I support this most recent version of PLU34, essentially giving the choice to the HOA and owners of individual condo and apartment complexes to phase out TVR if the majority of their owners vote for that.
Aloha Committee Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the REALTORS Association of Maui and our 2,000 members in my capacity as their Government Affairs Director. The REALTORS Association of Maui (RAM) remains strongly opposed to the legislative proposals put forth in County Communication 21-422 (dated 08-04-2021) and in Correspondence from Council Vice-Chair Rawlins-Fernandez dated 10-29-2021. Notwithstanding, RAM supports the most recent legislative proposal contained in the Correspondence from Committee Chair dated 05-27-2022.
As we have expressed in previous testimony, the two legislative proposals put forward in 2021 failed to recognize the well established equitable doctrines of vested rights and zoning estoppel in Hawaii jurisprudence. The fact remains that transient accommodations are a permitted, and thereby “conforming,” use within the Apartment Districts. As such, the County of Maui cannot simply eliminate the use and strip property owners of a vested right that is both explicitly permitted by zoning, and supported by countless assurances from county officials over the span of decades. To do so would be a clear violation of Hawaii law, and a likely violation of state and federal due process. With that in mind, we urge this committee to abandon the previous proposals in whole, and focus exclusively on Committee Chair Paltin’s most recent proposal.
The newest proposal from Committee Chair Paltin does an excellent job of balancing the vested rights of property owners against this Council’s desire to reduce the number of TVRs. This method of voluntary conversion is necessary to avoid harsh legal and economic consequences for the county, and it is likely to succeed over time given the consistent trend of tax increases placed on the short term rental class. In that sense, if these properties are to be removed from the short term rental property tax class upon conversion, this legislation is more of a tax relief measure than a land use restriction.
Ultimately, the County of Maui must recognize that it has a duty to respect and uphold the vested rights of individuals, as well as a duty to preserve the economic well being of the county. We know that the earlier proposals would violate vested rights of property owners, and we have economic data that strongly suggests those proposals could eliminate approximately 14,000 jobs and upwards of $2 billion from Maui County’s annual GDP. These consequences can largely be avoided simply by incentivizing the actions you want and working with property owners, instead of against them.
The REALTORS Association of Maui recognizes that this Council’s interest in phasing out transient accommodations in the Apartment Districts is well intended, and seeks to address the concerns of the community. Notwithstanding, two of the three proposals you have before you are essentially unlawful and accompanied by significant negative economic consequences (a slide deck outlining those consequences is attached). With that in mind, we urge you to focus your efforts on other issues facing the county, or move forward with the newest legislative proposal from 05-27-2022.
Mahalo,
Jason A. Economou
Government Affairs Director
REALTORS Association of Maui
I think the new proposal is the right thing to do in this situation. This protects the rights of property owners and doesn't take the right away from property owners who have utilized this right for many years.
I would think the higher tax rates that these owners pay for these properties, is a substantial piece of the county budget.
And it's good for the consumers who visit the island to have at least a few other choices than super high-priced resort hotels.
Dear Chair Paltin, Vice Chair King, and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Airbnb, mahalo for the opportunity to comment on recent proposals to phase out transient accommodations in apartment districts. Airbnb has worked to advocate for a reasonable short-term rental policy that ensures our compliance with local laws and supports the tourism industry in Maui County. We are deeply concerned by the proposed phasing-out of transient accommodations, which (1) risks harming the local economy; (2) interferes with the stable framework for short-term rentals currently in place; and (3) poses a direct conflict with state law.
Negative impact on the local economy
Airbnb has been proud to play a critical part in the County’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. 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. Since 2010, Hosts in Hawaii have earned a total of approximately $2 billion. Each Host and property in turn contributes to the local economy by supporting local small businesses that provide maintenance, housekeeping, management, landscaping, and other services.
Phasing out transient accommodations in certain zones prevents Hosts from earning critical income, deprives the local economy of vital support during challenging times, and reduces tax revenue for the County. Those consequences will likely be compounded by other proposals that seek to limit the overall number of transient accommodations in Maui.
Interference with existing regulatory framework
Airbnb has worked with Maui to support a reasonable regulatory scheme for short-term rentals, providing stability, transparency, and certainty to Hosts and guests. At the heart of that framework is the compliance agreement between Airbnb and Maui, signed in 2021, which gives the County powerful tools to enforce its regulations. Under that agreement, Airbnb took down more than 1,300 listings without TMK numbers in late January and continues to take down noncompliant listings on a monthly basis.
We urge the Committee to continue to leverage our existing compliance framework and utilize its two-year planning process to develop comprehensive, reasonable regulations for hospitality accommodations across the island. That approach would prevent ad hoc, patchwork amendments from disrupting ongoing efforts and shifting the regulatory goalposts for Hosts, platforms, and County staff charged with enforcement.
Direct conflict with state law
The proposed phasing-out of transient vacation rentals in apartment districts stands in tension with state law. Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 46-4, protects the “continued lawful use” of buildings or premises for residential purposes and bars local laws from amortizing or phasing out nonconforming residential uses. 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”)). The phase-out proposals at issue target the offering of a residential dwelling unit as a transient accommodation in apartment districts–a fundamentally residential use protected by the state statute. Kendrick, No. CAAP-20-00057, Haw. Intermediate Ct. App, *13 n.2 (planning commissions have found that transient vacation rentals qualify as “residential use”).
* * *
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 vacation rentals in Maui County.
Testimony received by PSLU Committee.
Aloha Council Members,
I support this most recent version of PLU34, essentially giving the choice to the HOA and owners of individual condo and apartment complexes to phase out TVR if the majority of their owners vote for that.
Much Mahalo,
Colleen P Medeiros
Please see attached written testimony.
Aloha Committee Chair Paltin and Committee Members,
I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the REALTORS Association of Maui and our 2,000 members in my capacity as their Government Affairs Director. The REALTORS Association of Maui (RAM) remains strongly opposed to the legislative proposals put forth in County Communication 21-422 (dated 08-04-2021) and in Correspondence from Council Vice-Chair Rawlins-Fernandez dated 10-29-2021. Notwithstanding, RAM supports the most recent legislative proposal contained in the Correspondence from Committee Chair dated 05-27-2022.
As we have expressed in previous testimony, the two legislative proposals put forward in 2021 failed to recognize the well established equitable doctrines of vested rights and zoning estoppel in Hawaii jurisprudence. The fact remains that transient accommodations are a permitted, and thereby “conforming,” use within the Apartment Districts. As such, the County of Maui cannot simply eliminate the use and strip property owners of a vested right that is both explicitly permitted by zoning, and supported by countless assurances from county officials over the span of decades. To do so would be a clear violation of Hawaii law, and a likely violation of state and federal due process. With that in mind, we urge this committee to abandon the previous proposals in whole, and focus exclusively on Committee Chair Paltin’s most recent proposal.
The newest proposal from Committee Chair Paltin does an excellent job of balancing the vested rights of property owners against this Council’s desire to reduce the number of TVRs. This method of voluntary conversion is necessary to avoid harsh legal and economic consequences for the county, and it is likely to succeed over time given the consistent trend of tax increases placed on the short term rental class. In that sense, if these properties are to be removed from the short term rental property tax class upon conversion, this legislation is more of a tax relief measure than a land use restriction.
Ultimately, the County of Maui must recognize that it has a duty to respect and uphold the vested rights of individuals, as well as a duty to preserve the economic well being of the county. We know that the earlier proposals would violate vested rights of property owners, and we have economic data that strongly suggests those proposals could eliminate approximately 14,000 jobs and upwards of $2 billion from Maui County’s annual GDP. These consequences can largely be avoided simply by incentivizing the actions you want and working with property owners, instead of against them.
The REALTORS Association of Maui recognizes that this Council’s interest in phasing out transient accommodations in the Apartment Districts is well intended, and seeks to address the concerns of the community. Notwithstanding, two of the three proposals you have before you are essentially unlawful and accompanied by significant negative economic consequences (a slide deck outlining those consequences is attached). With that in mind, we urge you to focus your efforts on other issues facing the county, or move forward with the newest legislative proposal from 05-27-2022.
Mahalo,
Jason A. Economou
Government Affairs Director
REALTORS Association of Maui
Mahalo for the opportunity to submit testimony.
I think the new proposal is the right thing to do in this situation. This protects the rights of property owners and doesn't take the right away from property owners who have utilized this right for many years.
I would think the higher tax rates that these owners pay for these properties, is a substantial piece of the county budget.
And it's good for the consumers who visit the island to have at least a few other choices than super high-priced resort hotels.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Ramos
Dear Chair Paltin, Vice Chair King, and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Airbnb, mahalo for the opportunity to comment on recent proposals to phase out transient accommodations in apartment districts. Airbnb has worked to advocate for a reasonable short-term rental policy that ensures our compliance with local laws and supports the tourism industry in Maui County. We are deeply concerned by the proposed phasing-out of transient accommodations, which (1) risks harming the local economy; (2) interferes with the stable framework for short-term rentals currently in place; and (3) poses a direct conflict with state law.
Negative impact on the local economy
Airbnb has been proud to play a critical part in the County’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. 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. Since 2010, Hosts in Hawaii have earned a total of approximately $2 billion. Each Host and property in turn contributes to the local economy by supporting local small businesses that provide maintenance, housekeeping, management, landscaping, and other services.
Phasing out transient accommodations in certain zones prevents Hosts from earning critical income, deprives the local economy of vital support during challenging times, and reduces tax revenue for the County. Those consequences will likely be compounded by other proposals that seek to limit the overall number of transient accommodations in Maui.
Interference with existing regulatory framework
Airbnb has worked with Maui to support a reasonable regulatory scheme for short-term rentals, providing stability, transparency, and certainty to Hosts and guests. At the heart of that framework is the compliance agreement between Airbnb and Maui, signed in 2021, which gives the County powerful tools to enforce its regulations. Under that agreement, Airbnb took down more than 1,300 listings without TMK numbers in late January and continues to take down noncompliant listings on a monthly basis.
We urge the Committee to continue to leverage our existing compliance framework and utilize its two-year planning process to develop comprehensive, reasonable regulations for hospitality accommodations across the island. That approach would prevent ad hoc, patchwork amendments from disrupting ongoing efforts and shifting the regulatory goalposts for Hosts, platforms, and County staff charged with enforcement.
Direct conflict with state law
The proposed phasing-out of transient vacation rentals in apartment districts stands in tension with state law. Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 46-4, protects the “continued lawful use” of buildings or premises for residential purposes and bars local laws from amortizing or phasing out nonconforming residential uses. 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”)). The phase-out proposals at issue target the offering of a residential dwelling unit as a transient accommodation in apartment districts–a fundamentally residential use protected by the state statute. Kendrick, No. CAAP-20-00057, Haw. Intermediate Ct. App, *13 n.2 (planning commissions have found that transient vacation rentals qualify as “residential use”).
* * *
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 vacation rentals in Maui County.
Sincerely,
Ayisha Irfan
Airbnb Public Policy