear over the past several years that the explosive growth in transient accommodation units is not occurring in traditional, brick-and-mortar lodging operations but in short-term rental units. This has happened in both resort and residential zoned areas, and Maui residents continue to suffer the consequences. Limiting the number of available accommodations while not enacting clear measures and oversight of short-term rentals will ultimately drive more travelers to these units and will place further stress on Maui’s affordable housing market. We believe this is where more emphasis needs to be placed by government and a collaborative effort made with the private sector and labor groups to make our neighborhoods more affordable for local residents.
As it stands, Maui relies upon tourism for its economic well-being; this was evident throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. It provides outside dollars that residents rely upon for employment, not only in the lodging industry, but also in retail, dining, activities and attractions, and even the agricultural sector which counts tourism among its most consistent customers. If visitors are forced away from resort zones toward short-term rentals, Maui’s hospitality sector will suffer, and Maui residents will find fewer and fewer housing and career opportunities.
For these reasons, HLTA opposes Resolution 22-70.
Mahalo for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
Aloha Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I am trying to understand how you can pass a two year moratorium and then after just two months attempt to make it permanent. It is impossible to have a full understanding of the impact after just two months. What has happened in this short time that makes you believe it should be permanent?
Our entire community benefits from the visitor industry. Yes, there are trade offs but it is still the primary driver of our economy. We need to make sure this industry stays healthy and vibrant while balancing it with the overall needs of our community. Making this moratorium permanent has the potential to negatively impact our number one industry.
While I oppose the concept of making the moratorium permanent due to this potential negative impact, I also oppose this resolution because it comes just two months after the initial passage. Until the overall affect of the initial resolution is analyzed, there should be no effort to make the moratorium permanent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barry Helle
Waikapu
Aloha Chair Paltin, Vice-Chair King and Committee members,
The Maui Hotel & Lodging Association (MHLA) is the legislative arm of the visitor industry for Maui County. We represent over 170 property and allied business members and more than 12,000 workers. These employees rely on their jobs at the hotels, restaurants, activity companies, construction to provide for their families, send their children to college, and plan for their futures here in the islands.
The Resolution being heard 22-70, Relating to Transient Accommodation Caps (PSLU-49) is now seeking to make the Temporary Moratorium [Bill 148], just established in January of this year, permanent. The moratorium that is already in effect should be reviewed for its overall effectiveness in tourism management before another moratorium overrides and makes it permanent.
The moratorium being discussed will not have the overall desired effect of limiting arrivals to the islands. In fact, by introducing a cap, another accommodation platform could surface to accommodate the loss. Our hotels and timeshares contribute significant taxes in RPT, GET, TAT, and provide substantial charitable giving to the community. Other platforms could operate illegally without paying any taxes.
Additionally, this could be seen as taking of vested rights and could be challenged in court. This is taking away the value of someone's property by placing an indefinite moratorium on their use of that property. There is a very real possibility this could lead to years of litigation wasting taxpayers' dollars.
MHLA is respectfully asking for the Council to have a more in-depth review of the current temporary moratorium before seeking its permanence.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony,
Lisa Paulson
Executive Director
Maui Hotel & Lodging Association
Aloha Honorable Councilmembers,
I'm a long-time Maui resident, born and raised in Hawaii, and am writing to share my concerns about this resolution. The County JUST passed a two-year moratorium on transient accommodations, with the idea that the two-year period would give us time to gather more information and make recommendations on how to make things better. Now it feels like we are rushing to implement changes without taking the time to truly do what we said we would.
In my personal experience, broad moratoriums do not necessarily achieve good results due to unintended consequences, for example, by creating a kind of black market among individuals who find ways to circumvent the moratorium.
I am no fan of over-tourism, but I believe a healthy visitor industry is valuable to our economy and social fabric. I ask the Council to please table this resolution and instead, make full use the two-year period to further study and understand the challenges, gather diverse insights from a broad cross-section of experts and residents, and consider a range of thoughtful approaches to making improvements.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Luly Unemori
Wailuku
Aloha Committee Chair Paltin, Committee Vice-Chair King, and Committee Members,
I am submitting the following testimony on behalf of the REALTORS Association of Maui and our 1,900+ members. The REALTORS Association of Maui is currently “Neutral” on the proposed cap legislation, but we have deep concerns regarding how the caps will be set and enforced. It is our hope that the committee will directly address these concerns before sending the legislation to the Planning Commissions for review.
Our top concern related to this legislation is the preservation of vested property rights for current and future property owners. Through past legislation, the explicit language of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and direct communications with RAM and other interested parties, the County of Maui has repeatedly recognized the right to conduct transient accommodations for many property owners throughout the county. These property owners have reasonable investment-backed expectations that their rights will be protected, yet we have seen numerous proposals recently that seek to revoke these vested rights. RAM is concerned that this legislation will turn into yet another vehicle to try and strip property owners of their rights.
To assure that property rights are maintained, RAM strongly urges the committee to ensure that the caps in each zoning district and community area are inclusive of all properties that have a vested right to conduct transient accommodations, regardless of whether they are currently doing so or not. Moreover, we ask for clarification in the legislation regarding enforcement of the caps. Specifically, it should be noted that transient vacation rentals in multi-family structures, such as condominiums in the Apartment Districts, have always been administered and enforced by the Planning Department on a property-wide basis, not on a unit-by-unit basis. Therefore, the administration and enforcement of future TVR unit caps should also occur on a property wide basis. Similarly, the language of the legislation should clearly state the criteria and methodology for determining properties that qualify to fall under the proposed cap, and allow for the cap to be raised to accommodate any properties that should be included under that criteria, but are not.
Though the edits to the county code are clear, the method by which these changes are being made is still too ambiguous. Please provide clarity on how the caps were determined, which properties are intended to be included under the caps, and how the caps will be administered and enforced before sending this to the Planning Commissions for review. These are key pieces of information that are not outlined in the legislation, and have not been clearly established in council discussions of the legislation either.
Mahalo,
Jason A. Economou
Government Affairs Director
REALTORS Association of Maui
I am a respectful home owner and love to share my beautiful home w guests. I am careful and particular about my guests and my home, which is well maintained by well paid Maui residents I am honored to be in a position to share it w others. There are many many STR owners who provide a high quality service, support my housekeepers, maintenance people and refer my guests to restaurants and activities in our area. I also pay taxes monthly( 3 different taxes). Please consider the small and respectful owners!
Thank you
Kelly
Aloha, My name is Patrick Reichert. I am an owner of a unit at the Kihei Bay Surf, 715 So. Kihei Rd. I purchased this unit 11 years ago and have been operating transient accommodations there since then when we are not staying there. I have a GET and TAT tax number and have been paying all my taxes. I bought the property because it was zoned for this type of activity. There is 118 studio apartments in the complex, it was built in 1980, and most all of the units are used for transient accommodations. I have watched the property taxes skyrocket with the property value and I have watched the TAT percentage skyrocket to where I am paying the same percentage as the big resorts on the island.
This complex is not suitable for family living as they are all studio apartments, the HOA fees alone are prohibitive as well as the cost to purchase a unit and the square footage is only enough for 2 people. The county claims it is a residential neighborhood but allowed a resort to build a 300 unit complex 1 block down the street at the old Maui Lu site. There are many hotels across the street and down the So. Kihei Rd from our location. Our property has been operating as Transient rental for many many years.
Now the county wants to change the rules about transient rentals, phasing out select units and complexes, while allowing others to continue operating, using the reasoning that they want to create housing for the residents and curbing tourist numbers. While these are noble and worthwhile goals to achieve, I do NOT believe this is the way to achieve those goals.
I believe being so selective about who to eliminate and who can continue is prejudicial. If you don't want transient accommodations, eliminate them all, don't cherry pick which can stay and which have to go. It seems to me that elimination of illegal transient activity and not allowing future new activity is much more just and fair. To allow a new 300 bed resort to be built 1 block away from a complex that has been operating for many years and then eliminating the complex just has a bad smell to me...hotels to the left and right of our complex but we are being judged to be residential...It just is not right, just or fair.
We are to be allowed to continue our transient operations by being "grandfathered" in but when we sell the new owner will not be allowed to operate transient, which will create problems within the complex as residents and transient activities do not mix well, will drive down property values resulting in lost tax revenue that could be used for building suitable resident housing, loss of TAT and GET tax revenue for both the county and state, as well as the legal conflicts that are sure to materialize over selective legislation such as this.
I urge the planning board to reject this proposal and put their talents to work to come up with a plan that moves forward with the goals they seem to have, affordable and suitable housing for residents and limiting tourism to more manageable numbers. Do not attempt to meet your goals by throwing honest, hard working tax paying property owners under the bus with a plan that will not meet the goals that you have set out to achieve. Pono...Do the right thing!
Respectfully submitted
Patrick Reichert
Owner of a unit at Kihei Bay Surf
What the committee is proposing appears to be illegal. You cannot have an indeterminate moratorium without just compensation. If you are permanently taking away someone's development rights granted under their approved zoning you must compensate them for the loss in value in that taking. You cannot afford that and you are headed for a legal quagmire which is totally irresponsible and more to the point unnecessary for good government.
If your goal is to control tourism, you should direct tourism into masterplanned destination resorts which have been zoned for 60 years for that purpose. These destination resort areas are already capped by existing zoning which cannot be exceeded. In most cases the lands are fully developed. There is some room for foreseeable future growth through expansions or redevelopment of older properties but these are all still capped by maximum densities established when the zoning was granted. It is in short controlled. It cannot exceed allowable densities.
What the council has done which unleashed uncontrollable growth in tourism was approving an ordinance to allow visitors to occupy single family residential units as hotels. 800 short term rental "hotels" were initially authorized through the TVR and STRH legislation. This has proven to be a disaster to the neighborhoods in which they operate. It escalates property values to the point where residents can no longer afford the property taxes for their own homes. The council made a mistake by passing these ordinances and should correct their error by rescinding both ordinances and making these uses no longer legal. When the existing permits expire they should not be renewed. This would be an effective means of correcting a past mistake and restoring some sense of sanity to our residential neighborhoods. In short, it would absolutely control overtourism.
Instead of doing this, the council has taken a meat axe approach to the problem and directed their wrath at well planned destination resorts and short term rental homes with no distinction between the two. You are in fact throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You need to accommodate future demand. You should do so by directing growth to destination areas where tourism can be controlled and limited. Not prohibiting growth in these areas which is what you are now proposing. Failure to accommodate growth in planned areas will result in growth of illegal operations in all neighborhoods. If that is your goal you will certainly achieve uncontrolled overtourism rather than control it.
You don't correct a past mistake by doubling down and making the problem even worse. Do your job. Control tourism by controlling uncontrolled growth in residential neighborhoods and restricting growth to master planned, zoned, and limited destination areas.
Homes are now costing over a million dollars for residents. Who can afford that? Not our local people for sure. It is your fault and you should be working to fix this problem. If you don't, the public should remove you from office. You consider developers as the enemy and government as the solution. The opposite is true. Get out of the way to pave the way for sane prices for homes. Government housing is only an extension of the welfare state and is doomed to create crime ridden "projects".
Please do not prove to the world that you are not competent to hold office.
Aloha,
Wayne N. Hedani
President
Kaanapali Operations Association, Inc.
Dear Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I sincerely hope this email finds you all in good health. I am submitting testimony in opposition to Resolution 22-70 relating to transient accommodations, which seeks to make a temporary moratorium permanent. It was only a few short months ago that ordinance 5316 was established, placing a temporary moratorium on any new transient permits. The ordinance was to place a pause on increasing transient accommodations and permits were to be limited for an interim period of time. The tourism question was to be studied and discussed and we were led to believe this process might take up to two years. Amazing how fast two short months have gone by and already there is a call to make the temporary mandate permanent. It all seems like an exceptionally quick rush to judgement on a subject that is vital to the economic success of Maui County. I ask for your consideration in opposing this legislation and to start discussions with all stakeholders. Mahalo
Gregg Nelson
General Manager
Napili Kai Beach Resort
Aloha - I tried sending this question a few weeks ago to Keani Rawlins-Fernandez’ office, but didn’t receive a response, so I’ll try here.
There are a couple of condo complexes on the Minatoya list in South Maui that are in Planned Developments, so they are zoned both A1 and PUD. Although Section 19.12.20 establishes caps on properties in the A1 and A2 districts, Section 19.32.040 caps all properties in planned developments in Kihei-Makena at 0.
QUESTION: Should the Kihei-Makena units be capped to the currently-approved PUD-zoned properties in that district, rather than 0?
The relevant sections in the TIG report are included in the email I sent to Keani Rawlins-Fernandez’ office on 2/25/22.
Mahalo,
Patricia Griffin