Of course everyone who has opposed this has a direct financial gain in tourism. I think the general public can see anyone directly involved in tourism and financially benefitting is a conflict of interest. I like the criteria and think people who have hospitality experience / background but are not financially benefitting would be a great alternative to those who literally get paid to lobby for tourism. The diversity required on this commission is actually a breath of fresh air. HTA is obviously failing at their jobs sitting in their seats on O'ahu, so for this reason I support a Local Branch of this ongoing issue to better mediate the blatant over tourism Maui County is battling. It's clear our State & County choose Profit over the People, so maybe this is a step in the right direction.
Aloha Committee Chair Johnson and Committee Members,
Though I agree with the general concept of changing and even increasing tourism management in Maui County, the timing and practical implications of this bill are not good. The main problems are as follow:
First, with the County facing well documented staffing shortages during a time of unprecedented strain due to fire recovery efforts, it does not seem wise to add another commission that will need to be staffed and supported through the Office of the Mayor. Does the capacity exist to give this commission the support it needs? If not, what other functions will have to suffer in order to support this commission?
Second, the county is already behind in meeting the new charter requirements from the last election, and generally not doing so well at meeting its longstanding obligations to county residents (like providing housing infrastructure, conducting zoning reform, providing sufficient levels of potable water, or mitigating known risks related to climate change). Why add more functions when you aren't meeting the ones you are already responsible for?
Third, the County has had a hard time finding qualified residents to fill boards and commissions for many years now. If you can't find people for the boards and commissions that already exist, why add a new commission with unnecessarily narrow requirements for membership?
Fourth, having a commission on tourism management that actively seeks to eliminate participation from people familiar with the tourism industry just doesn't seem like a good way to come up with workable or useful solutions. That would be like eliminating the elderly from the Council on Aging or farmers from the Ag Park Committee because they might somehow benefit from the recommendations that come out of their committee.
Fifth, given declines in tourism numbers already, is this commission necessary at this particular time? Are there other things worth focusing on? I seem to recall a comprehensive affordable housing plan from a couple of years ago that had some action items that haven't been addressed (like zoning reform). Perhaps some extra attention could go into that?
Of course everyone who has opposed this has a direct financial gain in tourism. I think the general public can see anyone directly involved in tourism and financially benefitting is a conflict of interest. I like the criteria and think people who have hospitality experience / background but are not financially benefitting would be a great alternative to those who literally get paid to lobby for tourism. The diversity required on this commission is actually a breath of fresh air. HTA is obviously failing at their jobs sitting in their seats on O'ahu, so for this reason I support a Local Branch of this ongoing issue to better mediate the blatant over tourism Maui County is battling. It's clear our State & County choose Profit over the People, so maybe this is a step in the right direction.
Aloha Committee Chair Johnson and Committee Members,
Though I agree with the general concept of changing and even increasing tourism management in Maui County, the timing and practical implications of this bill are not good. The main problems are as follow:
First, with the County facing well documented staffing shortages during a time of unprecedented strain due to fire recovery efforts, it does not seem wise to add another commission that will need to be staffed and supported through the Office of the Mayor. Does the capacity exist to give this commission the support it needs? If not, what other functions will have to suffer in order to support this commission?
Second, the county is already behind in meeting the new charter requirements from the last election, and generally not doing so well at meeting its longstanding obligations to county residents (like providing housing infrastructure, conducting zoning reform, providing sufficient levels of potable water, or mitigating known risks related to climate change). Why add more functions when you aren't meeting the ones you are already responsible for?
Third, the County has had a hard time finding qualified residents to fill boards and commissions for many years now. If you can't find people for the boards and commissions that already exist, why add a new commission with unnecessarily narrow requirements for membership?
Fourth, having a commission on tourism management that actively seeks to eliminate participation from people familiar with the tourism industry just doesn't seem like a good way to come up with workable or useful solutions. That would be like eliminating the elderly from the Council on Aging or farmers from the Ag Park Committee because they might somehow benefit from the recommendations that come out of their committee.
Fifth, given declines in tourism numbers already, is this commission necessary at this particular time? Are there other things worth focusing on? I seem to recall a comprehensive affordable housing plan from a couple of years ago that had some action items that haven't been addressed (like zoning reform). Perhaps some extra attention could go into that?
Mahalo,
Jason Economou
I Support this action.
Maui Hotel and Lodging Association is submitting comments and proposed changes in the attached testimony.