We are short-term rental owners in Maui County. It is of great importance to us to respect and support the local community. We are opposed to the proposed legislation to phase out STRs on the Minatoya List zoned A1/A2. - We employ property managers, cleaners, maintenance workers as well as support local restaurants and markets. All of these hard-working people will most likely lose their businesses and jobs if the short-term rental market in phased out. The assessments on our 700 sq ft. are $1282.17 maintenance $1064.67 land lease per month, as well as $9850.46 in property taxes. There is not a mortgage on the property but just the monthly expenses are $3167.71 per month. This unit cannot provide affordable housing for a local family. Most of the short-term rentals are not designed or appropriate for long term family living. The solution is to provide affordable housing and assistance in rebuilding the properties that families lost. Ending short term rentals will only create more challenges for the devastated residents. If the properties are not properly maintained, it will negatively affect the safety and appeal of the surrounding properties. The choice to eliminate short term rental in Maui is not the solution. It only creates a larger obstacle for working residents to overcome. Local artists who depend on tourists to purchase their products, small business, rental car companies and the people that they employ, cleaning businesses for short term rental properties, tour companies and their employees will all be affected by the loss of these accommodations for travelers. The impact will be felt for the residents that live in the Lahaina area to a greater extent than ever! The state transient tax, GET tax and property taxes are already creating a decline in travel to Maui. Unfortunately, many properties with short term rental occupancy will have units go into foreclosure also creating a less than desirable environment for choosing Maui for hard earned vacation time as well as make affordable housing less attainable for locals. There needs to be a balance and long-term plan to allow the residents to return to a normal lifestyle! The income from tourists staying in large hotels is mostly returned to the mainland or wherever the large corporation is based. They do not have any intention of helping local people other than to generate income and exploit publicity to achieve more expansion exchanging the island Aloha to corporate profits. Responsible operation with proper permitting and regulations of short-term rentals will continue to provide a sustainable path for recovery for the local Maui residents.
Mahalo for considering the devastating impact that this proposal will have on the local residents of Maui and deliberating a resolution to respectfully accomplish the financial security for the future of Maui.
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.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Steimel
I oppose the elimination of short term rentals or units in the Minatoya List. I am the owner of a single unit in one of the properties. I am a small homeowner, not a big corporation. I employ local help to maintain and manage my unit and source the supplies for my unit locally.
My resort condo building was never meant to be an individual long term rental. It was built and designed as resort setting. For example, the units do not have individual electric or water meters. A large part of the property is taken up by a reception lobby area. And the parking spaces are limited, one car per unit. None of these are meant for longer term family living. Local families deserve a better solution, not cramped into a tiny short term rental unit for long term living.
The current value of these units is based significantly on the right of owners to rent to vacationers. If this usage is eliminated, the property value will immediately drop. However, it's expensive to maintain a coast front unit. The income from STR is critical to offset the cost. If the STR is eliminated, the rent for long term rental will not likely be affordable due to its high maintenance cost.
Many of the guests have said they wouldn't have come to Maui if there had not been short term vacation rentals like mine. These vacationers prefer staying at a condo with home-like setting, not a hotel room. By eliminating the short term rental units will likely to drive up the room rate in Maui, so more short term rental availability also helps keeping the Maui a competitive vacation spot.
It has been difficult to own and operate short term rentals for my unit, with maintenance costs, special assessments and massive increases for insurance after the fires. The elimination of short term rentals of Maui properties in the "Minatoya List" is just wrong and will be economically disastrous.
Please do not remove the right of Minatoya List units to operate as short term vacation rentals. There are better win-win solutions to help creating better and more affordable housings.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Rick Callies, and my wife and I own property in the Kapalua Resort in Maui County. We are writing to express our strong belief that the proposed legislation is overbroad and should be amended to exempt the Kapalua Resort clearly and unambiguously from the proposed short-term rental ban.
The Kapalua Resort is a master planned resort community. The Kapalua Bay, Ridge, and Golf Villas were planned, approved, constructed, and sold for primarily vacation use, including short-term rental. They have been used continuously to include short-term rentals for over 45 years. Their use has never changed. They have never been affordable housing. Nor have they ever been workforce housing.
Owners in the Kapalua Resort, like us, support the local Maui community. We frequent and recommend many local businesses and employ many local service providers, many of whom have become valued friends over the years. Sadly, the proposed ordinance has already damaged tourism and negatively impacted the local community.
The Kapalua Bay, Ridge, and Golf Villas are not suitable for affordable family housing. The Villas are very expensive to buy. Annual maintenance is hugely expensive. Annual homeowners’ expenses can exceed over $32,000. Insurance and taxes are very expensive. Future building repairs will be very expensive in our over-45-year-old buildings. Kapalua Resort rules ban work vehicles, restrict parking, limit occupancy, prohibit pets, and lack storage space, as just some examples.
Multiple studies have shown that the proposed ordinance will have a very harmful impact on the Maui economy, particularly if a ban is overbroad and not carefully tailored to balance the need for affordable housing with the significant damage to tourism and the Maui economy, including its tax base. In balancing these considerations, the clear and obvious public interest requires exempting the Kapalua Resort from any short-term rental ban the County might adopt.
Please exclude the Kapalua Resort from any short-term rental ban you might recommend.
Mahalo for your time and careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Rick & Tonya Callies
rickcallies@gmail.com & tonyacallies@gmail.com or
509-308-7029 or 509-430-7627
One important consideration is what message does this bill send to people who would invest in the economy of Maui in the future? The language of this bill and the rhetoric around it clearly says we don’t want outsiders investing in Maui although somehow the hotel conglomerates are not included in this conversation for some reason. If the hope is to build a new economy in Maui, who is going to invest in Maui when you tell the world that you don’t value outside investors or that promises you make to them will be broken arbitrarily when it suits your purpose? We all grieve for the losses due to the fire but instead of scapegoating the legal small business owners of STRs why don’t you invest in affordable housing and create policies that allow newly built homes to remain affordable?
Aloha, and thank you for taking the time to read and consider my testimony.
I am an owner in Wailea.
Behind Kaanapali, Wailea was designed and built as Maui's second "Master Planned Resort Community". Being a resort community means that it has amenities that cater to visitors seeking a resort experience, and not those seeing a residential/neighborhood/family/child-rearing life. There are no schools, no playgrounds, no gas stations, no grocery stores and very few non-tourism related workplaces. There are however, many expensive restaurants, several golf courses, a half dozen luxury hotels, well over a thousand LEGAL short-term rentals, as well as hundreds of multi-million dollar luxury homes.
I am in full support of increasing Maui's affordable housing inventory and like knowing that a portion of the taxes collected from my short-term rental are earmarked for the Affordable Housing Fund. Short term rentals are the largest contributor to this fund.
But if the goal of phasing out short-term rentals in the apartment district is to make condo units available to local residents for long-term occupancy, then it doesn't seem reasonable to phase out condos in a renowned resort community, surrounded by hotels, hotel zoned STRs, thousands of tourists, and devoid of the amenities that simplify daily living.
Mayor Bissen's bold approach to solving the housing crisis on Maui is admirable, but he, along with our esteemed council, are erudite and refined individuals who are capable of a more nuanced and surgical approach to this phase-out. It is my hope that the 4 complexes in the resort area of Wailea be excluded from the phase-out and are permitted to continue to rent on a short-term basis. By doing so, these prohibitively expensive condos can continue to employ local workers at high wages, continue to bring in high net-worth travelers who spend disproportionately high amounts while on vacation, and most of all, will continue to collect taxes which will yield positive outcomes through developments paid to the Affordable Housing Fund.
Maui needs to work toward real solutions with a provably positive outcome. Bill 9 is not that solution.
I support Bill 9's objective of getting locals into affordable housing, but do not support the way in which they are hoping to achieve that goal.
You can put people in houses without essentially banning other people from using their own.
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.
Respectfully,
Dan Steimel
Visitors that come to Maui and stay in short term. Vacation rentals do so because hotels charge too much money and also they like the idea of having a kitchen and being able to prepare their own meals and not eat out all the time if short term rentals are banned MAUI will lose a significant amount of income from those travelers which will have an impact on the economy and also affect the workers that are employed to maintain the condos, clean the condos, etc. I am opposed to this because of the negative impact it will have on the economy I own a vacation rental have had it for over 25 years. I do not believe that a family would want to live in my small condo as it has no yard for the children to play and any pets .And if I had to turn it into a long-term rental, the cost to cover the mortgage And the high AOAO fees would be out of reach for most local families
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.
I have lived on Maui for 35 years. 31 years have been as a renter. I have been fortunate enough to receive assistance through HUD for the past 15 years. Without that, I would have had to leave Maui. Even with HUD, it has been a constant struggle, having to move 6 times in 15 years. Rent was out of control before the fire, and impossible after. PLEASE return the Minatoya properties to the long term rental market, or to owner occupied units. Residents have struggled for far too long, while out of state investors and tourists have profited at their expense.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I am strongly opposed to this bill. I'm the owner of a small, locally rooted management company that works with families and properties throughout West Maui. We are not a giant corporation. We are a local team — of cleaners, inspectors, handy people, maintenance specialists, and caring managers — who work hard every day to keep homes clean, safe, and welcoming. We are part of this island’s living, breathing community.
I’m also a father of twin baby boys. Like many families here, we care deeply about the future of this island — not just for tourism, but for real community. For neighbors. For our children.
What concerns me most about Bill 9 is not just the economic impact — though that’s very real — it’s the division it creates. After the wildfires, we saw what Maui looks like when we pull together. Neighbors helping neighbors. Businesses offering what they could. Strangers becoming ohana overnight. That is who we are at our best.
But this bill sets one neighbor against another — treating longtime, law-abiding property owners and small rental operators like the enemy, instead of part of the solution. That’s not pono. That’s not Maui.
If we truly want to create more housing for local families — and I believe we all do — then let’s focus on real, lasting solutions:
• Build more housing that can only be owner-occupied, with deed restrictions or occupancy rules that keep it for local residents.
• Use the tax revenue from short-term rentals — which is massive — to fund those housing efforts, rather than eliminate a source of income that currently supports local jobs and families.
• Secure more water access for local residential housing — because we live on an island that holds two of the five rainiest places on Earth, and yet too many families can’t even get a meter.
Let’s stop pretending that eliminating legal short-term rentals is going to magically free up homes for local people. It won’t. Many of these units were never affordable to begin with. But when we destroy those rental businesses, we do hurt real people: managers, cleaners, inspectors, local restaurants, service teams, small shops — the economic ripple is wide, and it’s painful.
When you tear something down, you don’t just hurt the one person you target — you harm dozens more that you never see. But when you build something — truly build together — the benefits ripple out even further.
Mahalo nui loa for your time, your hearts, and your service to this island we all love.
Sean ODonnell
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.
Papakea is zoned Resort and therefore should be excluded. In my opinion the only ones benefiting from the banning of short term rentals are the Hotels; Marriott, Westin, Hyatt, and Hilton, these companies are the true winners! Coincidentally they all sell timeshares too.
As a property manager on Maui for the past 18 years, I have had the privilege of working closely with local families and employing over 20 Maui-based workers, including landscapers, window washers, cleaners, and maintenance professionals. I write to you today out of deep concern regarding the growing push to eliminate short-term rentals on the island.
Doing away with short-term rentals will not only directly impact my livelihood and the jobs of the people I employ—it will also take vital income away from local families who rely on renting part of their homes to make ends meet. Many of these families are already struggling with the high cost of living, and this revenue is often what allows them to stay on the island.
Furthermore as a parent and resident, Maui’s schools, roads, and infrastructure are already under significant strain. Eliminating a major source of tax revenue from short-term rentals will only exacerbate these issues. The tax income generated from these rentals supports essential public services that our communities rely on.
It is important to recognize that most short-term rental condos are not realistic long-term housing options for families. These units often come with only one parking stall, limited storage space, and layouts not conducive to family life. Shifting policy under the assumption that condos will provide “fair housing” is, frankly, unrealistic.
Instead, I urge the County to prioritize the development of affordable apartment complexes for first-time renters and thoughtfully planned neighborhoods that include sidewalks, parks, and safe spaces for children. We must also take a hard look at the continued approval of luxury condo complexes that are far out of reach for local families. These developments do not serve the needs of our residents.
The financial impact of eliminating short-term rentals will be deeply felt, not only by individual families but across the entire county. We simply cannot afford to cut off a major stream of locally generated revenue that helps fund critical infrastructure and community resources. Please, consider the real consequences this shift in policy will have on working families and the broader Maui community.
Thank you for your time and for your continued service to the people of Maui.
We are James and Sue Van Blarigan of 3530 Keahi Place, Kihei. We have been a resident of Kihei since 2002. We strongly oppose Bill 9 for several reasons.
1. The financial impact on the County would be devastating. Vacation rentals bring in the majority of the County's income.
2. The impact on many local workers would also be devastating. So many jobs are dependent on the tourism industry.
3. Those who believe Bill 9 will solve the housing crisis do not have a grasp of reality. The majority of the 7,000 short term rentals were not designed for long term occupancy and in South Maui are not desired by the displaced West side residents.
4. Purchase or rent prices for those locals looking for housing would be out of reach due to high sales price, high AOAO maintenance fees & high property taxes.
5. It appears this "taking" of private property is illegal and would be tied up in the courts for years - wasting County resources.
There is currently a very large affordable or workforce housing complex under construction in Kihei, and in addition to the other recently built affordable housing complexes is the way to address the housing crisis.
The Minatoya list created many years ago by Council Counsel was done to correct the faulty zoning issued by the Planning Department. The units on that list were clearly built to function as short term vacation rentals. They were not suitable for long term rentals, thus the list to correct this mistake. The current zoning is hodg podg with one complex zoned hotel next to an apartment zoned complex next to a hotel zoned complex next to an apartment zoned complex - and on and on. These are all similar complexes and should all be zoned hotel. This is what I recommend you focus your efforts on and not an anti tourist Bill 9.
It is our hope you will clearly see that Bill 9 is not in the best interest of Maui County but only is being put forth by the small minority who want to eliminate tourism from Maui.
Jim & Sue Van Blarigan
Maui County’s Bill 9, aiming to phase out over 7,000 legal short-term rentals (STRs) in apartment-zoned areas, is a well-intentioned but economically perilous move that risks inflicting deep harm on the island’s economy, workforce, and residents—all without any guarantee of solving the housing crisis.
According to UHERO, eliminating STRs could reduce visitor accommodations by 25% and visitor days by 32%, leading to a projected $900 million annual decline in visitor spending. This contraction could result in the loss of 1,900 jobs and a 4% decline in Maui’s real GDP.
A separate analysis by Kloninger & Sims estimates that STR guests in Maui County directly spent $2.2 billion in 2023, resulting in $4 billion in economic activity. Phasing out these rentals could lead to annual tax revenue losses of up to $91.8 million and a total economic output decline of $1.3 billion.
In 2022, esteemed Hawaii economist, Paul Brewbaker, argued that in a phase-out of this proportion, Maui County economic output would decrease $2.74 billion. An additional $508.4 million in output would be foregone by Oahu, Hawaii, and Kauai through inter-county, inter-industry effects. Statewide total Hawaii output would decline by $3.25 billion. His research and analysis projected 14,000 jobs lost in Maui County alone (with additional job losses across other counties).
Maui County earnings would decline by $747.7 million, state tax revenues (from Maui County levies) would decline $137.3 million.
It would seem that willfully descending into this viper-filled chasm, one would do so armed with some sort of weapon or secret power. That having these kinds of economic data in hand would be negated by an overwhelming positive outcome "on the other side".
But no. While the policy *claims* it could add up to 6,127 units to the long-term housing stock—a 13% increase equivalent to a decade’s worth of new housing development—the actual impact on affordability is demonstrably uncertain. Many of these units have come to market with dramatic reductions in price. They They have at times been far less expensive, with lower carrying costs (AOAO dues, insurance, property taxes) and more favorable lending terms (sub-3% mortgage rates), but these were never bought by locals for long-term use. "Converting" to long-term rentals (which isn't even a thing) is financially unfeasible, and these units face uncertain outcomes. Owners could keep these condos for personal use / friends and family, they could sell at current market values (which we see are still far out of reach based on myriad affordability metrics), they could sell to wealthier individuals who don't need rental income to cover monthly carrying costs, or they could go to some of the private equity funds that could buy up several Lower Road complexes and completely renovate them without batting an eye. Of course, they will need to charge rents that justify their investment in those units.
Supporters of this bill cite municipalities where STRs have seen similar legislative action, praising the ones that still stand while ignoring the many that have fallen. New York City’s crackdown on Airbnb led to an 80% drop in listings but did not improve housing affordability. Instead, hotel prices surged, and the housing shortage persisted.
In Spain, despite efforts to curb short-term rentals, the number of tourist accommodations increased by 25% over two years, exacerbating housing affordability concerns. Several other European cities have once banned them, only to bring them back again.
The City of Kelowna (BC, Canada) initially implemented restrictions on STRs, but these were loosened in 2025, allowing them to be accepted again. The city updated its regulations to align with provincial legislation, requiring businesses to apply for a business license to operate an STR.
Las Vegas and its surrounding Clark County, short-term rentals are now regulated rather than banned, following the passage of Assembly Bill 363. Previously, Clark County had imposed a ban on short-term rentals in unincorporated areas. The new legislation requires Clark County, as well as the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas, to implement ordinances governing these rentals. Yeah, ordinances, just like we have here on Maui.
Most recently, in March 2025, South Lake Tahoe's Measure T, which restricted short-term rentals, was overturned by the El Dorado County Superior Court. The main reason was that Measure T included an exception allowing permanent residents to rent their properties for up to 30 days per year, which the court deemed discriminatory and unconstitutional. This exception, argued to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, was deemed too central to the law to be separated, leading to the entire measure being struck down. Supporters of this bill just want to say "...but, but, Barcelona", and leave out of the conversation anything that might corrupt their argument.
What many who support these bans on Maui neglect to acknowledge is that in virtually every other instance, the rise of STRs in many cities was rapid and it was feral. They also literally took over complete residential neighborhoods. ACTUAL residential neighborhoods. Maui's Minatoya STRs are concentrated in what are predominantly tourist zones, with over a thousand in areas that are *master planned resort communities*. Minatoya condos will have hotel-zoned condos and hotels as neighbors - South Kihei Road is a prime example. There exists an "Apartment Zone Sandwich". The 7 properties from the Royal Mauian to the Banyan are all hotel zoned properties (not hotels). Next to the Banyan, heading south are 6 apartment zoned condos (Haleakala Shores to Maui Hill). Neighboring these apartment zoned condos, are 2 more hotel zoned properties (the Mana Kai and the Surfside). Minatoya properties are not on Hoalike Street in Kihei or Kulalani Drive in Kula, so this argument that they are "in residential neighborhoods" is dishonest and patently false.
A statewide poll conducted by SMS Research found that only 10% of Hawaiʻi voters support banning all short-term rentals. The majority prefer a balanced approach that maintains existing legal STRs while banning illegal ones. In his State of State address, Governor Green claimed there were 75,000 ILLEGAL STRs in the state (Minatoya STRs are NOT illegal rentals, these are 75,000 ghost hotels). In fact, in CivilBeat on May 27, 2025, Oʻahu Short Term Rental Alliance director Jill Paulin said of the proliferation of illegal short-term rentals in the state that “they’re not enforcing".
So, obviously, the best way to handle these 75,000 illegal rentals, which can net $10,000 PER DAY in fines, is to wave the chainsaw at 7100 legal, regulated, permitted, taxed, revenue generating, LEGAL ones.
Bill 9 proposes a sweeping change accompanied by significant economic risks and uncertain benefits for access to housing as well as housing affordability. This needn't be a binary decision. Minatoya condos had previously worked symbiotically on Maui, so perhaps Maui Council needs to find a way to use these properties as an asset rather than allowing a group completely bent on ending tourism to use them as a cudgel.
Aloha!
We are short-term rental owners in Maui County. It is of great importance to us to respect and support the local community. We are opposed to the proposed legislation to phase out STRs on the Minatoya List zoned A1/A2. - We employ property managers, cleaners, maintenance workers as well as support local restaurants and markets. All of these hard-working people will most likely lose their businesses and jobs if the short-term rental market in phased out. The assessments on our 700 sq ft. are $1282.17 maintenance $1064.67 land lease per month, as well as $9850.46 in property taxes. There is not a mortgage on the property but just the monthly expenses are $3167.71 per month. This unit cannot provide affordable housing for a local family. Most of the short-term rentals are not designed or appropriate for long term family living. The solution is to provide affordable housing and assistance in rebuilding the properties that families lost. Ending short term rentals will only create more challenges for the devastated residents. If the properties are not properly maintained, it will negatively affect the safety and appeal of the surrounding properties. The choice to eliminate short term rental in Maui is not the solution. It only creates a larger obstacle for working residents to overcome. Local artists who depend on tourists to purchase their products, small business, rental car companies and the people that they employ, cleaning businesses for short term rental properties, tour companies and their employees will all be affected by the loss of these accommodations for travelers. The impact will be felt for the residents that live in the Lahaina area to a greater extent than ever! The state transient tax, GET tax and property taxes are already creating a decline in travel to Maui. Unfortunately, many properties with short term rental occupancy will have units go into foreclosure also creating a less than desirable environment for choosing Maui for hard earned vacation time as well as make affordable housing less attainable for locals. There needs to be a balance and long-term plan to allow the residents to return to a normal lifestyle! The income from tourists staying in large hotels is mostly returned to the mainland or wherever the large corporation is based. They do not have any intention of helping local people other than to generate income and exploit publicity to achieve more expansion exchanging the island Aloha to corporate profits. Responsible operation with proper permitting and regulations of short-term rentals will continue to provide a sustainable path for recovery for the local Maui residents.
Mahalo for considering the devastating impact that this proposal will have on the local residents of Maui and deliberating a resolution to respectfully accomplish the financial security for the future of Maui.
Greg & Vonda Smith
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.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Steimel
I oppose the elimination of short term rentals or units in the Minatoya List. I am the owner of a single unit in one of the properties. I am a small homeowner, not a big corporation. I employ local help to maintain and manage my unit and source the supplies for my unit locally.
My resort condo building was never meant to be an individual long term rental. It was built and designed as resort setting. For example, the units do not have individual electric or water meters. A large part of the property is taken up by a reception lobby area. And the parking spaces are limited, one car per unit. None of these are meant for longer term family living. Local families deserve a better solution, not cramped into a tiny short term rental unit for long term living.
The current value of these units is based significantly on the right of owners to rent to vacationers. If this usage is eliminated, the property value will immediately drop. However, it's expensive to maintain a coast front unit. The income from STR is critical to offset the cost. If the STR is eliminated, the rent for long term rental will not likely be affordable due to its high maintenance cost.
Many of the guests have said they wouldn't have come to Maui if there had not been short term vacation rentals like mine. These vacationers prefer staying at a condo with home-like setting, not a hotel room. By eliminating the short term rental units will likely to drive up the room rate in Maui, so more short term rental availability also helps keeping the Maui a competitive vacation spot.
It has been difficult to own and operate short term rentals for my unit, with maintenance costs, special assessments and massive increases for insurance after the fires. The elimination of short term rentals of Maui properties in the "Minatoya List" is just wrong and will be economically disastrous.
Please do not remove the right of Minatoya List units to operate as short term vacation rentals. There are better win-win solutions to help creating better and more affordable housings.
Won’t solve housing
Lost jobs will be terrible
Huge loss in taxes
This bill was not thought out very well with all the repercussions
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Rick Callies, and my wife and I own property in the Kapalua Resort in Maui County. We are writing to express our strong belief that the proposed legislation is overbroad and should be amended to exempt the Kapalua Resort clearly and unambiguously from the proposed short-term rental ban.
The Kapalua Resort is a master planned resort community. The Kapalua Bay, Ridge, and Golf Villas were planned, approved, constructed, and sold for primarily vacation use, including short-term rental. They have been used continuously to include short-term rentals for over 45 years. Their use has never changed. They have never been affordable housing. Nor have they ever been workforce housing.
Owners in the Kapalua Resort, like us, support the local Maui community. We frequent and recommend many local businesses and employ many local service providers, many of whom have become valued friends over the years. Sadly, the proposed ordinance has already damaged tourism and negatively impacted the local community.
The Kapalua Bay, Ridge, and Golf Villas are not suitable for affordable family housing. The Villas are very expensive to buy. Annual maintenance is hugely expensive. Annual homeowners’ expenses can exceed over $32,000. Insurance and taxes are very expensive. Future building repairs will be very expensive in our over-45-year-old buildings. Kapalua Resort rules ban work vehicles, restrict parking, limit occupancy, prohibit pets, and lack storage space, as just some examples.
Multiple studies have shown that the proposed ordinance will have a very harmful impact on the Maui economy, particularly if a ban is overbroad and not carefully tailored to balance the need for affordable housing with the significant damage to tourism and the Maui economy, including its tax base. In balancing these considerations, the clear and obvious public interest requires exempting the Kapalua Resort from any short-term rental ban the County might adopt.
Please exclude the Kapalua Resort from any short-term rental ban you might recommend.
Mahalo for your time and careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Rick & Tonya Callies
rickcallies@gmail.com & tonyacallies@gmail.com or
509-308-7029 or 509-430-7627
One important consideration is what message does this bill send to people who would invest in the economy of Maui in the future? The language of this bill and the rhetoric around it clearly says we don’t want outsiders investing in Maui although somehow the hotel conglomerates are not included in this conversation for some reason. If the hope is to build a new economy in Maui, who is going to invest in Maui when you tell the world that you don’t value outside investors or that promises you make to them will be broken arbitrarily when it suits your purpose? We all grieve for the losses due to the fire but instead of scapegoating the legal small business owners of STRs why don’t you invest in affordable housing and create policies that allow newly built homes to remain affordable?
Aloha Maui County Council,
As one of the 99.84% of Maui residents that does NOT own a TVR I fully support this measure.
Aloha, and thank you for taking the time to read and consider my testimony.
I am an owner in Wailea.
Behind Kaanapali, Wailea was designed and built as Maui's second "Master Planned Resort Community". Being a resort community means that it has amenities that cater to visitors seeking a resort experience, and not those seeing a residential/neighborhood/family/child-rearing life. There are no schools, no playgrounds, no gas stations, no grocery stores and very few non-tourism related workplaces. There are however, many expensive restaurants, several golf courses, a half dozen luxury hotels, well over a thousand LEGAL short-term rentals, as well as hundreds of multi-million dollar luxury homes.
I am in full support of increasing Maui's affordable housing inventory and like knowing that a portion of the taxes collected from my short-term rental are earmarked for the Affordable Housing Fund. Short term rentals are the largest contributor to this fund.
But if the goal of phasing out short-term rentals in the apartment district is to make condo units available to local residents for long-term occupancy, then it doesn't seem reasonable to phase out condos in a renowned resort community, surrounded by hotels, hotel zoned STRs, thousands of tourists, and devoid of the amenities that simplify daily living.
Mayor Bissen's bold approach to solving the housing crisis on Maui is admirable, but he, along with our esteemed council, are erudite and refined individuals who are capable of a more nuanced and surgical approach to this phase-out. It is my hope that the 4 complexes in the resort area of Wailea be excluded from the phase-out and are permitted to continue to rent on a short-term basis. By doing so, these prohibitively expensive condos can continue to employ local workers at high wages, continue to bring in high net-worth travelers who spend disproportionately high amounts while on vacation, and most of all, will continue to collect taxes which will yield positive outcomes through developments paid to the Affordable Housing Fund.
Maui needs to work toward real solutions with a provably positive outcome. Bill 9 is not that solution.
I support Bill 9's objective of getting locals into affordable housing, but do not support the way in which they are hoping to achieve that goal.
You can put people in houses without essentially banning other people from using their own.
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.
Respectfully,
Dan Steimel
Visitors that come to Maui and stay in short term. Vacation rentals do so because hotels charge too much money and also they like the idea of having a kitchen and being able to prepare their own meals and not eat out all the time if short term rentals are banned MAUI will lose a significant amount of income from those travelers which will have an impact on the economy and also affect the workers that are employed to maintain the condos, clean the condos, etc. I am opposed to this because of the negative impact it will have on the economy I own a vacation rental have had it for over 25 years. I do not believe that a family would want to live in my small condo as it has no yard for the children to play and any pets .And if I had to turn it into a long-term rental, the cost to cover the mortgage And the high AOAO fees would be out of reach for most local families
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,
Ramona Wakefield
Papakea E-207
Strongly oppose!
I have lived on Maui for 35 years. 31 years have been as a renter. I have been fortunate enough to receive assistance through HUD for the past 15 years. Without that, I would have had to leave Maui. Even with HUD, it has been a constant struggle, having to move 6 times in 15 years. Rent was out of control before the fire, and impossible after. PLEASE return the Minatoya properties to the long term rental market, or to owner occupied units. Residents have struggled for far too long, while out of state investors and tourists have profited at their expense.
Oppose
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I am strongly opposed to this bill. I'm the owner of a small, locally rooted management company that works with families and properties throughout West Maui. We are not a giant corporation. We are a local team — of cleaners, inspectors, handy people, maintenance specialists, and caring managers — who work hard every day to keep homes clean, safe, and welcoming. We are part of this island’s living, breathing community.
I’m also a father of twin baby boys. Like many families here, we care deeply about the future of this island — not just for tourism, but for real community. For neighbors. For our children.
What concerns me most about Bill 9 is not just the economic impact — though that’s very real — it’s the division it creates. After the wildfires, we saw what Maui looks like when we pull together. Neighbors helping neighbors. Businesses offering what they could. Strangers becoming ohana overnight. That is who we are at our best.
But this bill sets one neighbor against another — treating longtime, law-abiding property owners and small rental operators like the enemy, instead of part of the solution. That’s not pono. That’s not Maui.
If we truly want to create more housing for local families — and I believe we all do — then let’s focus on real, lasting solutions:
• Build more housing that can only be owner-occupied, with deed restrictions or occupancy rules that keep it for local residents.
• Use the tax revenue from short-term rentals — which is massive — to fund those housing efforts, rather than eliminate a source of income that currently supports local jobs and families.
• Secure more water access for local residential housing — because we live on an island that holds two of the five rainiest places on Earth, and yet too many families can’t even get a meter.
Let’s stop pretending that eliminating legal short-term rentals is going to magically free up homes for local people. It won’t. Many of these units were never affordable to begin with. But when we destroy those rental businesses, we do hurt real people: managers, cleaners, inspectors, local restaurants, service teams, small shops — the economic ripple is wide, and it’s painful.
When you tear something down, you don’t just hurt the one person you target — you harm dozens more that you never see. But when you build something — truly build together — the benefits ripple out even further.
Mahalo nui loa for your time, your hearts, and your service to this island we all love.
Sean ODonnell
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.
Papakea is zoned Resort and therefore should be excluded. In my opinion the only ones benefiting from the banning of short term rentals are the Hotels; Marriott, Westin, Hyatt, and Hilton, these companies are the true winners! Coincidentally they all sell timeshares too.
As a property manager on Maui for the past 18 years, I have had the privilege of working closely with local families and employing over 20 Maui-based workers, including landscapers, window washers, cleaners, and maintenance professionals. I write to you today out of deep concern regarding the growing push to eliminate short-term rentals on the island.
Doing away with short-term rentals will not only directly impact my livelihood and the jobs of the people I employ—it will also take vital income away from local families who rely on renting part of their homes to make ends meet. Many of these families are already struggling with the high cost of living, and this revenue is often what allows them to stay on the island.
Furthermore as a parent and resident, Maui’s schools, roads, and infrastructure are already under significant strain. Eliminating a major source of tax revenue from short-term rentals will only exacerbate these issues. The tax income generated from these rentals supports essential public services that our communities rely on.
It is important to recognize that most short-term rental condos are not realistic long-term housing options for families. These units often come with only one parking stall, limited storage space, and layouts not conducive to family life. Shifting policy under the assumption that condos will provide “fair housing” is, frankly, unrealistic.
Instead, I urge the County to prioritize the development of affordable apartment complexes for first-time renters and thoughtfully planned neighborhoods that include sidewalks, parks, and safe spaces for children. We must also take a hard look at the continued approval of luxury condo complexes that are far out of reach for local families. These developments do not serve the needs of our residents.
The financial impact of eliminating short-term rentals will be deeply felt, not only by individual families but across the entire county. We simply cannot afford to cut off a major stream of locally generated revenue that helps fund critical infrastructure and community resources. Please, consider the real consequences this shift in policy will have on working families and the broader Maui community.
Thank you for your time and for your continued service to the people of Maui.
Phase out, support locals
We are James and Sue Van Blarigan of 3530 Keahi Place, Kihei. We have been a resident of Kihei since 2002. We strongly oppose Bill 9 for several reasons.
1. The financial impact on the County would be devastating. Vacation rentals bring in the majority of the County's income.
2. The impact on many local workers would also be devastating. So many jobs are dependent on the tourism industry.
3. Those who believe Bill 9 will solve the housing crisis do not have a grasp of reality. The majority of the 7,000 short term rentals were not designed for long term occupancy and in South Maui are not desired by the displaced West side residents.
4. Purchase or rent prices for those locals looking for housing would be out of reach due to high sales price, high AOAO maintenance fees & high property taxes.
5. It appears this "taking" of private property is illegal and would be tied up in the courts for years - wasting County resources.
There is currently a very large affordable or workforce housing complex under construction in Kihei, and in addition to the other recently built affordable housing complexes is the way to address the housing crisis.
The Minatoya list created many years ago by Council Counsel was done to correct the faulty zoning issued by the Planning Department. The units on that list were clearly built to function as short term vacation rentals. They were not suitable for long term rentals, thus the list to correct this mistake. The current zoning is hodg podg with one complex zoned hotel next to an apartment zoned complex next to a hotel zoned complex next to an apartment zoned complex - and on and on. These are all similar complexes and should all be zoned hotel. This is what I recommend you focus your efforts on and not an anti tourist Bill 9.
It is our hope you will clearly see that Bill 9 is not in the best interest of Maui County but only is being put forth by the small minority who want to eliminate tourism from Maui.
Jim & Sue Van Blarigan
Maui County’s Bill 9, aiming to phase out over 7,000 legal short-term rentals (STRs) in apartment-zoned areas, is a well-intentioned but economically perilous move that risks inflicting deep harm on the island’s economy, workforce, and residents—all without any guarantee of solving the housing crisis.
According to UHERO, eliminating STRs could reduce visitor accommodations by 25% and visitor days by 32%, leading to a projected $900 million annual decline in visitor spending. This contraction could result in the loss of 1,900 jobs and a 4% decline in Maui’s real GDP.
A separate analysis by Kloninger & Sims estimates that STR guests in Maui County directly spent $2.2 billion in 2023, resulting in $4 billion in economic activity. Phasing out these rentals could lead to annual tax revenue losses of up to $91.8 million and a total economic output decline of $1.3 billion.
In 2022, esteemed Hawaii economist, Paul Brewbaker, argued that in a phase-out of this proportion, Maui County economic output would decrease $2.74 billion. An additional $508.4 million in output would be foregone by Oahu, Hawaii, and Kauai through inter-county, inter-industry effects. Statewide total Hawaii output would decline by $3.25 billion. His research and analysis projected 14,000 jobs lost in Maui County alone (with additional job losses across other counties).
Maui County earnings would decline by $747.7 million, state tax revenues (from Maui County levies) would decline $137.3 million.
It would seem that willfully descending into this viper-filled chasm, one would do so armed with some sort of weapon or secret power. That having these kinds of economic data in hand would be negated by an overwhelming positive outcome "on the other side".
But no. While the policy *claims* it could add up to 6,127 units to the long-term housing stock—a 13% increase equivalent to a decade’s worth of new housing development—the actual impact on affordability is demonstrably uncertain. Many of these units have come to market with dramatic reductions in price. They They have at times been far less expensive, with lower carrying costs (AOAO dues, insurance, property taxes) and more favorable lending terms (sub-3% mortgage rates), but these were never bought by locals for long-term use. "Converting" to long-term rentals (which isn't even a thing) is financially unfeasible, and these units face uncertain outcomes. Owners could keep these condos for personal use / friends and family, they could sell at current market values (which we see are still far out of reach based on myriad affordability metrics), they could sell to wealthier individuals who don't need rental income to cover monthly carrying costs, or they could go to some of the private equity funds that could buy up several Lower Road complexes and completely renovate them without batting an eye. Of course, they will need to charge rents that justify their investment in those units.
Supporters of this bill cite municipalities where STRs have seen similar legislative action, praising the ones that still stand while ignoring the many that have fallen. New York City’s crackdown on Airbnb led to an 80% drop in listings but did not improve housing affordability. Instead, hotel prices surged, and the housing shortage persisted.
In Spain, despite efforts to curb short-term rentals, the number of tourist accommodations increased by 25% over two years, exacerbating housing affordability concerns. Several other European cities have once banned them, only to bring them back again.
The City of Kelowna (BC, Canada) initially implemented restrictions on STRs, but these were loosened in 2025, allowing them to be accepted again. The city updated its regulations to align with provincial legislation, requiring businesses to apply for a business license to operate an STR.
Las Vegas and its surrounding Clark County, short-term rentals are now regulated rather than banned, following the passage of Assembly Bill 363. Previously, Clark County had imposed a ban on short-term rentals in unincorporated areas. The new legislation requires Clark County, as well as the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas, to implement ordinances governing these rentals. Yeah, ordinances, just like we have here on Maui.
Most recently, in March 2025, South Lake Tahoe's Measure T, which restricted short-term rentals, was overturned by the El Dorado County Superior Court. The main reason was that Measure T included an exception allowing permanent residents to rent their properties for up to 30 days per year, which the court deemed discriminatory and unconstitutional. This exception, argued to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, was deemed too central to the law to be separated, leading to the entire measure being struck down. Supporters of this bill just want to say "...but, but, Barcelona", and leave out of the conversation anything that might corrupt their argument.
What many who support these bans on Maui neglect to acknowledge is that in virtually every other instance, the rise of STRs in many cities was rapid and it was feral. They also literally took over complete residential neighborhoods. ACTUAL residential neighborhoods. Maui's Minatoya STRs are concentrated in what are predominantly tourist zones, with over a thousand in areas that are *master planned resort communities*. Minatoya condos will have hotel-zoned condos and hotels as neighbors - South Kihei Road is a prime example. There exists an "Apartment Zone Sandwich". The 7 properties from the Royal Mauian to the Banyan are all hotel zoned properties (not hotels). Next to the Banyan, heading south are 6 apartment zoned condos (Haleakala Shores to Maui Hill). Neighboring these apartment zoned condos, are 2 more hotel zoned properties (the Mana Kai and the Surfside). Minatoya properties are not on Hoalike Street in Kihei or Kulalani Drive in Kula, so this argument that they are "in residential neighborhoods" is dishonest and patently false.
A statewide poll conducted by SMS Research found that only 10% of Hawaiʻi voters support banning all short-term rentals. The majority prefer a balanced approach that maintains existing legal STRs while banning illegal ones. In his State of State address, Governor Green claimed there were 75,000 ILLEGAL STRs in the state (Minatoya STRs are NOT illegal rentals, these are 75,000 ghost hotels). In fact, in CivilBeat on May 27, 2025, Oʻahu Short Term Rental Alliance director Jill Paulin said of the proliferation of illegal short-term rentals in the state that “they’re not enforcing".
So, obviously, the best way to handle these 75,000 illegal rentals, which can net $10,000 PER DAY in fines, is to wave the chainsaw at 7100 legal, regulated, permitted, taxed, revenue generating, LEGAL ones.
Bill 9 proposes a sweeping change accompanied by significant economic risks and uncertain benefits for access to housing as well as housing affordability. This needn't be a binary decision. Minatoya condos had previously worked symbiotically on Maui, so perhaps Maui Council needs to find a way to use these properties as an asset rather than allowing a group completely bent on ending tourism to use them as a cudgel.
Mahalo,
Makoa Kahue