Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Maui County Council,
I am writing as a concerned property owner in Maui to express my opposition to Bill 9 as proposed by Mayor Bissen. I fully recognize the urgency of Maui’s housing crisis and the desire to find solutions that prioritize local residents. However, I believe Bill 9 will have significant unintended consequences for our island’s economy, property owners, and the broader community, without delivering the affordable housing outcomes we all seek. The problem can be seen in Kihei where I have my STVR and my building is not even affordable to me. I cannot see how my HOA would reduce the monthly maintenance fees, as the cost of maintenance and the insurance has sky-rocketed in the past 3 years. The bill risks creating vacant properties and deteriorating condo associations, which could lead to further blight and economic hardship in our communities. I have owned my condo since 2017 and the assessed value has more than doubled in that amount of time, and at the present moment the condo is assessed at a value more than I could even sell it for today.
Economic and Community Impacts
Since Mayor Bissen’s call for tourist to not come to the island after the fires and he continues to ask tourist not to come to Maui as there is a housing crisis, the decline in occupancy in the Kihei condo rental market is right now hurting the STR owner as their property taxes are excessive and the HOA dues continue to soar and now even if the property taxes are lower (but still extreme as the assessed values of the condos far exceed the cost to sell and the property taxes are still too high), the HOA dues will not be lowered at all even if owners do rent long term, the costs for the HOA’s will be higher as there will be more water usage, more propane usage, more maintenance usage as there will be more wear and tear on the property. Our unit also only accommodates one car with no assigned spots and there will be the need for more security to patrol to ensure only one car per condo is parked on the property. This just doesn’t work and it’s so much easier to just build new units that can support long term usage. HOA’s and property owners have operated under long-standing county approvals and legal frameworks. Abruptly changing the rules threatens property rights, HOA maintenance framework,
The real estate market is already reacting to the uncertainty created by this proposal. The median sales price for Maui condos has dropped nearly 25% year-over-year, and listings have surged by almost 70%. This destabilization threatens the financial security of thousands of local families, retirees, and small businesses who depend on rental income or property values.
Independent analysis by the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization (UHERO) projects that Bill 9 could result in the loss of nearly 1,900 local jobs, a $900 million annual drop in visitor spending, and a $60 million reduction in property tax revenue by 2029. These losses would directly impact funding for public services and future housing projects, undermining the very goals the bill seeks to achieve.
Many of the affected vacation rental units are in aging complexes without the amenities, parking, or infrastructure needed for long-term residential use. Surveys indicate that only a small fraction of owners would convert their units to long-term rentals; most would be forced to sell or leave them vacant, which does not guarantee an increase in affordable housing.
The exemption for timeshares appears arbitrary and unfair, as both timeshares and vacation rentals serve visitors and often exist in the same complexes. This inconsistency further erodes trust in the process and the fairness of the legislation. This change in policy threatens the sovereignty of individual property owners’ rights and could result in costly legal challenges for the county.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Dedee Adams
STVR Property Owner, Tax payer, & Homeowner of Long term Occupied home
As a property owner, I strongly oppose the STR ban. Just the possibility of this ban has already impacted tourism on the island recently. Hotels are already laying off workers. I also recognise that the lack of affordable housing on Maui is a huge problem for its full time residents. We hosted a fire victim family in our property for a year, through Native Hawaiian Council, at a much decreased rate than what FEMA was offering owners. There are better solutions to the housing shortage on Maui.
Hi All
This will be incredibly tough for Kapalua. This resort was built as a resort, with the intended use of visitors to the beautiful island.
Our long time friends who own small businesses will be shuttered. Kapalua will fall up in disrepair as without revenue coming in it will be very difficult to pay the high HOA's that go back to the Island. We ,as retired owners, spend 3 months per yr on the island and support all the local businesses as do our guests Stu Fishman Unit 1023 at the Kapalua Ridge
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I would suggest that Bill 9 be amended to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort. The following points support this proposal:
• Maui county has historically identified Papakea as having A2-H2 zoning.
• Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties. Papakea owners have been operating legally for 50 years.
• Papakea does not fit the category of workforce housing converted to transient vacation rental. It has always been a vacation property.
• Papakea property is built as a vacation resort and has limitations when considered as long term family living:
○ The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet.
○ The property has limited parking and storage space.
○ Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood. It is located next to primarily hotel-zoned and commercial-zoned properties.
○ Papakea is designed as a resort, with front desk, activity desk, vacation activities, and other resort amenities.
In addition, Papakea contributes a lot to the local community. There would be tremendous negative impact if it was shut down as a vacation resort.
• Papakea Resort provides full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees. There are additionally a wide variety of local professionals utilized by the resort for maintenance, repairs, entertainment, etc
• Each individual unit contributes to the local community by employing housekeepers, handymen, property managers and more. Obviously, we also contribute a great deal monetarily though state, county and property taxes.
Please consider excluding Papakea from consideration in this bill.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.
Sincerely,
Rob Mapes
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Road, Apartment A304
My husband and I are firmly OPPOSED to the proposed Short Term Rental ban of the Minatoya-zoned properties. Bill 9, to ban STR’s, will harm Maui's economy and do nothing to create affordable housing, or improve Maui’s housing crisis.
“Minatoya list” properties are operated LEGALLY as short-term rentals. Our family has owned and enjoyed our condo since it was built in 1972. It is our Maui home and value it as such. It has been part of our family for 4 generations. We employ local housekeepers, local handyman and repair people for maintenance and repairs, purchase our furnishings from local businesses, & support the Maui economy. We contribute to the local small business and share our knowledge with our guests. Yes, circumstances are such that we are not full-time residents (we would like to be), but Maui has been an important part of our lives for over 50 years. We have family and many longtime friends who are residents.
We are not “rich off-island owners”. Owning our condo is a lifetime dream. Our condo AOAO association dues increased 18% this year to $2890, all of our other expenses (insurance prices, property taxes, TAT taxes) also increased. Unfortunately our rentals dropped way below normal. We rely on our rental income to help cover some of those costs…but it obviously it does NOT make us rich! The Maui economy is not helping.
A recent survey indicated that only 8% of short-term rental owners would convert their units to long-term use. Most owners said they would either sell or leave them vacant. Eliminating vacation rentals is NOT the same as adding housing. Condos are not affordable rentals…and they won’t magically become affordable. It is not proven that local residents want, or can afford, to purchase or rent most condos. These units require lots of maintenance since they are usually in older complexes With one or two bedrooms and small living areas, they are not well-suited for long-term residential living. They were built with people on vacation in mind and lack parking, have very limited storage, noise restrictions and other house rules, and no pets.
The Maui economy is going to be hit hard. The number of lost jobs and small businesses that would be affected outweighs any kind of benefit that the mayor and council think will help full-time residents. Visitors who prefer to vacation in a condo property will not be satisfied with a hotel experience due to ambiance, higher rates, add-on expenses and fees. Hotels move their money off island to corporate business and do not support the Maui economy, while STRs keep income on Maui, with most of it going to small businesses and local workers.
Taking away the legally-obtained licenses/permits of property owners to attempt to solve a housing problem that exists on Maui (and every island in Hawaii) is not the solution. STRs did NOT cause the current housing shortage and eliminating STRs now will not improve it. Maybe, rather than continue to give big, out-of-state developers the right to build luxury condos and hotels (especially if giving them exemptions), county government should focus on building proper housing for the local residents…NOT taking away the rights of other owners.
Like it or not, we all need to face the facts: The Maui economy is dependent on tourism and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Damage to Maui’s reputation is already done. Maui is developing a stand-off reputation as a place that does not welcome visitors. Visitors feel unwelcome and are choosing to go somewhere else where they are valued. Many STR owners are in financial distress.
Let’s work together. Legally-permitted STRs did NOT cause the housing problem and banning them is NOT the solution. Removing as many building restrictions as possible, and prioritizing building affordable long-term housing so residents can get on with their lives is a viable idea. But don’t take away the long-standing legal rights of STR owners in the process.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
Background on Papakea
Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
Papakea has never been workforce housing so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking. There is no storage for actual everyday living.
Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities. It is the type of place that vacationers with small children like because there is a space to put children to bed after a long day and for adults to sit. When my children were small, we did not go on vacation, other than to family, because hotels were untenable,
Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer's investment-backed expectations.
Papakea's Contributions to the Community
Papakea's resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; some started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Individual Owner Contributions to the Community
Many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic nd cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment.
I strongly oppose the ban on short-term vacation rentals. The only one who benefits from this ban are hotel owners, who will inflate prices even more than there are now and Maui tourism will be decimated.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins, and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee, I oppose Bill 9 in its entirety and wanted to provide the Committee with some tangible dollar figures from my STVR as real-world context around what the proponents of Bill 9 claim it would accomplish. My 1-bed unit at Kamaole Sands is the smallest layout with the smallest lanai, so it owes the lowest monthly AOAO fee level in the complex, at $1,108.95/month. Add to this an estimate of $3,344/month in mortgage payments on a 30-year mortgage on an estimated $550,000 purchase price (current assessed value is $919,100), plus a conservative $200/month electric bill, and owner-occupied property tax of $138/month, and you get a monthly cost of $4,790.95, which adds up to $57,491.40/year. Homeowner’s/renter’s insurance would add to this cost. Median household income on Maui was $95,100 from 2019-2023 according to USAfacts.org. The generally recommended share of one's income to be spent on rent/housing is 30% - although on Maui, we all know that many pay more than this. A new owner or long-term renter(s) of my unit would be paying 60% of the median household income on housing/rent, for them/me to cover costs, which means half of the people on Maui would be paying more than 60% of their household income on my unit as housing. I will add that from 2024-2025, I paid $31,948.23 in special AOAO assessments for our unit on top of our monthly AOAO fee as our unit’s share of the long overdue roof and waste pipe replacement in the common elements of our complex. Units that were not able to pay this special assessment are in the process of having liens enforced by the association to seize the unit and force their sale to cover the lein. Many buildings on the Minatoya list were built around the same time as Kamaole Sands, and will soon need to pay for these expensive repairs to their aging infrastructure. Having tourists pay for these costly repairs on these aging complexes which sit within tourism zones like South Kihei Rd. makes so much sense.
This is most certainly not affordable housing, which is defined as housing that costs no more than 30% of household gross income, so no one can legitimately call it that. With all of this in mind, I respectfully ask the HLU Committee members to look closely at the math of all of this and realistically assess the financial viability and effectiveness of the plan set forth in Bill 9, and importantly, to consider alternative options that actually have a higher likelihood of increasing affordable housing supply, such as streamlining permitting, allowing more ADUs, creating a new zoning designation for workforce housing, and building water and road infrastructure to enable local housing options within these new workforce housing zones rather than the past County strategy of trying to get developers of local housing to cover this cost (this strategy just made it unprofitable for builders to build local housing, so none got built - for decades - hence where we find ourselves now).
I am opposed to the passage of Bill 9, as it won’t accomplish its stated goal and will likely result in financial catastrophe on Maui. Too many people complain without suggesting potential solutions, so I wanted to set forth a couple potential alternatives/modifications to Bill 9, if the Council is determined to pass it. There are several ways in which the Council could forge a better way forward with it. One option: provide a clear, enumerated pathway for complexes to qualify for an exemption under this bill, or provide a clear, enumerated, achievable means for complexes that were not built as workforce housing, have always catered to visitors, or that are too old to realistically serve as affordable housing, so these complexes can apply en masse for de facto re-zoning as resort/hotel. Otherwise, this bill risks dozens of aging complexes on Maui falling into bankruptcy due to the disproportionately high maintenance costs of these aging buildings relative to the median household income on Maui. Currently, the high nightly rental rates paid by tourists pay for these complexes’ high carrying costs. The conversation around Bill 9 seems to ignore this important financial consideration.
This bill will, in an instant, shift these high carrying costs onto local Maui residents, and the median household income numbers on Maui will not support the maintenance costs of all of these Minatoya list complexes. The mayor suggesting as an aside in a speech recently given in South Maui that complexes could apply for re-zoning (currently a costly and time-consuming process that the County is likely not staffed to take on at this scale) is not a sufficient/specific enough pathway. Nothing even remotely similar to Bill 9 should be enacted until and unless this pathway is also enacted, so the County doesn’t inadvertently take on a burden it cannot carry without a lot of pain and crumbling, bankrupt buildings that no one can afford to maintain anymore (except for offshore cash buyers in search of a “vacation home at a discount” who might plan to just use their unit for a week or two per year, and leave it empty the rest of the year, and/or start illegally vacation-renting it to “friends”).
Another option: similar to Kauai, declare Visitor Destination Areas (VDAs) where STVRs are permitted in certain kinds of complexes (again, these qualifications need to be specifically enumerated). When it comes to Kihei, we all know that the South Kihei Road corridor is a tourism zone. In this area, STVRs should most certainly be allowed in the complexes that were not in fact built as workforce housing and that currently allow STVRs under the Minatoya List. Tourists will pay a premium to stay in these areas due to their proximity to the ocean, bars and restaurants; let’s harvest this income (and the taxes and income to local small businesses collected therefrom) where we can.
Maui County also admits it does not and has never gone after illegal STVRs, which never made sense, and especially now after the fires, it really makes zero sense, since it’s something that can be done to create new housing for locals, immediately and without a long, drawn-out court battle. Most of these illegal STVRs are standalone cottages or dwelling units attached to single family homes in residential neighborhoods - housing that local residents would otherwise be living in (and, in fact, used to live in before they became illegal STVRs). These illegal STVRs also wreak tourist havoc in residential neighborhoods, much to the dismay of hard working residents and families just trying to live and work here without partying tourists disrupting their sleep. Why not ensure that the tourists stay where they are allowed to stay? And - if we bother to have a rule that STVRs are only allowed in certain buildings, why let folks sidestep it if the County is truly committed to providing housing for local residents? Eliminating illegal STVRs is pretty easy when done in cooperation with platforms like Airbnb - plenty of municipalities are successfully policing this, so there’s really no excuse for this lack of enforcement, if the goal truly is to provide housing to residents. Why don’t we try this and see where the housing situation stands before upending the Maui economy?
Others will no doubt testify about the hundreds of small businesses/sole proprietors who will be driven out of business by this bill, while hotels hire a few more minimum wage employees from off-island so these hotels can send their increased profits off-island to their parent companies. If this bill is enacted, Maui will also see drastically decreased STVR tax revenue that it has increasingly become reliant upon. The Mayor and County Council should specifically state how the County plans to fill the void created by the loss of STVR Property Tax, General Excise Tax, Transient Accommodations Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax collected from these thousands of Minatoya List STVRs. The County will certainly need to increase owner-occupied property tax rates to make up for the shortfall, and owner-occupied property taxpayers deserve to be told how much more it is estimated they will need to pay as a result of this bill. Once again, why not have the tourists continue to pay this higher tax, so residents can pay a lower rate? The more you look at Bill 9, the more it just doesn’t make financial sense, and it’s pretty clear that it won’t even come close to accomplishing what its proponents claim they are trying to achieve. Possibly even the opposite, when you consider tourism dollar losses to tax revenue and local small businesses. I oppose Bill 9 in its entirety, but if it is destined to pass, it is crucial that it pass with thoughtful amendments that take into consideration fiscal realities in order to avoid some serious financial pitfalls. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you for taking the time to carefully consider this issue. My wife and I recently purchased two Golf Villa condos in Kapalua. Naturally, we hope you will choose to exclude Kapalua, and as many others have, we strongly urge you to do so.
We deeply care about the housing crisis and those affected by it. After reading dozens of pages of public comments, I’d like to briefly highlight two very important points:
• Overwhelming Opposition: The volume of opposition here is striking. It’s not just STR owners—it’s residents, workers, and community members from all over Maui. My quick tally across 12 pages shows 95% oppose the bill. Wow.
• STR vs Hotel: This point is being overlooked. The short-term rental experience is vastly different from staying in a hotel. My family has chosen STRs for decades because we prefer to cook, grill, and enjoy a home-like setting. If that option disappears on Maui, those travelers will simply choose other destinations. They truly will. You can't just replace STRs with hotels and expect people to go there instead.
We really hope you'll choose to represent the voices and will of the people you represent as well as those, like us, who will be impacted by this decision. Whether through these comments or public polling, the opposition is overwhelming.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
Background on Papakea
Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
Papakea has never been workforce housing so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking.
Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities.
Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer's investment-backed expectations.
Papakea's Contributions to the Community
Papakea's resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; some started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Individual Owner Contributions to the Community
Many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic nd cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Chad Johnson
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Road, Apartment D209
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
Background on Papakea
Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
Papakea has never been workforce housing so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking.
Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities.
Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer’s investment-backed expectations.
Papakea’s Contributions to the Community
Papakea’s resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; some started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Individual Owner Contributions to the Community
Many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic and cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Rita Maria Schroder
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Rd. Unit B209
As a resident of Maui for nearly 40 years now, I strongly support this bill as a way to mitigate the catastrophic housing disaster we are experiencing in the aftermath of the fires. Prices are completely out of control and it is not sustainable, nor is it pono. It is long past time to put the working class first. Mahalo.
I am an owner of a unit in Hale Kamaole, which has been in my family for over 2 decades. Between myself, my adult children and assorted other family members, we used to visit Maui several times a year. We would rent cards, visit museums, the aquarium, the lavender farm, the plantation tour, snorkel, scuba dive. We would dine out every evening all over the island, including at Mama's Fish House EVERY TIME we visited: all the kinds of touristy things that locals don't usually do.
And the short-term tenants who stay in my unit do the same touristy things, spend the same touristy dollars and essentially help to keep the Maui tourist-based economy going.
The only way to make this possible several times a year is owning the condo and renting it as a short-term rental in the off-times we don't need it.
If we had to rent hotels to visit Maui, we wouldn't be able go. It would be too cost prohibitive and we would not be able to enjoy the touristy things AND pay hotel prices.
I pay property taxes every year - in fact, more taxes than would normally be attached to my rental unit because I live on the mainland.
By the way, in Lake Tahoe, CA, they took away the short-term rentals and now prices are higher than ever. No one can afford to stay overnight there. Few can afford to purchase a property there. Visitors usually stay in Reno, NV, about an hour away, for the affordability, pack a picnic lunch and then go up to Tahoe to window shop or walk along the beach. Not much touristy stuff going on there now.
It's nice that the locals want to keep Maui tourist-free and housing affordable. Please, look at the unintended consequences of this kind of action. I will sell my unit and never visit Hawaii again. The accommodations industry will suffer; the property manager places will suffer; the auto rental places will suffer. The stores, shops, museums, plantation tours, aquarium, lavender farms, snorkel/scuba industries will all have to adjust and get used to doing with less, or perhaps go out of business. How will that help Maui's economy and tax base?
Please look at the big picture and try to work out a compromise.
I am strongly against this bill. It will completely RUIN our local economy beyond belief. This is proven in the conservative UHERO report and also by anyone who has actually reviewed the economics of this. Like it or not, our entire economy depends on tourism and instead of tourists going to hotels, they will just not come anymore if there are not condos available to rent. Who can afford $1000 for a hotel room....many of our visitors come and stay in condos, shop at local stores and support local economy. This will all be gone. Top to bottom, many local swill be out of jobs and this will not fix the affordable housing issue. If it would, then why are locals not buying all of the condos on the market that are down up to 40% form where they were 10 months ago?? I Strongly oppose this horrible bill.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Maui County Council,
I am writing as a concerned property owner in Maui to express my opposition to Bill 9 as proposed by Mayor Bissen. I fully recognize the urgency of Maui’s housing crisis and the desire to find solutions that prioritize local residents. However, I believe Bill 9, as currently drafted, will have significant unintended consequences for our island’s economy, property owners, and the broader community, without delivering the affordable housing outcomes we all seek.
Economic and Community Impacts
Independent analysis by the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization (UHERO) projects that Bill 9 could result in the loss of nearly 1,900 local jobs, a $900 million annual drop in visitor spending, and a $60 million reduction in property tax revenue by 2029. These losses would directly impact funding for public services and future housing projects, undermining the very goals the bill seeks to achieve.
The real estate market is already reacting to the uncertainty created by this proposal. The median sales price for Maui condos has dropped nearly 25% year-over-year, and listings have surged by almost 70%. This destabilization threatens the financial security of thousands of local families, retirees, and small businesses who depend on rental income or property values.
Concerns About Housing Outcomes
Many of the affected vacation rental units are in aging complexes without the amenities, parking, or infrastructure needed for long-term residential use. Surveys indicate that only a small fraction of owners would convert their units to long-term rentals; most would be forced to sell or leave them vacant, which does not guarantee an increase in affordable housing.
The bill risks creating vacant properties and deteriorating condo associations, which could lead to further blight and economic hardship in our communities.
Property Rights and Fairness
Property owners have operated under long-standing county approvals and legal frameworks. Abruptly changing the rules threatens property rights and could result in costly legal challenges for the county.
The exemption for timeshares appears arbitrary and unfair, as both timeshares and vacation rentals serve visitors and often exist in the same complexes. This inconsistency further erodes trust in the process and the fairness of the legislation.
A Call for Balanced Solutions
I respectfully urge the Council to consider alternative approaches that address the housing crisis without causing collateral damage to Maui’s economy and property owners. Options such as tiered tax increases on short-term rentals, auctioning limited permits, or incentivizing voluntary conversion to long-term rentals could provide meaningful results while preserving economic stability.
Let’s work together to create policies that expand affordable housing, protect property rights, and sustain Maui’s unique community and economy for generations to come.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 9 as currently drafted, and to respectfully request that the Council amend the bill to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort, which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
I am an owner at Papakea, a resort that was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions were enacted limiting transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned areas. Papakea has operated as a legal vacation rental property for nearly 50 years and was never intended—nor is it viable—as workforce or long-term housing.
Unlike properties that converted from residential to vacation rental use, Papakea has always been a resort. It features amenities such as a front desk, concierge services, putting greens, koi ponds, and shared resort spaces—amenities that are not typical of long-term residential properties. In fact, the majority of units are under 600 square feet, and the property lacks the parking, storage, and infrastructure necessary to support full-time residential living.
Located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties, Papakea is not situated in a residential neighborhood. Owners purchased condos here with the reasonable expectation—based on County ordinances dating back to 1989 and reaffirmed as recently as 2022—that short-term rentals were and would remain legal.
Relying on those ordinances, as well as Hawaii state law and constitutional protections, owners made substantial investments: they renovated units, furnished them for visitor use, and took on long-term financial commitments such as mortgages and insurance. To remove these rights now would fundamentally undermine those investment-backed expectations.
Beyond the legal and practical considerations, Papakea contributes significantly to the local community and economy:
Employment: Papakea directly employs 35 full-time, benefited staff—many of whom have worked here for over 17 years and have advanced into supervisory roles.
Local Trades & Services: Papakea contracts with local professionals including HVAC techs, plumbers, electricians, painters, tile workers, pest control, and entertainers.
Independent Contractors: Short-term rental operations at Papakea support numerous Maui-based small businesses—housekeepers, on-island agents, handymen, and more—who operate independently, set their own rates, and depend on STRs for flexible, sustainable income.
Tax Revenue: Papakea owners contribute millions annually through property taxes (often at the higher STR rate), the State Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and the Maui County TAT.
Community Engagement: Our guests support local restaurants, shops, tour operators, and parks. Many owners and visitors actively volunteer at beach cleanups, the Humane Society, local hospitals, and contribute to cultural and philanthropic efforts across Maui.
If Bill 9 were passed as currently written, the economic damage would be profound—not just for property owners, but for the many local families, businesses, and workers who rely on Papakea’s resort operations. Worse, the bill would do little to nothing to alleviate the local housing crisis. Papakea units are not and have never been appropriate for long-term housing.
I urge the Council to amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort. The resort’s long-standing legal status, community contributions, and unsuitability for long-term housing make it categorically different from properties the bill seeks to regulate.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Brenda Lane, and my husband Mark and I have owned a short-term rental property in Maui County since 1984. I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals.
I’ve worked hard to be a responsible and community-oriented owner. I recommend local restaurants and businesses in my welcome guide. I employ local service providers — rental managers, cleaners, maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become like family over the years. We have watched each other’s children grow up over the years. They are very worried about how they will support themselves if this bill passes. We have spent many months a year in Maui since 1984, making many local friends. We support the Maui Food Bank, and have volunteered with Hale Kau Kau to provide meals for the homeless. We offered our condo free of charge immediately to people who lost their homes in the Lahaina fire, cancelling previous bookings to do so, and had two families stay until they found something to rent long term. We also paid the utilities for them.
I have guests who have returned year after year who have also developed a relationship with local businesses and residents. Some of my guests have even said they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation rental option. A hotel is not an option for many families. That matters — not just to me, but to all the small businesses they supported during their stay.
Owning in this complex has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special assessments ($72,000 over the past two years), and massive increases in insurance after the fires. These aren’t luxuries — they’re costs that ensure the property remains safe, functional, and appealing. STR income helps cover those costs while supporting local workers. We have supported local businesses over the past 40 years – remodeling the kitchen and bathrooms (twice!), buying appliances, carpet and furniture locally as well as employing local cleaners, managers, landscapers, etc. Losing the STR income would mean that we would no longer be able to make these updates as often. After Covid had a devastating effect on the Maui economy, we decided to purchase all new appliances to support the local economy (we usually wait until something breaks), and replaced our old car with a newer model from Island Honda. Similarly, when replacing furniture and appliances we give away the old pieces to local charities.
This legislation feels rushed and one-sided. 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.
If the intent of this bill is store restore housing that was intended to be workforce housing when it was built, It would be useful to have staff determine which complexes were actually built to be workforce housing, or at least establish criteria to determine what makes a project workforce housing. I’m sure ours (Hale Kamaole) was not, as they were originally sold (in 1974) completely furnished down to dishes and linens, which is not typical for workforce housing. Also, Hawaiian banks would not make loans to purchase condos here, since not enough units were owner occupied to qualify as a residential loan. They have always been rented as short-term vacation rentals.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark and Brenda Lane
2737 S Kihei Rd. #309
Kihei, HI 96753
HK309lanes@aol.com
Rents have gone to ridiculous proportions after the fires and FEMA supporting evictions of tenants to pay landlords triple the rents to house fire victims. Renters need help, so many have left the island already!!! Support Bill #9!!! And if ur old enuff to remember Yoko Ono and John Lennon sing #9!!!
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Richard Howell and I own property at Kapalua Bay Villas in Maui County. The Kapalua Bay Villas are part of a 50 year master planned resort community in The Kapalua Resort.
Kapalua Resort was not intended or built as affordable or workforce housing. Maui Land and Pineapple built other affordable and workforce housing as a condition for the approval of the Kapalua Resort master plan which included building the Kapalua Bay Villas. Since its inception in the 1970s, Kapalua Bay Villas has been allowed short term rentals under the Kapalua resort plan.
Kapalua Bay Villas are neither affordable nor workforce housing. It is a resort property. It was not built with any garages. It has limited parking and minimal storage. No pets are allowed. Occupancy is limited. Common area activities are restricted. No work vehicles are allowed. The maintanence fees exceed $32,000 per year. Significant and expensive projects are in the works i.e. new drain pipes throughout the entire complex and new roofing for all units. This will only increase maintanence fees. In all respects for over 45 years, Kapalua Bay Villas was planned, built, sold as, and continues to be used as a resort property. It is not now and never has been workforce or affordable housing.
It appears that Section 5 of Bill 9 (2025) amends 19.32.040 exempts Kapalua Bay Villas without specifically naming it from the proposed ban. Please unambiguously and unequivocally exempt Kapalua Bay Villas by name pursuant to Section 5 of Bill 9 (2025) amending 19.32.040 since it was planned, approved, built, and was, and has always been, used inclusive of short term rentals.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Howell
how3861@aol.com
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Maui County Council,
I am writing as a concerned property owner in Maui to express my opposition to Bill 9 as proposed by Mayor Bissen. I fully recognize the urgency of Maui’s housing crisis and the desire to find solutions that prioritize local residents. However, I believe Bill 9 will have significant unintended consequences for our island’s economy, property owners, and the broader community, without delivering the affordable housing outcomes we all seek. The problem can be seen in Kihei where I have my STVR and my building is not even affordable to me. I cannot see how my HOA would reduce the monthly maintenance fees, as the cost of maintenance and the insurance has sky-rocketed in the past 3 years. The bill risks creating vacant properties and deteriorating condo associations, which could lead to further blight and economic hardship in our communities. I have owned my condo since 2017 and the assessed value has more than doubled in that amount of time, and at the present moment the condo is assessed at a value more than I could even sell it for today.
Economic and Community Impacts
Since Mayor Bissen’s call for tourist to not come to the island after the fires and he continues to ask tourist not to come to Maui as there is a housing crisis, the decline in occupancy in the Kihei condo rental market is right now hurting the STR owner as their property taxes are excessive and the HOA dues continue to soar and now even if the property taxes are lower (but still extreme as the assessed values of the condos far exceed the cost to sell and the property taxes are still too high), the HOA dues will not be lowered at all even if owners do rent long term, the costs for the HOA’s will be higher as there will be more water usage, more propane usage, more maintenance usage as there will be more wear and tear on the property. Our unit also only accommodates one car with no assigned spots and there will be the need for more security to patrol to ensure only one car per condo is parked on the property. This just doesn’t work and it’s so much easier to just build new units that can support long term usage. HOA’s and property owners have operated under long-standing county approvals and legal frameworks. Abruptly changing the rules threatens property rights, HOA maintenance framework,
The real estate market is already reacting to the uncertainty created by this proposal. The median sales price for Maui condos has dropped nearly 25% year-over-year, and listings have surged by almost 70%. This destabilization threatens the financial security of thousands of local families, retirees, and small businesses who depend on rental income or property values.
Independent analysis by the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization (UHERO) projects that Bill 9 could result in the loss of nearly 1,900 local jobs, a $900 million annual drop in visitor spending, and a $60 million reduction in property tax revenue by 2029. These losses would directly impact funding for public services and future housing projects, undermining the very goals the bill seeks to achieve.
Many of the affected vacation rental units are in aging complexes without the amenities, parking, or infrastructure needed for long-term residential use. Surveys indicate that only a small fraction of owners would convert their units to long-term rentals; most would be forced to sell or leave them vacant, which does not guarantee an increase in affordable housing.
The exemption for timeshares appears arbitrary and unfair, as both timeshares and vacation rentals serve visitors and often exist in the same complexes. This inconsistency further erodes trust in the process and the fairness of the legislation. This change in policy threatens the sovereignty of individual property owners’ rights and could result in costly legal challenges for the county.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Dedee Adams
STVR Property Owner, Tax payer, & Homeowner of Long term Occupied home
As a property owner, I strongly oppose the STR ban. Just the possibility of this ban has already impacted tourism on the island recently. Hotels are already laying off workers. I also recognise that the lack of affordable housing on Maui is a huge problem for its full time residents. We hosted a fire victim family in our property for a year, through Native Hawaiian Council, at a much decreased rate than what FEMA was offering owners. There are better solutions to the housing shortage on Maui.
Hi All
This will be incredibly tough for Kapalua. This resort was built as a resort, with the intended use of visitors to the beautiful island.
Our long time friends who own small businesses will be shuttered. Kapalua will fall up in disrepair as without revenue coming in it will be very difficult to pay the high HOA's that go back to the Island. We ,as retired owners, spend 3 months per yr on the island and support all the local businesses as do our guests Stu Fishman Unit 1023 at the Kapalua Ridge
Please don’t ruin beautiful Kapalua.
Sue Fishman
Owner Ridge 10-23
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I would suggest that Bill 9 be amended to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort. The following points support this proposal:
• Maui county has historically identified Papakea as having A2-H2 zoning.
• Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties. Papakea owners have been operating legally for 50 years.
• Papakea does not fit the category of workforce housing converted to transient vacation rental. It has always been a vacation property.
• Papakea property is built as a vacation resort and has limitations when considered as long term family living:
○ The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet.
○ The property has limited parking and storage space.
○ Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood. It is located next to primarily hotel-zoned and commercial-zoned properties.
○ Papakea is designed as a resort, with front desk, activity desk, vacation activities, and other resort amenities.
In addition, Papakea contributes a lot to the local community. There would be tremendous negative impact if it was shut down as a vacation resort.
• Papakea Resort provides full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees. There are additionally a wide variety of local professionals utilized by the resort for maintenance, repairs, entertainment, etc
• Each individual unit contributes to the local community by employing housekeepers, handymen, property managers and more. Obviously, we also contribute a great deal monetarily though state, county and property taxes.
Please consider excluding Papakea from consideration in this bill.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.
Sincerely,
Rob Mapes
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Road, Apartment A304
Aloha Council Members,
My husband and I are firmly OPPOSED to the proposed Short Term Rental ban of the Minatoya-zoned properties. Bill 9, to ban STR’s, will harm Maui's economy and do nothing to create affordable housing, or improve Maui’s housing crisis.
“Minatoya list” properties are operated LEGALLY as short-term rentals. Our family has owned and enjoyed our condo since it was built in 1972. It is our Maui home and value it as such. It has been part of our family for 4 generations. We employ local housekeepers, local handyman and repair people for maintenance and repairs, purchase our furnishings from local businesses, & support the Maui economy. We contribute to the local small business and share our knowledge with our guests. Yes, circumstances are such that we are not full-time residents (we would like to be), but Maui has been an important part of our lives for over 50 years. We have family and many longtime friends who are residents.
We are not “rich off-island owners”. Owning our condo is a lifetime dream. Our condo AOAO association dues increased 18% this year to $2890, all of our other expenses (insurance prices, property taxes, TAT taxes) also increased. Unfortunately our rentals dropped way below normal. We rely on our rental income to help cover some of those costs…but it obviously it does NOT make us rich! The Maui economy is not helping.
A recent survey indicated that only 8% of short-term rental owners would convert their units to long-term use. Most owners said they would either sell or leave them vacant. Eliminating vacation rentals is NOT the same as adding housing. Condos are not affordable rentals…and they won’t magically become affordable. It is not proven that local residents want, or can afford, to purchase or rent most condos. These units require lots of maintenance since they are usually in older complexes With one or two bedrooms and small living areas, they are not well-suited for long-term residential living. They were built with people on vacation in mind and lack parking, have very limited storage, noise restrictions and other house rules, and no pets.
The Maui economy is going to be hit hard. The number of lost jobs and small businesses that would be affected outweighs any kind of benefit that the mayor and council think will help full-time residents. Visitors who prefer to vacation in a condo property will not be satisfied with a hotel experience due to ambiance, higher rates, add-on expenses and fees. Hotels move their money off island to corporate business and do not support the Maui economy, while STRs keep income on Maui, with most of it going to small businesses and local workers.
Taking away the legally-obtained licenses/permits of property owners to attempt to solve a housing problem that exists on Maui (and every island in Hawaii) is not the solution. STRs did NOT cause the current housing shortage and eliminating STRs now will not improve it. Maybe, rather than continue to give big, out-of-state developers the right to build luxury condos and hotels (especially if giving them exemptions), county government should focus on building proper housing for the local residents…NOT taking away the rights of other owners.
Like it or not, we all need to face the facts: The Maui economy is dependent on tourism and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Damage to Maui’s reputation is already done. Maui is developing a stand-off reputation as a place that does not welcome visitors. Visitors feel unwelcome and are choosing to go somewhere else where they are valued. Many STR owners are in financial distress.
Let’s work together. Legally-permitted STRs did NOT cause the housing problem and banning them is NOT the solution. Removing as many building restrictions as possible, and prioritizing building affordable long-term housing so residents can get on with their lives is a viable idea. But don’t take away the long-standing legal rights of STR owners in the process.
Respectfully,
Jim Hybiske
Marilyn Hybiske
Maui Property Owners & Maui Tax Payers
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
Background on Papakea
Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
Papakea has never been workforce housing so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking. There is no storage for actual everyday living.
Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities. It is the type of place that vacationers with small children like because there is a space to put children to bed after a long day and for adults to sit. When my children were small, we did not go on vacation, other than to family, because hotels were untenable,
Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer's investment-backed expectations.
Papakea's Contributions to the Community
Papakea's resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; some started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Individual Owner Contributions to the Community
Many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic nd cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kate Johnson
I strongly oppose the ban on short-term vacation rentals. The only one who benefits from this ban are hotel owners, who will inflate prices even more than there are now and Maui tourism will be decimated.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins, and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee, I oppose Bill 9 in its entirety and wanted to provide the Committee with some tangible dollar figures from my STVR as real-world context around what the proponents of Bill 9 claim it would accomplish. My 1-bed unit at Kamaole Sands is the smallest layout with the smallest lanai, so it owes the lowest monthly AOAO fee level in the complex, at $1,108.95/month. Add to this an estimate of $3,344/month in mortgage payments on a 30-year mortgage on an estimated $550,000 purchase price (current assessed value is $919,100), plus a conservative $200/month electric bill, and owner-occupied property tax of $138/month, and you get a monthly cost of $4,790.95, which adds up to $57,491.40/year. Homeowner’s/renter’s insurance would add to this cost. Median household income on Maui was $95,100 from 2019-2023 according to USAfacts.org. The generally recommended share of one's income to be spent on rent/housing is 30% - although on Maui, we all know that many pay more than this. A new owner or long-term renter(s) of my unit would be paying 60% of the median household income on housing/rent, for them/me to cover costs, which means half of the people on Maui would be paying more than 60% of their household income on my unit as housing. I will add that from 2024-2025, I paid $31,948.23 in special AOAO assessments for our unit on top of our monthly AOAO fee as our unit’s share of the long overdue roof and waste pipe replacement in the common elements of our complex. Units that were not able to pay this special assessment are in the process of having liens enforced by the association to seize the unit and force their sale to cover the lein. Many buildings on the Minatoya list were built around the same time as Kamaole Sands, and will soon need to pay for these expensive repairs to their aging infrastructure. Having tourists pay for these costly repairs on these aging complexes which sit within tourism zones like South Kihei Rd. makes so much sense.
This is most certainly not affordable housing, which is defined as housing that costs no more than 30% of household gross income, so no one can legitimately call it that. With all of this in mind, I respectfully ask the HLU Committee members to look closely at the math of all of this and realistically assess the financial viability and effectiveness of the plan set forth in Bill 9, and importantly, to consider alternative options that actually have a higher likelihood of increasing affordable housing supply, such as streamlining permitting, allowing more ADUs, creating a new zoning designation for workforce housing, and building water and road infrastructure to enable local housing options within these new workforce housing zones rather than the past County strategy of trying to get developers of local housing to cover this cost (this strategy just made it unprofitable for builders to build local housing, so none got built - for decades - hence where we find ourselves now).
I am opposed to the passage of Bill 9, as it won’t accomplish its stated goal and will likely result in financial catastrophe on Maui. Too many people complain without suggesting potential solutions, so I wanted to set forth a couple potential alternatives/modifications to Bill 9, if the Council is determined to pass it. There are several ways in which the Council could forge a better way forward with it. One option: provide a clear, enumerated pathway for complexes to qualify for an exemption under this bill, or provide a clear, enumerated, achievable means for complexes that were not built as workforce housing, have always catered to visitors, or that are too old to realistically serve as affordable housing, so these complexes can apply en masse for de facto re-zoning as resort/hotel. Otherwise, this bill risks dozens of aging complexes on Maui falling into bankruptcy due to the disproportionately high maintenance costs of these aging buildings relative to the median household income on Maui. Currently, the high nightly rental rates paid by tourists pay for these complexes’ high carrying costs. The conversation around Bill 9 seems to ignore this important financial consideration.
This bill will, in an instant, shift these high carrying costs onto local Maui residents, and the median household income numbers on Maui will not support the maintenance costs of all of these Minatoya list complexes. The mayor suggesting as an aside in a speech recently given in South Maui that complexes could apply for re-zoning (currently a costly and time-consuming process that the County is likely not staffed to take on at this scale) is not a sufficient/specific enough pathway. Nothing even remotely similar to Bill 9 should be enacted until and unless this pathway is also enacted, so the County doesn’t inadvertently take on a burden it cannot carry without a lot of pain and crumbling, bankrupt buildings that no one can afford to maintain anymore (except for offshore cash buyers in search of a “vacation home at a discount” who might plan to just use their unit for a week or two per year, and leave it empty the rest of the year, and/or start illegally vacation-renting it to “friends”).
Another option: similar to Kauai, declare Visitor Destination Areas (VDAs) where STVRs are permitted in certain kinds of complexes (again, these qualifications need to be specifically enumerated). When it comes to Kihei, we all know that the South Kihei Road corridor is a tourism zone. In this area, STVRs should most certainly be allowed in the complexes that were not in fact built as workforce housing and that currently allow STVRs under the Minatoya List. Tourists will pay a premium to stay in these areas due to their proximity to the ocean, bars and restaurants; let’s harvest this income (and the taxes and income to local small businesses collected therefrom) where we can.
Maui County also admits it does not and has never gone after illegal STVRs, which never made sense, and especially now after the fires, it really makes zero sense, since it’s something that can be done to create new housing for locals, immediately and without a long, drawn-out court battle. Most of these illegal STVRs are standalone cottages or dwelling units attached to single family homes in residential neighborhoods - housing that local residents would otherwise be living in (and, in fact, used to live in before they became illegal STVRs). These illegal STVRs also wreak tourist havoc in residential neighborhoods, much to the dismay of hard working residents and families just trying to live and work here without partying tourists disrupting their sleep. Why not ensure that the tourists stay where they are allowed to stay? And - if we bother to have a rule that STVRs are only allowed in certain buildings, why let folks sidestep it if the County is truly committed to providing housing for local residents? Eliminating illegal STVRs is pretty easy when done in cooperation with platforms like Airbnb - plenty of municipalities are successfully policing this, so there’s really no excuse for this lack of enforcement, if the goal truly is to provide housing to residents. Why don’t we try this and see where the housing situation stands before upending the Maui economy?
Others will no doubt testify about the hundreds of small businesses/sole proprietors who will be driven out of business by this bill, while hotels hire a few more minimum wage employees from off-island so these hotels can send their increased profits off-island to their parent companies. If this bill is enacted, Maui will also see drastically decreased STVR tax revenue that it has increasingly become reliant upon. The Mayor and County Council should specifically state how the County plans to fill the void created by the loss of STVR Property Tax, General Excise Tax, Transient Accommodations Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax collected from these thousands of Minatoya List STVRs. The County will certainly need to increase owner-occupied property tax rates to make up for the shortfall, and owner-occupied property taxpayers deserve to be told how much more it is estimated they will need to pay as a result of this bill. Once again, why not have the tourists continue to pay this higher tax, so residents can pay a lower rate? The more you look at Bill 9, the more it just doesn’t make financial sense, and it’s pretty clear that it won’t even come close to accomplishing what its proponents claim they are trying to achieve. Possibly even the opposite, when you consider tourism dollar losses to tax revenue and local small businesses. I oppose Bill 9 in its entirety, but if it is destined to pass, it is crucial that it pass with thoughtful amendments that take into consideration fiscal realities in order to avoid some serious financial pitfalls. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Aloha Maui County Council,
Thank you for taking the time to carefully consider this issue. My wife and I recently purchased two Golf Villa condos in Kapalua. Naturally, we hope you will choose to exclude Kapalua, and as many others have, we strongly urge you to do so.
We deeply care about the housing crisis and those affected by it. After reading dozens of pages of public comments, I’d like to briefly highlight two very important points:
• Overwhelming Opposition: The volume of opposition here is striking. It’s not just STR owners—it’s residents, workers, and community members from all over Maui. My quick tally across 12 pages shows 95% oppose the bill. Wow.
• STR vs Hotel: This point is being overlooked. The short-term rental experience is vastly different from staying in a hotel. My family has chosen STRs for decades because we prefer to cook, grill, and enjoy a home-like setting. If that option disappears on Maui, those travelers will simply choose other destinations. They truly will. You can't just replace STRs with hotels and expect people to go there instead.
We really hope you'll choose to represent the voices and will of the people you represent as well as those, like us, who will be impacted by this decision. Whether through these comments or public polling, the opposition is overwhelming.
Much Mahalo for listening,
Jay and Trina Stocker
Windsor, CO
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
Background on Papakea
Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
Papakea has never been workforce housing so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking.
Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities.
Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer's investment-backed expectations.
Papakea's Contributions to the Community
Papakea's resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; some started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Individual Owner Contributions to the Community
Many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic nd cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Chad Johnson
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Road, Apartment D209
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
Background on Papakea
Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
Papakea has never been workforce housing so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking.
Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities.
Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer’s investment-backed expectations.
Papakea’s Contributions to the Community
Papakea’s resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; some started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Individual Owner Contributions to the Community
Many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic and cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Rita Maria Schroder
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Rd. Unit B209
As a resident of Maui for nearly 40 years now, I strongly support this bill as a way to mitigate the catastrophic housing disaster we are experiencing in the aftermath of the fires. Prices are completely out of control and it is not sustainable, nor is it pono. It is long past time to put the working class first. Mahalo.
I am an owner of a unit in Hale Kamaole, which has been in my family for over 2 decades. Between myself, my adult children and assorted other family members, we used to visit Maui several times a year. We would rent cards, visit museums, the aquarium, the lavender farm, the plantation tour, snorkel, scuba dive. We would dine out every evening all over the island, including at Mama's Fish House EVERY TIME we visited: all the kinds of touristy things that locals don't usually do.
And the short-term tenants who stay in my unit do the same touristy things, spend the same touristy dollars and essentially help to keep the Maui tourist-based economy going.
The only way to make this possible several times a year is owning the condo and renting it as a short-term rental in the off-times we don't need it.
If we had to rent hotels to visit Maui, we wouldn't be able go. It would be too cost prohibitive and we would not be able to enjoy the touristy things AND pay hotel prices.
I pay property taxes every year - in fact, more taxes than would normally be attached to my rental unit because I live on the mainland.
By the way, in Lake Tahoe, CA, they took away the short-term rentals and now prices are higher than ever. No one can afford to stay overnight there. Few can afford to purchase a property there. Visitors usually stay in Reno, NV, about an hour away, for the affordability, pack a picnic lunch and then go up to Tahoe to window shop or walk along the beach. Not much touristy stuff going on there now.
It's nice that the locals want to keep Maui tourist-free and housing affordable. Please, look at the unintended consequences of this kind of action. I will sell my unit and never visit Hawaii again. The accommodations industry will suffer; the property manager places will suffer; the auto rental places will suffer. The stores, shops, museums, plantation tours, aquarium, lavender farms, snorkel/scuba industries will all have to adjust and get used to doing with less, or perhaps go out of business. How will that help Maui's economy and tax base?
Please look at the big picture and try to work out a compromise.
Very sincerely,
Carole Fineberg
I am strongly against this bill. It will completely RUIN our local economy beyond belief. This is proven in the conservative UHERO report and also by anyone who has actually reviewed the economics of this. Like it or not, our entire economy depends on tourism and instead of tourists going to hotels, they will just not come anymore if there are not condos available to rent. Who can afford $1000 for a hotel room....many of our visitors come and stay in condos, shop at local stores and support local economy. This will all be gone. Top to bottom, many local swill be out of jobs and this will not fix the affordable housing issue. If it would, then why are locals not buying all of the condos on the market that are down up to 40% form where they were 10 months ago?? I Strongly oppose this horrible bill.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Maui County Council,
I am writing as a concerned property owner in Maui to express my opposition to Bill 9 as proposed by Mayor Bissen. I fully recognize the urgency of Maui’s housing crisis and the desire to find solutions that prioritize local residents. However, I believe Bill 9, as currently drafted, will have significant unintended consequences for our island’s economy, property owners, and the broader community, without delivering the affordable housing outcomes we all seek.
Economic and Community Impacts
Independent analysis by the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization (UHERO) projects that Bill 9 could result in the loss of nearly 1,900 local jobs, a $900 million annual drop in visitor spending, and a $60 million reduction in property tax revenue by 2029. These losses would directly impact funding for public services and future housing projects, undermining the very goals the bill seeks to achieve.
The real estate market is already reacting to the uncertainty created by this proposal. The median sales price for Maui condos has dropped nearly 25% year-over-year, and listings have surged by almost 70%. This destabilization threatens the financial security of thousands of local families, retirees, and small businesses who depend on rental income or property values.
Concerns About Housing Outcomes
Many of the affected vacation rental units are in aging complexes without the amenities, parking, or infrastructure needed for long-term residential use. Surveys indicate that only a small fraction of owners would convert their units to long-term rentals; most would be forced to sell or leave them vacant, which does not guarantee an increase in affordable housing.
The bill risks creating vacant properties and deteriorating condo associations, which could lead to further blight and economic hardship in our communities.
Property Rights and Fairness
Property owners have operated under long-standing county approvals and legal frameworks. Abruptly changing the rules threatens property rights and could result in costly legal challenges for the county.
The exemption for timeshares appears arbitrary and unfair, as both timeshares and vacation rentals serve visitors and often exist in the same complexes. This inconsistency further erodes trust in the process and the fairness of the legislation.
A Call for Balanced Solutions
I respectfully urge the Council to consider alternative approaches that address the housing crisis without causing collateral damage to Maui’s economy and property owners. Options such as tiered tax increases on short-term rentals, auctioning limited permits, or incentivizing voluntary conversion to long-term rentals could provide meaningful results while preserving economic stability.
Let’s work together to create policies that expand affordable housing, protect property rights, and sustain Maui’s unique community and economy for generations to come.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 9 as currently drafted, and to respectfully request that the Council amend the bill to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort, which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
I am an owner at Papakea, a resort that was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions were enacted limiting transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned areas. Papakea has operated as a legal vacation rental property for nearly 50 years and was never intended—nor is it viable—as workforce or long-term housing.
Unlike properties that converted from residential to vacation rental use, Papakea has always been a resort. It features amenities such as a front desk, concierge services, putting greens, koi ponds, and shared resort spaces—amenities that are not typical of long-term residential properties. In fact, the majority of units are under 600 square feet, and the property lacks the parking, storage, and infrastructure necessary to support full-time residential living.
Located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties, Papakea is not situated in a residential neighborhood. Owners purchased condos here with the reasonable expectation—based on County ordinances dating back to 1989 and reaffirmed as recently as 2022—that short-term rentals were and would remain legal.
Relying on those ordinances, as well as Hawaii state law and constitutional protections, owners made substantial investments: they renovated units, furnished them for visitor use, and took on long-term financial commitments such as mortgages and insurance. To remove these rights now would fundamentally undermine those investment-backed expectations.
Beyond the legal and practical considerations, Papakea contributes significantly to the local community and economy:
Employment: Papakea directly employs 35 full-time, benefited staff—many of whom have worked here for over 17 years and have advanced into supervisory roles.
Local Trades & Services: Papakea contracts with local professionals including HVAC techs, plumbers, electricians, painters, tile workers, pest control, and entertainers.
Independent Contractors: Short-term rental operations at Papakea support numerous Maui-based small businesses—housekeepers, on-island agents, handymen, and more—who operate independently, set their own rates, and depend on STRs for flexible, sustainable income.
Tax Revenue: Papakea owners contribute millions annually through property taxes (often at the higher STR rate), the State Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and the Maui County TAT.
Community Engagement: Our guests support local restaurants, shops, tour operators, and parks. Many owners and visitors actively volunteer at beach cleanups, the Humane Society, local hospitals, and contribute to cultural and philanthropic efforts across Maui.
If Bill 9 were passed as currently written, the economic damage would be profound—not just for property owners, but for the many local families, businesses, and workers who rely on Papakea’s resort operations. Worse, the bill would do little to nothing to alleviate the local housing crisis. Papakea units are not and have never been appropriate for long-term housing.
I urge the Council to amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort. The resort’s long-standing legal status, community contributions, and unsuitability for long-term housing make it categorically different from properties the bill seeks to regulate.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jenelle Morella
A407
Papakea Oceanfront Resort Owner
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Brenda Lane, and my husband Mark and I have owned a short-term rental property in Maui County since 1984. I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals.
I’ve worked hard to be a responsible and community-oriented owner. I recommend local restaurants and businesses in my welcome guide. I employ local service providers — rental managers, cleaners, maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become like family over the years. We have watched each other’s children grow up over the years. They are very worried about how they will support themselves if this bill passes. We have spent many months a year in Maui since 1984, making many local friends. We support the Maui Food Bank, and have volunteered with Hale Kau Kau to provide meals for the homeless. We offered our condo free of charge immediately to people who lost their homes in the Lahaina fire, cancelling previous bookings to do so, and had two families stay until they found something to rent long term. We also paid the utilities for them.
I have guests who have returned year after year who have also developed a relationship with local businesses and residents. Some of my guests have even said they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation rental option. A hotel is not an option for many families. That matters — not just to me, but to all the small businesses they supported during their stay.
Owning in this complex has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special assessments ($72,000 over the past two years), and massive increases in insurance after the fires. These aren’t luxuries — they’re costs that ensure the property remains safe, functional, and appealing. STR income helps cover those costs while supporting local workers. We have supported local businesses over the past 40 years – remodeling the kitchen and bathrooms (twice!), buying appliances, carpet and furniture locally as well as employing local cleaners, managers, landscapers, etc. Losing the STR income would mean that we would no longer be able to make these updates as often. After Covid had a devastating effect on the Maui economy, we decided to purchase all new appliances to support the local economy (we usually wait until something breaks), and replaced our old car with a newer model from Island Honda. Similarly, when replacing furniture and appliances we give away the old pieces to local charities.
This legislation feels rushed and one-sided. 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.
If the intent of this bill is store restore housing that was intended to be workforce housing when it was built, It would be useful to have staff determine which complexes were actually built to be workforce housing, or at least establish criteria to determine what makes a project workforce housing. I’m sure ours (Hale Kamaole) was not, as they were originally sold (in 1974) completely furnished down to dishes and linens, which is not typical for workforce housing. Also, Hawaiian banks would not make loans to purchase condos here, since not enough units were owner occupied to qualify as a residential loan. They have always been rented as short-term vacation rentals.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark and Brenda Lane
2737 S Kihei Rd. #309
Kihei, HI 96753
HK309lanes@aol.com
Rents have gone to ridiculous proportions after the fires and FEMA supporting evictions of tenants to pay landlords triple the rents to house fire victims. Renters need help, so many have left the island already!!! Support Bill #9!!! And if ur old enuff to remember Yoko Ono and John Lennon sing #9!!!
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Richard Howell and I own property at Kapalua Bay Villas in Maui County. The Kapalua Bay Villas are part of a 50 year master planned resort community in The Kapalua Resort.
Kapalua Resort was not intended or built as affordable or workforce housing. Maui Land and Pineapple built other affordable and workforce housing as a condition for the approval of the Kapalua Resort master plan which included building the Kapalua Bay Villas. Since its inception in the 1970s, Kapalua Bay Villas has been allowed short term rentals under the Kapalua resort plan.
Kapalua Bay Villas are neither affordable nor workforce housing. It is a resort property. It was not built with any garages. It has limited parking and minimal storage. No pets are allowed. Occupancy is limited. Common area activities are restricted. No work vehicles are allowed. The maintanence fees exceed $32,000 per year. Significant and expensive projects are in the works i.e. new drain pipes throughout the entire complex and new roofing for all units. This will only increase maintanence fees. In all respects for over 45 years, Kapalua Bay Villas was planned, built, sold as, and continues to be used as a resort property. It is not now and never has been workforce or affordable housing.
It appears that Section 5 of Bill 9 (2025) amends 19.32.040 exempts Kapalua Bay Villas without specifically naming it from the proposed ban. Please unambiguously and unequivocally exempt Kapalua Bay Villas by name pursuant to Section 5 of Bill 9 (2025) amending 19.32.040 since it was planned, approved, built, and was, and has always been, used inclusive of short term rentals.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Howell
how3861@aol.com