Since my wife and I along with two friends purchased our condo we have never made a profit as a STR. Renting our unit has helped cover the enormous tax bill, 18k for our 1000 sqft unit, and the over 1100 per month AOAO fees.
This legislation forces us to choose to either sell, or let the unit sit empty. Our unit will never be a viable long term rental and there is no point in owning it as a long term rental since we could never use it.
I know the devastating effects the legislation has on our family. What I would appreciate from the council is honesty about how this legislation will help local housing. What are the steps to get there. There are hundreds of condo units for sale right now that are not being purchased for local housing. So if that is truly the goal and this is not the hotel lobby attempting a massive wealth transfer please state the true intent.
The only way my condo becomes affordable is if the county drives the price down by roughly 90% and then it is still a small unit with no outside storage and 1 parking spot. Is this the first goal of the county? This will likely send many families into foreclosure because most condos have significant debt based on legal STR income at the time of borrowing as part of the loan qualifying.
Since these units will end up sitting empty if this legislation passes, is the real goal just that. Is this legislation really intended to eliminate visitors to the island? It will for sure do this, so if that is the goal please say so.
The third option I see is even more sinister. Is this legislation truly intended to drive up rates for hotels by elimination what has been legal competition for decades? It will in fact do this, is this the true goal? To make massive corporations and investors even more money.
In conclusion, as evidenced by the fact that these units could be purchased today for local housing and are indeed not being purchased, I believe the council owes us an honest answer as to its true intentions. If the council is not honest now it is quite certain that the truth will come out at some point.
This legislation is devastating to many and extremely uncertain as to who it helps besides the hotel lobby. I strongly oppose the bill. I do not think it is moral to harm so many families who purchased these condos in good faith based on their legal ability at the time to operate as STR's. It seems like robbery from middle class families and no one truly benefits, you just get to say you did something.
My wife and I own a condo slated to be affected by this legislation. We are opposed to this as it will greatly affect the economy of Maui. Property values will go down, thus less revenue in property taxes. Less GET charged for STR. Let's forget for a moment these two large matters. Local businesses, restaurants in particular are supported by tourist. Their patronage by tourist keep the doors open and people employed. And then there are the cleaning people after STR move out weekly. Less condos to clean no need to hire so many of them. Then maintenance workers, same thing.
We were living there during the fires and afterwards. My wife volunteered at the red cross facility set up in Pukalani. We attended a could of fund raiders to try to help out ( along with several other owners in our complex. We are currently rent our place to FEMA for a fire victim. There is lots of Aloha in Maui. I do not think this is the solution from an economic standpoint point and what's fair to existing owners.
Our association dues for our 1 bed bath ( 2 bedroom pay more) all in is 1,000/month. couple that with special assessments for continual maintenance. This would not be a solution for affordable housing. For locals to purchase or rent.
My solution would be to let builders come in and build some low income housing. It would still be expensive to build, but if there is a subsidy program ( like the apartments up by the golf course in Kihei) , then it would create more places for locals to live. There seems to be a fair amount of open land to make this happen. In Lahaina area and other parts of the island as well.
My concern if this were to pass is, local businesses would loose some business or worst case close their door altogether,resulting in more economic hardship on people and Maui itself.
Bill #9 has a very viable ambition at its core: provide housing for locals. That is a cause that is universally acceptable to anyone, including vacation rental owners.
The reason I'm opposed to Bill #9 is that it unilaterally imposes the cost of this ambition on a single targeted group of 7K condo owners. The vilification of these property owners - who each have their own families and livelihoods to support - is misplaced. All of these property owners purchase on Maui because they too love the island. In fact, we all love Maui...this too is universally accepted.
So if we all love Maui and we all believe there should be housing for locals, we should be able to come to a solution that doesn't put two sides in direct opposition to one another. Instead of a zero-sum solution as Bill #9 puts forward, let's go for a win-win. Here are some ideas:
1) Enforce vacation rental laws. There are still many illegal operations around the island. They are more difficult to quantify and harder to point at than the 7K legally operated units. But the importance of accurate recordkeeping and strict legal enforcement cannot be understated.
2) Freeze the current vacation rental quotas where they are. This caps the production of new vacation rentals, and any new housing developed on Maui is thus definitionally for the benefit of locals.
3) Continue charging the high TAT / MCAT taxes; drive these proceeds towards (i) enforcement actions outlined above, and (ii) new housing development, particularly the government operations required to permit the construction and occupancy of new housing (both of which are woefully slow today). Maui's economy can ill-afford to walk away from the millions raised from taxes paid by these vacation rentals; what it can do is focus those funds towards the problem at hand. Hiring additional LOCALS to enforce existing vacation rental laws and ease the new housing development processes is a win-win: locals get jobs, locals get more housing faster and at lower prices.
If these fail to accomplish the objectives, you could place other limits on STVR's:
4) No single owner, legal entity, or ownership group can own more than 1 condo in whole or in part. If you are found to own 2 or more properties on the island, you face severe fines (think $500,000; enough for real deterrence). Allow 2 years to comply. This will cause multi-condo owners to sell units above 1, but to do so in an orderly way that isn't unilaterally punitive to them and doesn't cause a market collapse.
5) New owner waiting periods. New owners of vacation rentals could wait 6 - 12 months before renting short-term. During this time they could be required to take a short-term owner certification class where they learn about Maui, its culture, its people, and the complicated relationship between these and the realities of a tourism driven economy. Content should suggest ways to help preserve and enhance the local Maui experience we all love.
The solutions I am proposing are middle ground; the first 3 do no new harm to either side of this debate but do help significantly with the problem of housing - these should be universally acceptable. The latter two suggestions do have some negative impact to existing and future STVR owners (including my family), but they are not the types of impacts that will devastate anyone financially and allow for an orderly restructuring of Maui's condo ownership and economy.
I would be happy to join a task force dedicated to helping Maui find a win-win solution.
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding Mayor Bissen’s proposed bill to transition apartment-zoned properties back to long-term residential use, effectively eliminating short-term vacation rentals (STRs) from the Minatoya List. As an owner of a condo at Maalaea Kai that we use as a short-term vacation rental when not on the island, I believe this proposal is misguided and will have far-reaching negative consequences for Maui’s economy and community.
First and foremost, it is essential to recognize the significant financial impact that STRs have on the county’s budget. Short-term rentals generated approximately 40% of real property tax revenue for the current fiscal year, amounting to $213.7 million, which constitutes 20% of the county’s operating budget. Comparatively, hotels contributed only $51 million. The STR category has consistently been the largest revenue-generating sector, with six consecutive years of increased tax revenue. Eliminating these rentals will drastically reduce this critical source of funding, leading to severe budgetary shortfalls and affecting essential services such as environmental restoration projects, road maintenance, schools, and emergency services. If the council feels the tax revenue would simply shift to hotels. I believe they are wrong and the hotels will likely raise prices even more with the elimination of some competition.
Moreover, the economic ripple effects of removing STRs will be devastating. Businesses that rely on tourism, such as restaurants, retail shops, cleaning services, vacation services and car rental agencies, will suffer immense losses due to the reduction in visitor accommodations. The subsequent drop in General Excise Tax (GET) and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) revenues will further strain both state and county budgets. It is projected that these tax incomes will decrease by over 80%, exacerbating financial woes and potentially leading to business closures and increased unemployment.
Additionally, many vacation rental properties are not suitable for long-term occupancy. These units often lack adequate storage, multiple parking spaces, and other amenities necessary for long-term residents. Transitioning them to long-term rentals will not effectively address the housing needs and will likely result in significant declines in property values. This will further reduce property tax revenues, compounding the economic strain on Maui County.
The proposed bill is also likely to face substantial legal challenges. Many legal experts view this move as a government taking of property without compensation, which could result in prolonged and costly litigation against the county. The uncertainty and financial burden of these legal battles will further destabilize the local economy and strain government resources.
Furthermore, the social impact cannot be ignored. The elimination of STRs will lead to increased foreclosures as property owners who rely on short term rental services income to pay their mortgages find themselves unable to meet their financial obligations. This will contribute to the already critical issue of homelessness on the island. Additionally, the exodus of residents seeking better economic opportunities elsewhere will erode the community fabric of Maui, leaving behind a diminished and economically struggling population.
In conclusion, the proposal to eliminate short-term vacation rentals on the Minatoya List is fraught with unintended consequences that far outweigh any perceived benefits. It threatens to undermine the financial stability of the county, harm local businesses, increase unemployment, and exacerbate social issues. The solution to Maui’s housing crisis should not come at the cost of economic devastation and community disruption.
I urge the Maui County Council to reconsider this proposal and seek alternative solutions that address housing needs without jeopardizing the economic and social well-being of our island. Let us work together to find a balanced approach that preserves Maui’s Aloha spirit and ensures a prosperous future for all its residents.
Aloha, Housing and Land Use Committee Members
I OPPOSE BILL 9's PROPOSAL TO BAN MINATOYA LIST STR APTS due to:
A) UNSUITABLE PROPERTY DESIGNS FOR LONG TERM RENTALS Tese 6,172 apts were originally designed and built, ane have been used for decades for occupancy by vacationers. The apts. are small (mostly 1 bdr 500+ sq ft & some 2 bdrm 700+ sq ft), and have no garage/storage, no play areas, limited closet space, no pets allowed, no private yds.and only 1 bathrm.
B) FINANCIALLY BURDENED PROPERTIES.These Minatoya list apts.were all constructed prior tom1989...with 77 of the 104 comlexes,built un the 70's, and 27 built in the 80's. As a result of age..as well as the resort property designs,..a random survey of 30 of the complexes reveals a monthly Home Owners Assn fee of $1,050 per month average. In addition, significant periodic capital expenditures are required to maintain these aged apts. including: *Spalling--for eriodic repairs of corrosion in conrete walls, *Elevator--replacement after 30+ yrs. service(recently $10,300 per apt. owner at our Maalaea apts.) *Plumbing--replacement of all cast iron piping (now deteriorating) thruout all pre-1989 apts. Current cost is $31,945 to $43721 per 1 or 2 bdrm. apt. *Sewage---replace outdated and/or no longer permitted (ie injection wells) systems at a cost of atleast $28,000 per apt owner. Therefore significant increases in any long term apt. rent is required to cover continuing expenses.
C) ESPENSIVE RENTS: The Minatoya apts. are not/will not be affordable housing for Maui workers and families. Whether owned or rented monthly amounts to cover would be a minimum of: $67 Insurance, $1050 HOA fee, $2,191 to pay a 30 yr mortgage loan of $350,000, $175 Min. Property tax..equals at least $3,483 per month for a 1 bedrm. apt. So the Minatoya apts. can not compete with more modest property designs (without pool, spa, elevator, parking lots, etc.) such as Ohanas, duplexes, or houses. that do have a garage & private yard. Most telling is the fact that Maui residents/workers/families have not and are not renting/occupying Minatoya)or similar STR) apts.that have been and are currently offered for rent. 3 random samplings of 30 listings each over a 2 month period on Realtor.com/Maui...reveals that 47% to 53% of STR properties ....offered for long term rental...... are not rented after 30 days' offered. If Maui residents are not renting now, why would they rent if Bill 9 were passed?? ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION: We have heard "convert these units into long term housing for local residents"....assuming that Maui residents/workers/families can/will ioccupy Minatoya apts. The combination of unsuitable apt. design/features and expensive rents discourages Maui residents from renting. Furthermore, Bill 0 does not determine if any Minatoya apts. would be offered for long term rental. The apt. owner determines this. Current owners have no obligation to offer their apts to long term renters. Most owners have puchased their apts. (at least in part) for enjoyment of all that beautiful Maui has to offer. So, if STRs were no longer allowed, owners can/will keep their apt. for their own use/enjoyment as: **Continued part-time residency or/and: **Retirement (part time or eventual full time) or/and **Family members' vacations or/and: **Friends & acquaintances' vacations, or/and **Remote or work-from-home professionals who come to the island doe the amenities, and who can afford the rents.E) ILLEGAL TAKING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS will surely be argued in court by attornies that are well paid by 6,172 property owners who could loose over $2.0 billion of property value. Courts define: "Inverse Condemnation occurs when a government limits a citizen's private property rights. The loss is considered a "taking". In that case the citizen is entitled to compensation for the property's loss of value ".Under the threat of an STR ban, typical Minatoya apts are suffering continuing "price drops" on properties that are listed, but not selling. In a most recent typical 1 bdrm. sale.... the sale price ....as compared to 2024 sale prices of identical units(and compared to county 2024 assessed value) ...proved a loss in value of $333,000. The total litigated loss of value for 6,172 would amount to $2.1 billion. Surely Maui county 's large egal expenses for defending such lawsuits could be better spent elsewhere. CONCLUSION: for "our residents must come first", and protecting our people..it's a moral responsibility". and "not one more family having to leave Maui"..these ideals are not likely to be achieved by Bill 9..especially as income/job losses of 1900 to 3800 forecasted Bill 9 job losses bite into Maui families' finances. MAHALO.... FOR YOUR DILIGENT AND LEVEL-HEADED EXAMINATION OF BILL 9 AND ALL OF ITS RAMIFICATIONS signed: Ron Hansen at .190 Hauoli St, a 22 yr. Maui resident
This bill will do nothing to help the housing crisis. AOAO alone in most complexes are too expensive for the average family. Not to mention the cost of a mortgage and insurance. Most places are not designed for long term living. No storage, one parking spot ect.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Ral West, and my husband and I have own a short-term rental property in Kihei since 1995. The complex in which we own our one-bedroom condo was built as a short-term rental property, and has been zoned as such since it was built. I am writing today to express our deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals, and particularly those like ours that are in condo complexes specifically built for the vacation rental market.
We’ve worked hard to be responsible and community-oriented owners. We employ local service providers — our property manager, cleaners, and maintenance techs — many of whom have become like family over the years. Their livelihoods and income will be irreparably ruined by this action. Additionally, we purchase supplies and appliances locally, and this loss of revenue will be felt by many vendors throughout Maui.
In addition, our guests often leave Maui saying they felt more connected to the island because of the personal experience they had. Some of our guests have even said they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation rental option. That matters — not just to us, but to all the small businesses they supported during their stay. The economic impact of this action will be felt throughout the island of Maui.
Owning in this complex has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special assessments, and massive increases in insurance costs after the Lahaina fires. These aren’t luxuries — they’re basic costs that come with owning this property. It is unlikely a typical family could support these on-going costs. We find it hard to believe that adding this property to the housing inventory on Maui will actually help solve the housing problem. Our carrying costs per month are nearly $3000, including association dues, property taxes, insurance and utilities…and this is not including debt service. How could a family of 1-4 people (which is all this small one-bedroom condo could accommodate) afford costs like this? It is only through a vacation rental program that we can afford to hold onto this property, and we are just breaking even as it is.
This legislation feels rushed and one-sided, and without adequate analysis of the real costs and consequences of this action. I urge the Council to work with owners like us to find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ms. Ral T. West
ralwest@me.com
907-738-4656
at June 07, 2025 at 11:37pm HST
Aloha Chair,Vice Chair and comittee menbers,
My name is Koichiro Kitade,an owner of the Rige at kapalua since 1989.I am strongly oppose to the proposed legislation.
I and my family spend 2-3 months a year and while we are away, asked Outrigger to manage my villa for short term rental.
To maintain my villa in an effective way, there are so many people help us, such as house keepers,cleaners, maintenance team,gardners .etc. Obviously to receive such an excellent services, it cost me something. In the last couple of years, due to inflation and etc, the cost of owning villa has increased substantially to US$43,000 including tax.In addition,due to the fire,special assessment cost me an additional US$10,000.The total of US$53,000 is a lot of mony but we understand it is a cost necessary to maintain the Kapalua Resort safe and functional.The Kapalua resort is not built for the general workforce housing.
tThis legislation will result in the loss of island income,loss of jobs and aventually phaising us out completely.
I am strongly request that Kapalua Resort be excluded from any STR ban.
Thanks in advance for your kind consideration and support.
Mahalo
Koichiro Kitade
at June 07, 2025 at 11:37pm HST
Aloha Chair,Vice Chair and comittee menbers,
My name is Koichiro Kitade,an owner of the Rige at kapalua since 1989.I am strongly oppose to the proposed legislation.
I and my family spend 2-3 months a year and while we are away, asked Outrigger to manage my villa for short term rental.
To maintain my villa in an effective way, there are so many people help us, such as house keepers,cleaners, maintenance team,gardners .etc. Obviously to receive such an excellent services, it cost me something. In the last couple of years, due to inflation and etc, the cost of owning villa has increased substantially to US$43,000 including tax.In addition,due to the fire,special assessment cost me an additional US$10,000.The total of US$53,000 is a lot of mony but we understand it is a cost necessary to maintain the Kapalua Resort safe and functional.The Kapalua resort is not built for the general workforce housing.
tThis legislation will result in the loss of island income,loss of jobs and aventually phaising us out completely.
I am strongly request that Kapalua Resort be excluded from any STR ban.
Thanks in advance for your kind consideration and support.
Mahalo
Koichiro Kitade
Dear Members of the Housing and Land Use Comittee,
Not all short term vacation properties are alike and not all owners live off island. We are seniors and residents of Maui for over 40 years. Since the fire, the insurance on our condo has doubled, our maintenance fees went up 30% and we have had to live in our car. We are forced to short term rent our Minatoya List condo or lose it all together because no one will long term rent a teensy 300sq. ft. little studio for what the overhead cost has become since the fire. This cost is now over 80% of our income. This is the ONLY way we can keep our condo, put grinds in our belly and hope that someday these absurd premiums will drop and we can afford to move back in. Now, imagine living in a car parked near your home but you cannot even live in your home. If this bill passes, we, for two, will go into foreclosure and lose it all.
Thank you for examining each condo complex to determine if it is fit for long term housing or if it is a basic hotel room with a kitchen and built for visitors in the first place. Not all complexes are alike.
Thank you,
Eric and Elayne Hayden
Kihei Bay Surf
This is an ill-intentioned measure that will only shrink the Maui economy, reduce jobs and do nothing to make housing more affordable. Most of the TVRs on the Minatoya list are ocean view or ocean front properties that are expensive to operate. For example, the fixed cost of a 1-bedroom property at Hale Mahina is over $3000/month, without a mortgage or property taxes. This cost entitles you to one parking space, increased maintenance fees each year and increased land-lease fees every 10 years, not to mention special assessments to address shoreline erosion. How many local people can afford to live on properties that were designed for the sole purpose of vacation rentals?
The owners at Hale Mahina agree that Maui needs more affordable housing. The property taxes paid by owners of TVRs have provided the lions-share of funding to support more affordable housing. Depriving properties like Hale Mahina of the ability to help fund more affordable housing in Maui is a mistake.
’m writing in strong support of Bill 9. It is gut-wrenchingly disappointing and frustrating that there is even a debate on this Bill. Our leaders need to think critically for the long term, not just the short-term, and listen to all sides, not just those that are well-funded by deep deep pockets of folks who shape the prevailing narratives in the media -- without many of us even aware of them doing so.
If you havenʻt already seen it, Kaheawai Mediaʻs Guide on the issues at stake here are very clear, well-researched, and show how voting yes on Bill 9 demonstrates that you truly understand the Maui community, and are not susceptible to an agenda spoonfed to Hawaiʻiʻs government officials by the ALREADY WEALTHY AND POWERFUL side of investment property owners and development companies. Here are a few quotes from the guide (complete with thorough in-line citations) that illustrate this.
“A naive reading of UHERO’s analysis emphasizes the loss of tourism spending and tax revenue, which are real, but not insurmountable issues. But, their most important finding is that a TVR phaseout would significantly improve condo affordability while dramatically increasing resident housing supply – two outcomes that Maui’s local families desperately need.”
Biased interest groups have commissioned economic studies and surveys built on fundamentally invalid assumptions, like the absurd idea that Maui will lose every single visitor who currently chooses to stay in one of these TVRs, or the false assertion that Maui has thousands of illegal short-term rentals. For years, these “reports” have paralyzed our county and state governments from taking bold, meaningful steps to address our housing crisis. So, when someone like Mayor Bissen sticks their neck out politically with a proposal that could actually make a difference, we have to push against these studies and demand action from our other local leaders. We’ve already seen where decades of inaction takes us – to the worst housing crisis in Maui County’s history.”
Along with many things, This bill is an essential component to addressing Maui’s housing crisis and protecting our most vital resource: water. Without water there is nothing. No development, no tourism, no housing, no food, no community. We cannot keep sticking our head in the sand and pushing the problem down the road for someone else to address. What will you say to your own keiki and their keiki when you say you voted to continue down this path of infinite extraction and prioritization of those who do not live here over those who do?
In summary, please pass Bill 9 to ensure that the people that care for this place that we all love so dearly can remain, and therefore this place can also remain.
I believe in you guys to make the right decision!!! We can do this!!!
Vacation rentals have made it increasingly difficult for local families to find secure and affordable housing, as many property owners choose to rent to tourists for higher profits—undermining the local housing economy in the process.
As a lifelong resident of Maui, I’ve watched this issue worsen over the years. I’ve seen many local families forced to leave the island because of it. It’s heartbreaking, and I truly hope this bill can help us begin to fix the problem.
I own a property at Kapalua Ridge Villas, I moved here because of the spirit of Aloha, and the people of Hawaii who are hard working, community oriented, and kind. I strongly support this bill mainly because local people who only know Maui as home, and do not have another home or shelter to go to like most "owners" do that are in opposition of this bill. Maui residents should no longer suffer due to greed. Maui residents should be able to live on their island. 90% of Lahaina burn residents remain displaced and unaffordability even in temporary housing which is very disheartened. Vacation rental exacerbates the housing shortages for residents these properties are owned by out of state individuals and are not available for long turn residency. These "owners" have homes to raise their children and ensure them that they are safe, and secure when tucking them in for the night. Once again the owners are only thinking about themselves. Only if once people would stop being greedy do what is right and open those homes that they have made hundreds of thousands of dollars for decades. Allow local families thrive on Maui. The desire for Maui residents to be able to live on their island is a fundamental one, and addressing the interconnected issues of housing economic stability and environmental resilience is crucial for the well-being and future of the community. Also their are some human beings that own several properties on island that means more than one. it about balance. Prioritize resident well being, ensure that tourism recovery not at the expense of residents need for housing any longer. Converting STR to long term housing is the most direct and impactful strategy. People "owners" are putting their properties up for sale because they fear that they will not be able to make more money on STR. What a shame money over humanity. stricter enforcement and licensing on Maui must be implemented. Once again we must make sure our community can raise their children and families as designed. Owners that have multiple properties on Maui is indeed a significant factor in this housing this crisis, driving up prices and creating high income through STR then this contributes to inflated property values which makes it impossible for local residents with good jobs to afford to buy or rent a home is very sad. We must stop this inhumane, profitability and ethical, dilemma, no more. Owners say what about the local jobs, well the locals will not have jobs because they don't have a home first. We must house our families first and Maui will survive. Without the Locals what will happen to Maui It's a frightening thought Malama "Aina the connection between the people and environment is a responsibility Hawaiian Culture spiritual well being, and community health. Without the people Maui will not be the same. tourism will survive, when the people survive
My name is Kate Moran, and I own a short-term rental property in Maui County. I’m writing to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation that would phase out vacation rentals.
We purchased our Maui property with the dream of one day retiring here. In the meantime, responsibly renting our unit allows us to maintain that vision while actively supporting the local economy. We’ve worked hard to be good stewards of our home and good neighbors in the community. Over time, we’ve built genuine friendships with the local service providers who care for our property — cleaners, landscapers, and maintenance teams — many of whom we consider part of our extended ‘ohana.
Our guests aren’t just passing through. Many return year after year and have become close friends. They support nearby restaurants, book local tours, and contribute meaningfully to the island economy. Several have told us that without a vacation rental option, they simply wouldn’t have been able to visit Maui — and that their stay in a home, rather than a hotel, helped them feel connected to the island in a more authentic and respectful way.
Owning in our complex has come with major financial challenges — from steep insurance hikes following the fires to mounting special assessments for repairs, including our deteriorating bulkhead. These costs aren’t optional. They are essential for safety and long-term upkeep, and STR income is what makes them manageable.
This legislation feels rushed and out of sync with the reality many responsible owners face. I respectfully ask the Council to take a more balanced approach — one that recognizes the contributions of STR owners who are committed to the community, the local workers who depend on this economy, and the visitors who choose Maui not just for its beauty, but for its heart.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Chris J. I'm a full-time resident, and I run a small local business that’s really feeling the impacts of the drop in tourism. I wanted to share what this proposed phase-out of short-term rentals could mean for families like mine, my staff and the people we work with every day.
My business, Enterprise Hawaii LLC, depends on visitors who stay in short-term rentals. Many of them come back year after year, and they support local restaurants, shops, and tour companies — not just the big-name spots, but the mom-and-pop places that make Maui special. If these rentals go away, I worry we’ll lose those repeat visitors, and with them, a huge part of what keeps us going.
I also employ 3 local workers — folks who rely on this work to take care of their families. We’re not just talking about numbers. These are real people. I had to furlough one worker and lay off another worker. Very devastating for all of us.
This legislation feels rushed and extremely one-sided. I urge the Council to work with owners like me to find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris J.,
VP of Operations, Enterprise Hawaii LLC
My name is Ray Paolantonio, and I own a short-term rental property in West Maui. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals. Since 2020, my husband and I have employed local workers who rely on income from maintaining STRs: cleaners, electricians, plumbers, landscapers, locksmiths, designers, upholsterers, painters, handymen. We love to hire and support local crafts people, artisans and pay our fair share of what Maui expects of us: respect for the land, it’s resources and it’s people. We want to continue to be a partner in a diversified tourist economy, encouraging our guests to travel pono, and to invest in important infrastructure and affordable housing.
We understand the necessary funds required by our STR to be applied to housing, which is very important and should be sustained by allowing us to continue to operate as a vacation rental. I’m afraid this legislation is extreme and one-sided. I worry about the small business on Lower Honoapiilani Road that have struggled to return after the fires and serve the local STRs such as Sergio’s, Java Jive Café and Okazuya Deli. These businesses provide amazing service and bring tourists closer to island cultural experiences that aren’t situated in over-priced resorts. Our guests comment regularly that our recommendations to local eateries, tour providers and services have made their Maui visit all the more memorable. Many plan return visits. Taking away this option would force visitors to spend all their dollars at resorts where the income goes to multi-national corporations off-island instead of directly back into the local economy.
Our income from our STR goes directly to the maintenance of the complex, insurance, and necessary assessments including a complete overhaul and replacement of the elevator system. Please, let’s find a balance in how STRs can continue to support a diversified economy for the future of the island.
My studio at Haleonoloa that I have owned for over 20 years would be impossible to get a long term renter to pay my payment and 1350.00 hoa which equals almost 4,000.a month. I am retired and need short term rental to keep my condo from foreclosure. I love Maui and have been spending time there since i was a teenager. My kids love Maui and grandkids. After covid and the fire. I have used savings to keep it afloat. Please do not ban short term rental.our property values have fallen. Nothing is selling in the last year to even pay our outstanding mortgage bills due to this bill hanging on us. Please consider all the seniors . How can we keep our condos if we aren’t wealthy. We have to do short term rental. Also some of us have 50 percent ownership situations. Where one owner lives there for part of the year. It’s a very fragile situation. Thank you. Loretta Ross
Hello - Thank you for the opportunity to wholeheartedly oppose Bill 9. I appreciate that there is a need for more housing in Maui. I believe that by passing this bill, more than housing will be impacted in a negative way. It will impact the entire economy negatively. This bill is NOT the answer to add additional local housing. As is widely acknowledged, tourism and its positive monetary impact, is essential for a healthy economy in Maui. Common sense would seem to show that less tourist spending and less income from taxes paid by STR owners would negatively impact local jobs, businesses, government, etc. Also, as an example, a property such as Papakea would be an excellent example of a property that should be excepted from this bill. It is set up basically as a hotel and, as I understand, has been for over 50 years. There may be others that might be a better fit for this legislation, but I highly recommend voting against this bill and find alternative methods to create additional housing. Not passing this bill would avoid, most likely, lengthy legal battles and ill will for tourists, STR owners and create bad publicity for Maui and all of Hawaii. Thank you for you consideration to vote against Bill 9. Bruce Menard
Since my wife and I along with two friends purchased our condo we have never made a profit as a STR. Renting our unit has helped cover the enormous tax bill, 18k for our 1000 sqft unit, and the over 1100 per month AOAO fees.
This legislation forces us to choose to either sell, or let the unit sit empty. Our unit will never be a viable long term rental and there is no point in owning it as a long term rental since we could never use it.
I know the devastating effects the legislation has on our family. What I would appreciate from the council is honesty about how this legislation will help local housing. What are the steps to get there. There are hundreds of condo units for sale right now that are not being purchased for local housing. So if that is truly the goal and this is not the hotel lobby attempting a massive wealth transfer please state the true intent.
The only way my condo becomes affordable is if the county drives the price down by roughly 90% and then it is still a small unit with no outside storage and 1 parking spot. Is this the first goal of the county? This will likely send many families into foreclosure because most condos have significant debt based on legal STR income at the time of borrowing as part of the loan qualifying.
Since these units will end up sitting empty if this legislation passes, is the real goal just that. Is this legislation really intended to eliminate visitors to the island? It will for sure do this, so if that is the goal please say so.
The third option I see is even more sinister. Is this legislation truly intended to drive up rates for hotels by elimination what has been legal competition for decades? It will in fact do this, is this the true goal? To make massive corporations and investors even more money.
In conclusion, as evidenced by the fact that these units could be purchased today for local housing and are indeed not being purchased, I believe the council owes us an honest answer as to its true intentions. If the council is not honest now it is quite certain that the truth will come out at some point.
This legislation is devastating to many and extremely uncertain as to who it helps besides the hotel lobby. I strongly oppose the bill. I do not think it is moral to harm so many families who purchased these condos in good faith based on their legal ability at the time to operate as STR's. It seems like robbery from middle class families and no one truly benefits, you just get to say you did something.
Aloha, Housing and Land use commitee,
My wife and I own a condo slated to be affected by this legislation. We are opposed to this as it will greatly affect the economy of Maui. Property values will go down, thus less revenue in property taxes. Less GET charged for STR. Let's forget for a moment these two large matters. Local businesses, restaurants in particular are supported by tourist. Their patronage by tourist keep the doors open and people employed. And then there are the cleaning people after STR move out weekly. Less condos to clean no need to hire so many of them. Then maintenance workers, same thing.
We were living there during the fires and afterwards. My wife volunteered at the red cross facility set up in Pukalani. We attended a could of fund raiders to try to help out ( along with several other owners in our complex. We are currently rent our place to FEMA for a fire victim. There is lots of Aloha in Maui. I do not think this is the solution from an economic standpoint point and what's fair to existing owners.
Our association dues for our 1 bed bath ( 2 bedroom pay more) all in is 1,000/month. couple that with special assessments for continual maintenance. This would not be a solution for affordable housing. For locals to purchase or rent.
My solution would be to let builders come in and build some low income housing. It would still be expensive to build, but if there is a subsidy program ( like the apartments up by the golf course in Kihei) , then it would create more places for locals to live. There seems to be a fair amount of open land to make this happen. In Lahaina area and other parts of the island as well.
My concern if this were to pass is, local businesses would loose some business or worst case close their door altogether,resulting in more economic hardship on people and Maui itself.
Mahalo,
Jeff Snyder
jeffsnyder75@gmail.com
Dear Members of the Maui County Council,
Bill #9 has a very viable ambition at its core: provide housing for locals. That is a cause that is universally acceptable to anyone, including vacation rental owners.
The reason I'm opposed to Bill #9 is that it unilaterally imposes the cost of this ambition on a single targeted group of 7K condo owners. The vilification of these property owners - who each have their own families and livelihoods to support - is misplaced. All of these property owners purchase on Maui because they too love the island. In fact, we all love Maui...this too is universally accepted.
So if we all love Maui and we all believe there should be housing for locals, we should be able to come to a solution that doesn't put two sides in direct opposition to one another. Instead of a zero-sum solution as Bill #9 puts forward, let's go for a win-win. Here are some ideas:
1) Enforce vacation rental laws. There are still many illegal operations around the island. They are more difficult to quantify and harder to point at than the 7K legally operated units. But the importance of accurate recordkeeping and strict legal enforcement cannot be understated.
2) Freeze the current vacation rental quotas where they are. This caps the production of new vacation rentals, and any new housing developed on Maui is thus definitionally for the benefit of locals.
3) Continue charging the high TAT / MCAT taxes; drive these proceeds towards (i) enforcement actions outlined above, and (ii) new housing development, particularly the government operations required to permit the construction and occupancy of new housing (both of which are woefully slow today). Maui's economy can ill-afford to walk away from the millions raised from taxes paid by these vacation rentals; what it can do is focus those funds towards the problem at hand. Hiring additional LOCALS to enforce existing vacation rental laws and ease the new housing development processes is a win-win: locals get jobs, locals get more housing faster and at lower prices.
If these fail to accomplish the objectives, you could place other limits on STVR's:
4) No single owner, legal entity, or ownership group can own more than 1 condo in whole or in part. If you are found to own 2 or more properties on the island, you face severe fines (think $500,000; enough for real deterrence). Allow 2 years to comply. This will cause multi-condo owners to sell units above 1, but to do so in an orderly way that isn't unilaterally punitive to them and doesn't cause a market collapse.
5) New owner waiting periods. New owners of vacation rentals could wait 6 - 12 months before renting short-term. During this time they could be required to take a short-term owner certification class where they learn about Maui, its culture, its people, and the complicated relationship between these and the realities of a tourism driven economy. Content should suggest ways to help preserve and enhance the local Maui experience we all love.
The solutions I am proposing are middle ground; the first 3 do no new harm to either side of this debate but do help significantly with the problem of housing - these should be universally acceptable. The latter two suggestions do have some negative impact to existing and future STVR owners (including my family), but they are not the types of impacts that will devastate anyone financially and allow for an orderly restructuring of Maui's condo ownership and economy.
I would be happy to join a task force dedicated to helping Maui find a win-win solution.
Sincerely,
Jason Kreuziger
Dear Members of the Maui County Council,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding Mayor Bissen’s proposed bill to transition apartment-zoned properties back to long-term residential use, effectively eliminating short-term vacation rentals (STRs) from the Minatoya List. As an owner of a condo at Maalaea Kai that we use as a short-term vacation rental when not on the island, I believe this proposal is misguided and will have far-reaching negative consequences for Maui’s economy and community.
First and foremost, it is essential to recognize the significant financial impact that STRs have on the county’s budget. Short-term rentals generated approximately 40% of real property tax revenue for the current fiscal year, amounting to $213.7 million, which constitutes 20% of the county’s operating budget. Comparatively, hotels contributed only $51 million. The STR category has consistently been the largest revenue-generating sector, with six consecutive years of increased tax revenue. Eliminating these rentals will drastically reduce this critical source of funding, leading to severe budgetary shortfalls and affecting essential services such as environmental restoration projects, road maintenance, schools, and emergency services. If the council feels the tax revenue would simply shift to hotels. I believe they are wrong and the hotels will likely raise prices even more with the elimination of some competition.
Moreover, the economic ripple effects of removing STRs will be devastating. Businesses that rely on tourism, such as restaurants, retail shops, cleaning services, vacation services and car rental agencies, will suffer immense losses due to the reduction in visitor accommodations. The subsequent drop in General Excise Tax (GET) and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) revenues will further strain both state and county budgets. It is projected that these tax incomes will decrease by over 80%, exacerbating financial woes and potentially leading to business closures and increased unemployment.
Additionally, many vacation rental properties are not suitable for long-term occupancy. These units often lack adequate storage, multiple parking spaces, and other amenities necessary for long-term residents. Transitioning them to long-term rentals will not effectively address the housing needs and will likely result in significant declines in property values. This will further reduce property tax revenues, compounding the economic strain on Maui County.
The proposed bill is also likely to face substantial legal challenges. Many legal experts view this move as a government taking of property without compensation, which could result in prolonged and costly litigation against the county. The uncertainty and financial burden of these legal battles will further destabilize the local economy and strain government resources.
Furthermore, the social impact cannot be ignored. The elimination of STRs will lead to increased foreclosures as property owners who rely on short term rental services income to pay their mortgages find themselves unable to meet their financial obligations. This will contribute to the already critical issue of homelessness on the island. Additionally, the exodus of residents seeking better economic opportunities elsewhere will erode the community fabric of Maui, leaving behind a diminished and economically struggling population.
In conclusion, the proposal to eliminate short-term vacation rentals on the Minatoya List is fraught with unintended consequences that far outweigh any perceived benefits. It threatens to undermine the financial stability of the county, harm local businesses, increase unemployment, and exacerbate social issues. The solution to Maui’s housing crisis should not come at the cost of economic devastation and community disruption.
I urge the Maui County Council to reconsider this proposal and seek alternative solutions that address housing needs without jeopardizing the economic and social well-being of our island. Let us work together to find a balanced approach that preserves Maui’s Aloha spirit and ensures a prosperous future for all its residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Brian Hussey
70 Hauoli St.
Wailuku HI
Aloha, Housing and Land Use Committee Members
I OPPOSE BILL 9's PROPOSAL TO BAN MINATOYA LIST STR APTS due to:
A) UNSUITABLE PROPERTY DESIGNS FOR LONG TERM RENTALS Tese 6,172 apts were originally designed and built, ane have been used for decades for occupancy by vacationers. The apts. are small (mostly 1 bdr 500+ sq ft & some 2 bdrm 700+ sq ft), and have no garage/storage, no play areas, limited closet space, no pets allowed, no private yds.and only 1 bathrm.
B) FINANCIALLY BURDENED PROPERTIES.These Minatoya list apts.were all constructed prior tom1989...with 77 of the 104 comlexes,built un the 70's, and 27 built in the 80's. As a result of age..as well as the resort property designs,..a random survey of 30 of the complexes reveals a monthly Home Owners Assn fee of $1,050 per month average. In addition, significant periodic capital expenditures are required to maintain these aged apts. including: *Spalling--for eriodic repairs of corrosion in conrete walls, *Elevator--replacement after 30+ yrs. service(recently $10,300 per apt. owner at our Maalaea apts.) *Plumbing--replacement of all cast iron piping (now deteriorating) thruout all pre-1989 apts. Current cost is $31,945 to $43721 per 1 or 2 bdrm. apt. *Sewage---replace outdated and/or no longer permitted (ie injection wells) systems at a cost of atleast $28,000 per apt owner. Therefore significant increases in any long term apt. rent is required to cover continuing expenses.
C) ESPENSIVE RENTS: The Minatoya apts. are not/will not be affordable housing for Maui workers and families. Whether owned or rented monthly amounts to cover would be a minimum of: $67 Insurance, $1050 HOA fee, $2,191 to pay a 30 yr mortgage loan of $350,000, $175 Min. Property tax..equals at least $3,483 per month for a 1 bedrm. apt. So the Minatoya apts. can not compete with more modest property designs (without pool, spa, elevator, parking lots, etc.) such as Ohanas, duplexes, or houses. that do have a garage & private yard. Most telling is the fact that Maui residents/workers/families have not and are not renting/occupying Minatoya)or similar STR) apts.that have been and are currently offered for rent. 3 random samplings of 30 listings each over a 2 month period on Realtor.com/Maui...reveals that 47% to 53% of STR properties ....offered for long term rental...... are not rented after 30 days' offered. If Maui residents are not renting now, why would they rent if Bill 9 were passed?? ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION: We have heard "convert these units into long term housing for local residents"....assuming that Maui residents/workers/families can/will ioccupy Minatoya apts. The combination of unsuitable apt. design/features and expensive rents discourages Maui residents from renting. Furthermore, Bill 0 does not determine if any Minatoya apts. would be offered for long term rental. The apt. owner determines this. Current owners have no obligation to offer their apts to long term renters. Most owners have puchased their apts. (at least in part) for enjoyment of all that beautiful Maui has to offer. So, if STRs were no longer allowed, owners can/will keep their apt. for their own use/enjoyment as: **Continued part-time residency or/and: **Retirement (part time or eventual full time) or/and **Family members' vacations or/and: **Friends & acquaintances' vacations, or/and **Remote or work-from-home professionals who come to the island doe the amenities, and who can afford the rents.E) ILLEGAL TAKING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS will surely be argued in court by attornies that are well paid by 6,172 property owners who could loose over $2.0 billion of property value. Courts define: "Inverse Condemnation occurs when a government limits a citizen's private property rights. The loss is considered a "taking". In that case the citizen is entitled to compensation for the property's loss of value ".Under the threat of an STR ban, typical Minatoya apts are suffering continuing "price drops" on properties that are listed, but not selling. In a most recent typical 1 bdrm. sale.... the sale price ....as compared to 2024 sale prices of identical units(and compared to county 2024 assessed value) ...proved a loss in value of $333,000. The total litigated loss of value for 6,172 would amount to $2.1 billion. Surely Maui county 's large egal expenses for defending such lawsuits could be better spent elsewhere. CONCLUSION: for "our residents must come first", and protecting our people..it's a moral responsibility". and "not one more family having to leave Maui"..these ideals are not likely to be achieved by Bill 9..especially as income/job losses of 1900 to 3800 forecasted Bill 9 job losses bite into Maui families' finances. MAHALO.... FOR YOUR DILIGENT AND LEVEL-HEADED EXAMINATION OF BILL 9 AND ALL OF ITS RAMIFICATIONS signed: Ron Hansen at .190 Hauoli St, a 22 yr. Maui resident
This bill will do nothing to help the housing crisis. AOAO alone in most complexes are too expensive for the average family. Not to mention the cost of a mortgage and insurance. Most places are not designed for long term living. No storage, one parking spot ect.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Ral West, and my husband and I have own a short-term rental property in Kihei since 1995. The complex in which we own our one-bedroom condo was built as a short-term rental property, and has been zoned as such since it was built. I am writing today to express our deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals, and particularly those like ours that are in condo complexes specifically built for the vacation rental market.
We’ve worked hard to be responsible and community-oriented owners. We employ local service providers — our property manager, cleaners, and maintenance techs — many of whom have become like family over the years. Their livelihoods and income will be irreparably ruined by this action. Additionally, we purchase supplies and appliances locally, and this loss of revenue will be felt by many vendors throughout Maui.
In addition, our guests often leave Maui saying they felt more connected to the island because of the personal experience they had. Some of our guests have even said they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation rental option. That matters — not just to us, but to all the small businesses they supported during their stay. The economic impact of this action will be felt throughout the island of Maui.
Owning in this complex has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special assessments, and massive increases in insurance costs after the Lahaina fires. These aren’t luxuries — they’re basic costs that come with owning this property. It is unlikely a typical family could support these on-going costs. We find it hard to believe that adding this property to the housing inventory on Maui will actually help solve the housing problem. Our carrying costs per month are nearly $3000, including association dues, property taxes, insurance and utilities…and this is not including debt service. How could a family of 1-4 people (which is all this small one-bedroom condo could accommodate) afford costs like this? It is only through a vacation rental program that we can afford to hold onto this property, and we are just breaking even as it is.
This legislation feels rushed and one-sided, and without adequate analysis of the real costs and consequences of this action. I urge the Council to work with owners like us to find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ms. Ral T. West
ralwest@me.com
907-738-4656
Aloha Chair,Vice Chair and comittee menbers,
My name is Koichiro Kitade,an owner of the Rige at kapalua since 1989.I am strongly oppose to the proposed legislation.
I and my family spend 2-3 months a year and while we are away, asked Outrigger to manage my villa for short term rental.
To maintain my villa in an effective way, there are so many people help us, such as house keepers,cleaners, maintenance team,gardners .etc. Obviously to receive such an excellent services, it cost me something. In the last couple of years, due to inflation and etc, the cost of owning villa has increased substantially to US$43,000 including tax.In addition,due to the fire,special assessment cost me an additional US$10,000.The total of US$53,000 is a lot of mony but we understand it is a cost necessary to maintain the Kapalua Resort safe and functional.The Kapalua resort is not built for the general workforce housing.
tThis legislation will result in the loss of island income,loss of jobs and aventually phaising us out completely.
I am strongly request that Kapalua Resort be excluded from any STR ban.
Thanks in advance for your kind consideration and support.
Mahalo
Koichiro Kitade
Aloha Chair,Vice Chair and comittee menbers,
My name is Koichiro Kitade,an owner of the Rige at kapalua since 1989.I am strongly oppose to the proposed legislation.
I and my family spend 2-3 months a year and while we are away, asked Outrigger to manage my villa for short term rental.
To maintain my villa in an effective way, there are so many people help us, such as house keepers,cleaners, maintenance team,gardners .etc. Obviously to receive such an excellent services, it cost me something. In the last couple of years, due to inflation and etc, the cost of owning villa has increased substantially to US$43,000 including tax.In addition,due to the fire,special assessment cost me an additional US$10,000.The total of US$53,000 is a lot of mony but we understand it is a cost necessary to maintain the Kapalua Resort safe and functional.The Kapalua resort is not built for the general workforce housing.
tThis legislation will result in the loss of island income,loss of jobs and aventually phaising us out completely.
I am strongly request that Kapalua Resort be excluded from any STR ban.
Thanks in advance for your kind consideration and support.
Mahalo
Koichiro Kitade
Dear Members of the Housing and Land Use Comittee,
Not all short term vacation properties are alike and not all owners live off island. We are seniors and residents of Maui for over 40 years. Since the fire, the insurance on our condo has doubled, our maintenance fees went up 30% and we have had to live in our car. We are forced to short term rent our Minatoya List condo or lose it all together because no one will long term rent a teensy 300sq. ft. little studio for what the overhead cost has become since the fire. This cost is now over 80% of our income. This is the ONLY way we can keep our condo, put grinds in our belly and hope that someday these absurd premiums will drop and we can afford to move back in. Now, imagine living in a car parked near your home but you cannot even live in your home. If this bill passes, we, for two, will go into foreclosure and lose it all.
Thank you for examining each condo complex to determine if it is fit for long term housing or if it is a basic hotel room with a kitchen and built for visitors in the first place. Not all complexes are alike.
Thank you,
Eric and Elayne Hayden
Kihei Bay Surf
This is an ill-intentioned measure that will only shrink the Maui economy, reduce jobs and do nothing to make housing more affordable. Most of the TVRs on the Minatoya list are ocean view or ocean front properties that are expensive to operate. For example, the fixed cost of a 1-bedroom property at Hale Mahina is over $3000/month, without a mortgage or property taxes. This cost entitles you to one parking space, increased maintenance fees each year and increased land-lease fees every 10 years, not to mention special assessments to address shoreline erosion. How many local people can afford to live on properties that were designed for the sole purpose of vacation rentals?
The owners at Hale Mahina agree that Maui needs more affordable housing. The property taxes paid by owners of TVRs have provided the lions-share of funding to support more affordable housing. Depriving properties like Hale Mahina of the ability to help fund more affordable housing in Maui is a mistake.
Hale Mahina AOAO
’m writing in strong support of Bill 9. It is gut-wrenchingly disappointing and frustrating that there is even a debate on this Bill. Our leaders need to think critically for the long term, not just the short-term, and listen to all sides, not just those that are well-funded by deep deep pockets of folks who shape the prevailing narratives in the media -- without many of us even aware of them doing so.
If you havenʻt already seen it, Kaheawai Mediaʻs Guide on the issues at stake here are very clear, well-researched, and show how voting yes on Bill 9 demonstrates that you truly understand the Maui community, and are not susceptible to an agenda spoonfed to Hawaiʻiʻs government officials by the ALREADY WEALTHY AND POWERFUL side of investment property owners and development companies. Here are a few quotes from the guide (complete with thorough in-line citations) that illustrate this.
“A naive reading of UHERO’s analysis emphasizes the loss of tourism spending and tax revenue, which are real, but not insurmountable issues. But, their most important finding is that a TVR phaseout would significantly improve condo affordability while dramatically increasing resident housing supply – two outcomes that Maui’s local families desperately need.”
Biased interest groups have commissioned economic studies and surveys built on fundamentally invalid assumptions, like the absurd idea that Maui will lose every single visitor who currently chooses to stay in one of these TVRs, or the false assertion that Maui has thousands of illegal short-term rentals. For years, these “reports” have paralyzed our county and state governments from taking bold, meaningful steps to address our housing crisis. So, when someone like Mayor Bissen sticks their neck out politically with a proposal that could actually make a difference, we have to push against these studies and demand action from our other local leaders. We’ve already seen where decades of inaction takes us – to the worst housing crisis in Maui County’s history.”
Along with many things, This bill is an essential component to addressing Maui’s housing crisis and protecting our most vital resource: water. Without water there is nothing. No development, no tourism, no housing, no food, no community. We cannot keep sticking our head in the sand and pushing the problem down the road for someone else to address. What will you say to your own keiki and their keiki when you say you voted to continue down this path of infinite extraction and prioritization of those who do not live here over those who do?
In summary, please pass Bill 9 to ensure that the people that care for this place that we all love so dearly can remain, and therefore this place can also remain.
I believe in you guys to make the right decision!!! We can do this!!!
Vacation rentals have made it increasingly difficult for local families to find secure and affordable housing, as many property owners choose to rent to tourists for higher profits—undermining the local housing economy in the process.
As a lifelong resident of Maui, I’ve watched this issue worsen over the years. I’ve seen many local families forced to leave the island because of it. It’s heartbreaking, and I truly hope this bill can help us begin to fix the problem.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and community members
I own a property at Kapalua Ridge Villas, I moved here because of the spirit of Aloha, and the people of Hawaii who are hard working, community oriented, and kind. I strongly support this bill mainly because local people who only know Maui as home, and do not have another home or shelter to go to like most "owners" do that are in opposition of this bill. Maui residents should no longer suffer due to greed. Maui residents should be able to live on their island. 90% of Lahaina burn residents remain displaced and unaffordability even in temporary housing which is very disheartened. Vacation rental exacerbates the housing shortages for residents these properties are owned by out of state individuals and are not available for long turn residency. These "owners" have homes to raise their children and ensure them that they are safe, and secure when tucking them in for the night. Once again the owners are only thinking about themselves. Only if once people would stop being greedy do what is right and open those homes that they have made hundreds of thousands of dollars for decades. Allow local families thrive on Maui. The desire for Maui residents to be able to live on their island is a fundamental one, and addressing the interconnected issues of housing economic stability and environmental resilience is crucial for the well-being and future of the community. Also their are some human beings that own several properties on island that means more than one. it about balance. Prioritize resident well being, ensure that tourism recovery not at the expense of residents need for housing any longer. Converting STR to long term housing is the most direct and impactful strategy. People "owners" are putting their properties up for sale because they fear that they will not be able to make more money on STR. What a shame money over humanity. stricter enforcement and licensing on Maui must be implemented. Once again we must make sure our community can raise their children and families as designed. Owners that have multiple properties on Maui is indeed a significant factor in this housing this crisis, driving up prices and creating high income through STR then this contributes to inflated property values which makes it impossible for local residents with good jobs to afford to buy or rent a home is very sad. We must stop this inhumane, profitability and ethical, dilemma, no more. Owners say what about the local jobs, well the locals will not have jobs because they don't have a home first. We must house our families first and Maui will survive. Without the Locals what will happen to Maui It's a frightening thought Malama "Aina the connection between the people and environment is a responsibility Hawaiian Culture spiritual well being, and community health. Without the people Maui will not be the same. tourism will survive, when the people survive
Mahalo
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Kate Moran, and I own a short-term rental property in Maui County. I’m writing to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation that would phase out vacation rentals.
We purchased our Maui property with the dream of one day retiring here. In the meantime, responsibly renting our unit allows us to maintain that vision while actively supporting the local economy. We’ve worked hard to be good stewards of our home and good neighbors in the community. Over time, we’ve built genuine friendships with the local service providers who care for our property — cleaners, landscapers, and maintenance teams — many of whom we consider part of our extended ‘ohana.
Our guests aren’t just passing through. Many return year after year and have become close friends. They support nearby restaurants, book local tours, and contribute meaningfully to the island economy. Several have told us that without a vacation rental option, they simply wouldn’t have been able to visit Maui — and that their stay in a home, rather than a hotel, helped them feel connected to the island in a more authentic and respectful way.
Owning in our complex has come with major financial challenges — from steep insurance hikes following the fires to mounting special assessments for repairs, including our deteriorating bulkhead. These costs aren’t optional. They are essential for safety and long-term upkeep, and STR income is what makes them manageable.
This legislation feels rushed and out of sync with the reality many responsible owners face. I respectfully ask the Council to take a more balanced approach — one that recognizes the contributions of STR owners who are committed to the community, the local workers who depend on this economy, and the visitors who choose Maui not just for its beauty, but for its heart.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kate Moran
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Chris J. I'm a full-time resident, and I run a small local business that’s really feeling the impacts of the drop in tourism. I wanted to share what this proposed phase-out of short-term rentals could mean for families like mine, my staff and the people we work with every day.
My business, Enterprise Hawaii LLC, depends on visitors who stay in short-term rentals. Many of them come back year after year, and they support local restaurants, shops, and tour companies — not just the big-name spots, but the mom-and-pop places that make Maui special. If these rentals go away, I worry we’ll lose those repeat visitors, and with them, a huge part of what keeps us going.
I also employ 3 local workers — folks who rely on this work to take care of their families. We’re not just talking about numbers. These are real people. I had to furlough one worker and lay off another worker. Very devastating for all of us.
This legislation feels rushed and extremely one-sided. I urge the Council to work with owners like me to find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris J.,
VP of Operations, Enterprise Hawaii LLC
I oppose to this !
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Ray Paolantonio, and I own a short-term rental property in West Maui. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals. Since 2020, my husband and I have employed local workers who rely on income from maintaining STRs: cleaners, electricians, plumbers, landscapers, locksmiths, designers, upholsterers, painters, handymen. We love to hire and support local crafts people, artisans and pay our fair share of what Maui expects of us: respect for the land, it’s resources and it’s people. We want to continue to be a partner in a diversified tourist economy, encouraging our guests to travel pono, and to invest in important infrastructure and affordable housing.
We understand the necessary funds required by our STR to be applied to housing, which is very important and should be sustained by allowing us to continue to operate as a vacation rental. I’m afraid this legislation is extreme and one-sided. I worry about the small business on Lower Honoapiilani Road that have struggled to return after the fires and serve the local STRs such as Sergio’s, Java Jive Café and Okazuya Deli. These businesses provide amazing service and bring tourists closer to island cultural experiences that aren’t situated in over-priced resorts. Our guests comment regularly that our recommendations to local eateries, tour providers and services have made their Maui visit all the more memorable. Many plan return visits. Taking away this option would force visitors to spend all their dollars at resorts where the income goes to multi-national corporations off-island instead of directly back into the local economy.
Our income from our STR goes directly to the maintenance of the complex, insurance, and necessary assessments including a complete overhaul and replacement of the elevator system. Please, let’s find a balance in how STRs can continue to support a diversified economy for the future of the island.
Mahalo,
Ray Paolantonio
My studio at Haleonoloa that I have owned for over 20 years would be impossible to get a long term renter to pay my payment and 1350.00 hoa which equals almost 4,000.a month. I am retired and need short term rental to keep my condo from foreclosure. I love Maui and have been spending time there since i was a teenager. My kids love Maui and grandkids. After covid and the fire. I have used savings to keep it afloat. Please do not ban short term rental.our property values have fallen. Nothing is selling in the last year to even pay our outstanding mortgage bills due to this bill hanging on us. Please consider all the seniors . How can we keep our condos if we aren’t wealthy. We have to do short term rental. Also some of us have 50 percent ownership situations. Where one owner lives there for part of the year. It’s a very fragile situation. Thank you. Loretta Ross
Hello - Thank you for the opportunity to wholeheartedly oppose Bill 9. I appreciate that there is a need for more housing in Maui. I believe that by passing this bill, more than housing will be impacted in a negative way. It will impact the entire economy negatively. This bill is NOT the answer to add additional local housing. As is widely acknowledged, tourism and its positive monetary impact, is essential for a healthy economy in Maui. Common sense would seem to show that less tourist spending and less income from taxes paid by STR owners would negatively impact local jobs, businesses, government, etc. Also, as an example, a property such as Papakea would be an excellent example of a property that should be excepted from this bill. It is set up basically as a hotel and, as I understand, has been for over 50 years. There may be others that might be a better fit for this legislation, but I highly recommend voting against this bill and find alternative methods to create additional housing. Not passing this bill would avoid, most likely, lengthy legal battles and ill will for tourists, STR owners and create bad publicity for Maui and all of Hawaii. Thank you for you consideration to vote against Bill 9. Bruce Menard