Totally disagree with this approach. It would be sending the wrong message to visitors and hurting our tourist industry based economy! Please do not pass the bill.
As a full-time resident of Maui, I strongly oppose Bill 9. The supporting research shows the Bill will not necessarily result in an increase in affordable house and may do more harm than good. The study by the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) shows the Bill would be detrimental to Maui as it could face $900,000,000 of lost revenue from visitors, 1900 lost jobs of local residents, and millions of lost property tax revenue and there is no guarantee the STR owns will rent these units if it passes.
Many of these units were never suitable for long-term rental use and with current HOA dues and mortgage rates I fail to see how these are considered "affordable". People aren't going to rent their units for below their costs.
Bill 9 will eliminate significant economic activity generated by local property managers, cleaners, maintenance workers, and other service providers—many of whom are Maui residents.
Bill 9 retroactively strips property rights from law-abiding homeowners who have invested—often at great personal and financial cost—in full compliance with existing laws. These units were purchased and maintained under the clear understanding that short-term rental use was permissible under zoning regulations and permitted by the County. I would imagine rescinding these rights would result in multiple costly lawsuits based on the unconstitutional taking under both the U.S. and Hawai‘i State Constitutions.
Bill 9 is not the answer to our housing crisis—it’s a political shortcut with real human costs. I urge you to reject this measure and focus instead on real, balanced, and compassionate solutions that protect our economy, our residents, and our rights.
I am confused as to why some of those in support have stated that these str's are not permitted and in residential neighborhoods when in fact they are permitted and not in residential areas and although called apartment zones they are in resort areas, and most were developed as short-term rentals and not work force housing.
Aloha, my name is Joi and I am a local resident on Maui. Every week, I set up my booth at the Kahului Swap Meet and the Lahaina Cannery Swap Meet to share my artwork with both residents and visitors. It is more than just a way to earn a living. It is how I connect with people, tell stories through my work, and keep our island culture alive.
A large part of my customers are visitors who stay in short term rentals. These are people who take the time to explore the island, walk through our markets, talk story with artists like me, and bring home something meaningful. Many have become repeat customers and even lifelong supporters of my work. Without them, it would be difficult to continue doing what I love and what helps support my family.
This proposed phase out of short term rentals worries me deeply. If those visitors are not here, they are not coming to the swap meets. They are not buying art, not supporting local makers, not helping us keep our culture thriving. Art is not just something I sell. It is something I live. And when the support disappears, so does the ability to keep creating and sharing that part of Maui.
I understand the need for housing solutions. I see it too. But taking away a key source of income for working local families, without a clear plan for what comes next, only makes life harder for people who are already doing their best to stay rooted here.
We need the County to take a broader look at what it means to support local residents. That includes not just housing, but employment, culture, and opportunity. We need thoughtful action that strengthens all parts of the community, not just one.
Please listen to voices like mine before moving forward. Let us be part of the conversation. Let us help shape solutions that support both our people and the island we love.
Council Members.
As a small business owner that is on the brink of closure due to Maui’s current economic downturn, I strongly urge you to NOT vote this bill forward. It will not solve Maui’s housing crisis and only hurt our economy is countless ways.
I own a STR in kihei, put most of my savings into the purchase as an investment property--just before the Lahaina fires.
It is a studio, only 350 sq feet
My costs as an owner per month is:
$500 property tax
726 HOA fee
60 prop insurance
= 1300 costs
Renting it out to someone needing a home at $2000 (so I have emergency funds if needed) is pretty high for such a small place
That I do not have a mortgage makes my costs lower. Most people do.
With property taxes and HOA so high, how can owners afford to rent out property at a reasonable rate??
I wish I hadn't invested in this as I do not wish to be a part if the housing problem.
I do not see making STRs less available being the whole solution
Is there enough hotel rooms available for all of the tourists that wish to come here?
We have moved from an agricultural economy to a tourist economy. We can't just slow down one without building up another support system.
More focus on using current tax dollars to support housing and environmentally/ culturally sound growth is so needed, with more education for the visitors about the history and what aloha and ohana means.
If this bill goes thru, my solution would be to rent longer term to traveling nurses as they could afford the rent I would need to charge.
Will this help the housing crisis? Not in the way we are all crying about
May the best solution be reached, especially fir the generational families that desire to stay connected to their land
I support Bill 9 phasing out the the Minatoya list short term rentals (STR). We are in a housing crisis.
Families are leaving Maui daily. Native born people and long time residents who are the foundation and fabric of our Maui community are fleeing the economic disaster in droves. Not the economic disaster predicted by those in opposition to phasing out the Minatoya list STR's. rather the existing economic disaster that is Maui's housing crisis. This crisis hurts people, destabilizes their lives, separates people from their families, communities, and culture.
The arguments against Bill 9 are economic, not humanitarian. The opposition bemoans their loss of profits and feigns concern for "their" people who clean and maintain their condominiums. These are the people wealthy enough to own condos, who in most cases do not provide a living wage that allows those employees and contractors to afford to live here.
Even if you only care about the economics and not the impact to people, opposing this bill makes no sense. You cannot have a thriving economy and stable tax base when the working level people in the community do not have secure housing. It would take more than a decade to build the infrastructure and amount of housing provided by the Minatoya list units. These are UNPERMITTED STRs. These units on average have been owned only 8 years by the current owners. Any grandfather clause should have expired with the sale of these units. The owners are investors who are profiting from the extractive tourism industry.
EVERY economist believes that Maui should diversify it's economy. Bill 9 is predicted to increase available housing, reduce housing costs island-wide, and reduce the amount of tourism. Continuing to support offshore investors profiting from exploitation rather than the people of Maui goes counter to the goals and objectives of County policies including the Maui Island Plan and community plans.
A representative of the people, elected and sworn to uphold the rule of law, cannot in good conscience support public policy that is in contravention to the human rights of the people to have shelter, secure food supply, and enough water. It's time to put people over profits. Support Bill 9. Most of the objections, other than investors losing profits, can be addressed through amendments to carefully craft a bill that works. Support Bill 9 and the working class people of Maui County.
P.S. When you hear testimony today, ask yourself if the testifier is a Maui County voter, and consider that in your deliberations.
Aloha. My name is Timothy Sullivan, and I own two short-term rental condominiums at Wailea Ekahi, a one-bed/one-bath and a two-bed/two-bath. I am strongly opposed to the proposed legislation aiming to phase out over 7,000 short term rental units on Maui.
I believe that phasing out short term rentals would have a devastating impact on Maui’s economy. The popularity of short term rentals in Maui indicates that they deliver value to a segment of travelers who do not wish to stay in hotels. Whether that is due to a generally lower price, the convenience of having a full kitchen, the ability to more comfortably house entire families or all of the above, short term rentals have become the preferred accommodations for a large segment of US and international travelers. Given the volume of short term renters traveling to Maui, any limitation of available units definitionally means fewer travelers will visit Maui. Many short term renters will not stay in hotels, whether due to the high cost in Maui or the lack of convenience as compared to short term rental properties. I believe we are already seeing the impact of this controversy on travel patterns to Maui, and the situation will only become significantly worse if this proposed legislation is passed.
Short term rentals significantly contribute to the local economy. I have reviewed the financial statements of Wailea Ekahi’s HOA. Over 75% of the my annual HOA dues of over $46,000 stay in the local economy, supporting the management, landscaping, construction, repair, and local service providers that work for Wailea Ekahi (50+ employees). My two units also generate approximately $12,000 per year in cleaning revenue to the husband-wife team that cleans my unit, and approximately $20,000 to my local management company (which employs 15 people). This is over $78,000 per year I personally spend in the local economy, supported by short term rental revenue. I conservatively estimate that the guests in my two units spend approximately between $100,000 and $150,000 on dining, retail purchases, recreation and other local activity during their stay at my two condos.
Phasing out short term rentals such as mine would greatly impact local spending, as fewer guests means lower spending. Maui experienced a significant economic contraction during the COVID pandemic, and I believe that phasing out short term rentals would create a more significant and prolonged economic contraction in Maui than COVID did. Local residents in need of housing will not have jobs with which to pay rents necessary for such housing as a result of a complete phase out. Changing the permitted use of short term rentals will greatly and negatively impact property, TAT and GET tax revenue to Maui and Hawaii at a time when local residents would be in greater need for government support. It is hard for me to see who benefits from proposed change given these predictable and likely outcomes.
Owning these two properties is obviously not without significant costs. I have already noted the HOA and management dues that total $66,000 per year. Electricity and maintenance is approximately $9,000/year. Mortgage, insurance and taxes are $76,000. These costs, which total over $151,000, are required to maintain the property quality and longevity as well as meeting the financial requirements of ownership. This works out to over $12,500/month for a one bedroom and a two bedroom unit. I do not believe that the local long-term rental market could support monthly rents anywhere close to making continued ownership of these units financially viable.
I understand the need for local oversight and regulation over short-term rentals, and I urge the Committee to consider a balanced approach with stricter regulations and enforcement rather than a blanket phase-out. Permits and inspections have been used successfully in other jurisdictions, and enforcement against illegal short term rentals should be a high priority. The location of specific short term rentals on Maui should also be considered. For example, those in Wailea, which was designed as a resort community, are quite different from short term rentals in Maui’s residential neighborhoods and should be regulated differently.
While it considers other approaches, I ask that the Commiteee recommend denial of the proposed bill phasing out short-term rentals in apartment districts.
Hawaii Appleseed is submitting testimony in strong support of Bill 9 (2025), which seeks to phase out transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts across Maui.
Hawai‘i Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing systemic change to address the root causes of economic insecurity and inequality in our state. Through research, policy development, legislative advocacy, and community engagement, we work to build a more just and equitable Hawai‘i. Our focus areas include affordable housing, transportation equity, food security, and expanding access to economic opportunity.
Hawaii Appleseed recognizes Bill 9 (2025) as a meaningful step toward realigning housing policy with the needs of local residents.
The proliferation of TVRs has been widely identified as a significant contributor to a city's housing crisis. They negatively impact both the availability and affordability of homes for long-term residents. By directly removing units from the long-term rental market, TVRs intensify supply constraints that result in higher rents and inflated home values.
Investors capitalize on TVR demand by buying and renting properties for exclusive TVR use, evidenced by the 13,000 TVR units on Maui - accounting for nearly 21% of Maui’s housing stock. According to AirDNA, a short term rental data analytics site, the average rate for a vacation rental in 2024 in Maui was $472.48 per night. The average annual revenue for TVR owners this past year was $94,200 equating to $7,850/month, significantly higher than the median asking rent of $2,400 per month.
This creates strong financial incentives for property owners to favor short-term rental use over long-term tenancies. Additionally, the commercialization of residential homes for use as TVRs can create market externalities that increase nearby property values by influencing comparable sales and fueling speculative expectations. This upward pressure on prices contributes to housing cost inflation that outpaces local income growth, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to afford homes.
Housing affordability also cannot be addressed without significantly increasing the supply of homes available for local residents. Yet TVRs have fundamentally undermined this goal by preventing new affordable development from meaningfully expanding the housing stock. Even when new housing units were added, the net residential housing supply on Maui remained essentially unchanged from 2018-2022, as any marginal new construction was immediately absorbed or replaced by conversions to vacation rentals.
This problem is compounded by resource constraints, particularly water availability, which further limit the feasibility of new housing construction. In water-scarce West Maui, this impact is already preventing affordable housing from being built. Tourist accommodations exacerbate this problem by disproportionately consuming high amounts of water, energy, and waste services, compared to residential units. Continuing to allow short-term rentals in apartment-zoned areas means that scarce water and infrastructure capacity is allocated to visitors rather than residents.
There are approximately 6,172 active STRs under the Minatoya list, primarily located in residential apartment-zoned districts, that are permitted to continue TVR operations despite their non-conforming status. By withdrawing their permitted status through Bull 9, Maui can return these properties to the long-term housing market and potentially increase Maui’s long-term residential housing stock by 13%. This would represent the equivalent of ten years' worth of housing production on Maui, without breaking ground or straining public infrastructure. According to UHERO, full phase out of all the Minatoya properties could also result in rents dropping by 6-14% and condo prices declining by 20-40%. This would be a much-needed relief to local residents struggling to find affordable housing.
As outlined in the UHERO report, several mitigating factors may dampen the policy’s expected impact on housing affordability.The phase-out of non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas does not guarantee that all affected units will immediately transition to long-term residential use, meaning the impact on housing affordability may not fully materialize. Additionally, the policy may result in only a one-time downward shock in prices, maintaining prices at a lower trajectory than they would have followed without intervention but still continuing to rise at the same rate as before. The phase out may also carry risks associated with losses in visitor spending, employment, income and tax revenue.
Although the phase-out of non-conforming TVRs may affect visitor-related revenue, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of the visitor demand displaced by the residential conversion of Minatoya List condominium units could be absorbed by existing hotel capacity. In 2023, Maui hotels operated at an average occupancy rate of 66.1% across a total supply of 13,730 rooms, leaving approximately 4,660 hotel rooms vacant each night. While hotel accommodations may not meet the needs of all visitors previously served by vacation rentals, and hotel inventory may not fully offset the volume of STR units, a substantial share of visitors could still be accommodated. As a result, visitor spending and some local employment would likely shift rather than disappear entirely, helping to mitigate the broader economic impact on the visitor industry.
Additionally, housing can function as critical economic infrastructure. When housing is scarce or unaffordable, businesses across all sectors - not just tourism - face challenges in hiring and retaining employees. Hawaii has experienced consistent net out-migration of working-age adults, with housing unaffordability cited as the primary reason. This exodus has created severe workforce shortages across critical sectors. Hawaii faces one of the worst physician shortages in the U.S., across all specialties; The Department of Education reports significant teacher vacancies; and DBEDT continues to report slow labor growth. Continued out-migration of families and workers such as teachers, healthcare professionals, first responders, and cultural practitioners could pose a far greater long-term threat to Maui’s economy than a calibrated reduction in the number of tourist accommodations.
While Bill 9 will not resolve Maui's housing crisis alone, this does not justify continued permitting of non-conforming TVRs - especially when additional policy tools are available to address these concerns without compromising zoning integrity. The TVR ban creates a critical window of opportunity by temporarily reducing housing prices, allowing time to implement complementary measures - such as those recommended by UHERO - that can work in tandem with the phase-out. These policies can help maximize the conversion of units into long-term housing and maintain or even exceed current levels of tax revenue, serving as a supplement to the TVR phase-out rather than a replacement for it.
Maui County’s effort to phase out non-conforming STRs also rests on a solid legal foundation. State law explicitly grants this power and encourages its use to address housing shortages. Courts have also consistently upheld the authority of local governments to regulate land use through zoning, including the right to prohibit certain uses such as TVRs. Evidenced in rulings such as Short Term Rental Alliance of San Diego vs City of San Diego (2021) and Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans (2022) federal courts ruled in favor of the cities and found no constitutional takings as long as owners retained core property rights (such as living in it, selling it, or renting it long-term) and that property owners do not have a vested right to operate transient vacation rentals. Additionally, a federal judge also ruled that San Diego’s amortization period of 2 years was sufficient in providing fair notice and transition time to property owners.
However, the proposed exemption of timeshares from the TVR ban may weaken the county’s legal position. Although timeshares differ structurally from other short-term rentals, their continued allowance could invite equal protection claims from STR owners who argue they are being treated unfairly compared to similarly situated properties. In the previously mentioned New Orleans case, the city’s initial TVR regulations requiring owner occupancy were struck down by the courts due to violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause - discriminating against non local property owners when nondiscriminatory alternatives existed. Because the STR regulation was not uniformly applied, the cities’ TVR provisions were deemed favoring certain classes of transient accommodations. The ruling found that the provisions also undermined the jurisdiction’s legal rationale to protect housing affordability which increased their vulnerability to other constitutional challenges. An unexplained exemption for timeshares could be construed as undermining the county’s stated purpose of preserving residential housing and preventing the overconsumption of limited resources like water and infrastructure capacity. To maintain the legal integrity of Bill 9, Maui County should reconsider the exemption entirely.
Bill 9 represents a step to reclaim housing for Maui residents and realign our land use policies with community needs. While no single policy can solve the housing crisis, phasing out non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas addresses a major structural barrier to affordability and opens the door to additional solutions. By advancing this measure, Maui County has the opportunity to protect its residents and preserve its housing. Hawaii Appleseed respectfully urges the Council to pass Bill 9 without exemptions and promote a more equitable housing landscape.
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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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.
From: Tim and Laura Gavigan
My wife and I have been owners for 4+ years. Maui is in our hearts.
Removing STR will have a dramatic impact on the local community. The STRs help support all of the local businesses as a steady income stream for Maui. We ourselves support all of the local businesses, including Napili Market, O'O farms, Miso Phat and more. We are now friendly many people within our community, and we will continue to foster these relationships. We love Maui and want nothing more than to see the community stable and secure.
I am against the proposed ban on short term rentals, especially those on the Minatoya list. .
If enacted, the ban will result in thousands of jobs disappearing overnight. Most people can’t afford to rent/own if they don’t have a job.
It will shut down thousands of legal, tax-paying small businesses owned by locals (estimated at 49%) and mainlanders (estimated at 51%) If the Council decided to shut down that many businesses in any other segment of the economy, there would a huge outcry.
This ban will negatively impact the economy if passed. Fewer families will come to Maui because they can’t afford the hotel nightly rate of $400-$500, and can’t afford to eat three meals a day at restaurants. This is a gift to the large, out-of-state corporations that run the hotels.
The County gets 42% of property tax revenue from STRs. How are they going to replace it? Raise property taxes on everyone else in all likelihood.
The unintended consequences to our economy will be devastating.
Since the Mayor announced this proposal, condos listed for sale have increased dramatically over a year ago. Prices asked for these one bedroom condos have fallen 30% at my complex.
Also, last year our complex’s insurance went up 240% so our AOAO fees are now over $2000 per month.
Why aren’t the locals buying these one bedroom, one parking spot, no storage condos?
They can’t afford them. Even with prices at $600,000, a mortgage and a $2012 monthly AOAO fee puts them out of reach for most people. Track the number of units sold to locals who use them as their primary residences if you don’t believe me.
If I were to rent my condo long term I would have to ask around $4000 per month to break even. This isn’t affordable housing.
And let’s not forget about the millions the county would have to spend to defend itself if short term rentals of Minatoya List condos is prohibited.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. There’s no doubt that there is a housing shortage in Maui. My opinion is that the mayors proposal does not address the housing problem in Maui.
There are other types of short term rentals that are being ignored.
First of all, there are illegal short term rentals in Maui. There doesn’t seem to be a very good system to track these down and eliminate them. I know of a few myself and wonder how they are operating. The truth is not only do they take housing from the legitimate businesses that are operating. They don’t put any money back into the system to support the economy.
The second are short term rentals that are operating under use permits that are revocable. Most of these units are located in residential areas where the locals need housing. I’m curious as to why this bill does not address these short term rentals and why these permits haven’t been revoked already to provide housing for Locals.
Third of all, why would the mayor want to lose all the revenue that short term rentals provide when they could take the money and build more affordable housing for the Maui workforce.
It’s unfathomable to me that this bill will eliminate an affordable option for visitors to stay in Maui. I believe that this will really impact the tourist industry and the economy in Maui in a very negative way as you know tourism is the largest part of the economy in Maui and the people that support this bill will be the ones that are really impacted. Obviously the big winner would be the hotels who don’t pay their employees a fair wage. Now they will have a larger pool of available workers and that will keep wages low for these workers.
To me, the best solution is to affordable build housing where the locals want to live and subsidize it with revenue from the short term, rental income, property, taxes, and transient occupancy taxes.
I oppose this ban on STR's. Totally unfair to the owners who are being unfairly targeted and placed in this situation to solve the long term low income housing problem. The biggest obstacle to low income housing has been not designating and building on more land that is plentiful on the island. Maui land is sacred we don't need condo's covering all of it, but more land should be allowed to build to help improve this problem. Don't make the owners of STR's the scapegoat and have to cover the cost of a big problem. A problem that could be improved by the cutting of the ridiculous red tape by government that has prevented more low income housing. If we eliminate some of the barriers to actually building, this way low income housing can develop that actually MEETS THE NEEDS for local families can built. I OPPOSE THIS BILL THAT WILL HURT ALL OF MAUI'S PEOPLE!
Of all the options for creating affordable housing, why are we spending our time on the worst possible option? This will wreck our economy and force businesses to close or layoff residents. This divisive and damaging approach only benefits the hotels and new condo owners who will leave the units vacant or make deals with their friends to stay there. There is no way to make these aging buildings on the beach affordable.
Subject: Opposition to Bill 9 – STR Phaseout Proposal
Aloha Members of the Maui County Council,
My name is Raphael Tamari, and I’ve called Hawaii home since I was 15 years old. I was on Kauai when Hurricane Iniki devastated the island, and I spent years helping rebuild our community. Today, I’m deeply concerned that Bill 9—Mayor Bissen’s proposal to phase out short-term rentals (STRs)—will harm Maui’s economy without solving the housing crisis. This bill is not the answer.
My condo is not affordable housing—it’s a small studio with an HOA fee over $1,000 a month. Units like mine were never meant for long-term living, and forcing them into the long-term rental market won’t magically make them affordable. Meanwhile, STRs bring critical revenue to our island—money that should be allocated toward real solutions, like deed-restricted housing, workforce housing, and smart development.
Maui has plenty of land, yet instead of encouraging new housing projects (like my brother’s town in Crested Butte, Colorado, which built qualified workforce housing and apartments), this bill targets STR owners who contribute to our economy. Visitors staying in STRs support local businesses, create jobs, and generate tax revenue—$900 million in spending and thousands of jobs are at risk if this passes.
If the goal is affordable housing, then:
Build it. Maui needs deed-restricted and workforce housing, not forced conversions of unsuitable units.
Use STR revenue wisely. Taxing STRs could fund housing programs instead of eliminating them.
Learn from other communities. Crested Butte didn’t ban STRs—they built smart, qualified housing.
Don’t punish small owners like me while ignoring the real issue: Maui needs more housing, not fewer options. Please reject Bill 9 and work with the community on solutions that actually work.
Mahalo, Raphael Tamari
Dear Chair, Vice, Chair, and Committee Members,
First, let me thank you for your service to our beautiful county, the island of Maui. Mahalo and much aloha.
I am writing today to express my opposition to Bill 9, the elimination of STRs. As a long time (2007) owner of a property on Maui, and provider of a service to the wonderful visitors to our island, I am opposed to this bill. I currently provide jobs to many residents of Maui, including property management, electrical/painting/plumbing and cleaning services. Without my condo being used for STRs, I would not be able to help the economy of Maui. While I respectfully understand the challenges of affordable housing on Maui, and the impacts of the Lahaina fires on housing, I do not believe that removing STRs is the answer. For the most part, our homes will not be affordable to the average Mauian on the island, and respectfully, I would not offer my home for long term use if I am forced by this bill to abandon STRs.
I respectfully ask that you consider the wider economic impact of removing STRs and find alternative solutions to the housing crisis on Maui. Please do not implement Bill 9 as it is not the answer to the housing crisis on Maui and will only exacerbate already challenging economic conditions on Maui with tourism down >20% on Maui.
I live in Maui and I own a short term rental property in Kihei. I am a local resident that will be detrimentally affected if this law passes and I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7000 short term rentals.
As a local resident I strongly agree we need more affordable housing but to eliminate STRs with no plan for STR owners to transition to LTR or to replace jobs that would be lost or to replace the billions STRs bring to the Maui economy would be irresponsible.
I could list all the pros and cons to STR but in the end it all boils down political agendas and money, dividing the community and pitting one group of individual’s interests over another for systemic issues in housing on Maui that are not really related. This is not fair and encourages hostility over an issue that we should be working on together to fix. Can we share the aloha and find a compromise that works for all instead of rushing through this legislation?
I urge the Council to work with all affected parties to find a fair and balanced path forward that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and provides affordable housing for the community without phasing STR on the Minatoya list completely.
I have been living on Maui full time for over 20 years. My wife and I have been actively supporting Maui communities in various positions; founders of Maui Preparatory Academy, advisory board committee member of Hawaii Community Foundation, major donors to the Maui Memorial Hospital etc... in short we understand extremely well the various issues that Maui faces.
The housing problem has been going on for over 40 years and the Lahaina fire only exacerbated it. The main premise of the Bill 9 is incorrect. Yes, some developments were originally built for the workforce housing, however, most of the communities on the Minatoya List were not. They were built as vacation rental and therefore are not suited for long term housing for families. These should be zoned as Hotel. Some units may work for a couple but would not allow a larger family to live decently. Lack of parking space, lack of storage space, restricted cooking appliances, restricted barbecue usage, etc... and more importantly high maintenance fees, hence high rents, would limit the number of people who would be able to enjoy them. For your information, the maintenance fees have been going up dramatically recently due to the recent update of the insured replacement value, and the upgrades that most development built in the 80s and 90s need.
Many second home owners have a mortgage and rely on their income to pay for their ownership. In most cases, the rent generated by vacation rental barely pays for all the fees associated with owning a condo on Maui, and often the owners have to pay the balance on the monthly dues out of their pockets. So, lowering the rent is a non starter, and actually the long term rents may go up to cover the cost of ownership.
People who cannot afford to keep their condos will not sell them at a huge discounted price, the market may adjust a little but not collapse. The only people who will buy these condos are people from the mainland who can afford to own them without renting them, or rent them long term at a price unaffordable for locals. Locals cannot afford to pay $400,000 to $600,000 to buy a 600 sq. ft .1 bedroom condos and pay the monthly fee.
Lastly, small businesses and large like Costco, Safeway and others rely heavily on second home owners and tourists. With the loss of traffic, these will certainly have to adjust their offerings or close all together, adding to the increase in job losses. It seems that many do not believe that will happen or simply do not care, and think that the economy will pivote to something else. Maui is in the middle of the Pacific and there is nothing else. The agriculture experiment failed and pivoted to tourism and its service industry. For a vacation destination, there is nothing else to pivote to. The mayor did not offer a mid to long term economic plan to show us how he will sustain Maui economy and make up for the $1B forecasted loss. This is very worrisome as all the sectors of the economy will be impacted if this bill pass.
There is a strong need for affordable housing and it should be sponsored by the county, state or through developers' incentives. Community like Kaiāulu o Kūkuʻia is a perfect example of what can be achieved in a short period of time.
Totally disagree with this approach. It would be sending the wrong message to visitors and hurting our tourist industry based economy! Please do not pass the bill.
As a full-time resident of Maui, I strongly oppose Bill 9. The supporting research shows the Bill will not necessarily result in an increase in affordable house and may do more harm than good. The study by the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) shows the Bill would be detrimental to Maui as it could face $900,000,000 of lost revenue from visitors, 1900 lost jobs of local residents, and millions of lost property tax revenue and there is no guarantee the STR owns will rent these units if it passes.
Many of these units were never suitable for long-term rental use and with current HOA dues and mortgage rates I fail to see how these are considered "affordable". People aren't going to rent their units for below their costs.
Bill 9 will eliminate significant economic activity generated by local property managers, cleaners, maintenance workers, and other service providers—many of whom are Maui residents.
Bill 9 retroactively strips property rights from law-abiding homeowners who have invested—often at great personal and financial cost—in full compliance with existing laws. These units were purchased and maintained under the clear understanding that short-term rental use was permissible under zoning regulations and permitted by the County. I would imagine rescinding these rights would result in multiple costly lawsuits based on the unconstitutional taking under both the U.S. and Hawai‘i State Constitutions.
Bill 9 is not the answer to our housing crisis—it’s a political shortcut with real human costs. I urge you to reject this measure and focus instead on real, balanced, and compassionate solutions that protect our economy, our residents, and our rights.
I am confused as to why some of those in support have stated that these str's are not permitted and in residential neighborhoods when in fact they are permitted and not in residential areas and although called apartment zones they are in resort areas, and most were developed as short-term rentals and not work force housing.
Aloha, my name is Joi and I am a local resident on Maui. Every week, I set up my booth at the Kahului Swap Meet and the Lahaina Cannery Swap Meet to share my artwork with both residents and visitors. It is more than just a way to earn a living. It is how I connect with people, tell stories through my work, and keep our island culture alive.
A large part of my customers are visitors who stay in short term rentals. These are people who take the time to explore the island, walk through our markets, talk story with artists like me, and bring home something meaningful. Many have become repeat customers and even lifelong supporters of my work. Without them, it would be difficult to continue doing what I love and what helps support my family.
This proposed phase out of short term rentals worries me deeply. If those visitors are not here, they are not coming to the swap meets. They are not buying art, not supporting local makers, not helping us keep our culture thriving. Art is not just something I sell. It is something I live. And when the support disappears, so does the ability to keep creating and sharing that part of Maui.
I understand the need for housing solutions. I see it too. But taking away a key source of income for working local families, without a clear plan for what comes next, only makes life harder for people who are already doing their best to stay rooted here.
We need the County to take a broader look at what it means to support local residents. That includes not just housing, but employment, culture, and opportunity. We need thoughtful action that strengthens all parts of the community, not just one.
Please listen to voices like mine before moving forward. Let us be part of the conversation. Let us help shape solutions that support both our people and the island we love.
Mahalo for taking the time to hear our stories.
Council Members.
As a small business owner that is on the brink of closure due to Maui’s current economic downturn, I strongly urge you to NOT vote this bill forward. It will not solve Maui’s housing crisis and only hurt our economy is countless ways.
On behalf of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, we support Bill 9. Please see attached testimony.
I own a STR in kihei, put most of my savings into the purchase as an investment property--just before the Lahaina fires.
It is a studio, only 350 sq feet
My costs as an owner per month is:
$500 property tax
726 HOA fee
60 prop insurance
= 1300 costs
Renting it out to someone needing a home at $2000 (so I have emergency funds if needed) is pretty high for such a small place
That I do not have a mortgage makes my costs lower. Most people do.
With property taxes and HOA so high, how can owners afford to rent out property at a reasonable rate??
I wish I hadn't invested in this as I do not wish to be a part if the housing problem.
I do not see making STRs less available being the whole solution
Is there enough hotel rooms available for all of the tourists that wish to come here?
We have moved from an agricultural economy to a tourist economy. We can't just slow down one without building up another support system.
More focus on using current tax dollars to support housing and environmentally/ culturally sound growth is so needed, with more education for the visitors about the history and what aloha and ohana means.
If this bill goes thru, my solution would be to rent longer term to traveling nurses as they could afford the rent I would need to charge.
Will this help the housing crisis? Not in the way we are all crying about
May the best solution be reached, especially fir the generational families that desire to stay connected to their land
I support Bill 9 phasing out the the Minatoya list short term rentals (STR). We are in a housing crisis.
Families are leaving Maui daily. Native born people and long time residents who are the foundation and fabric of our Maui community are fleeing the economic disaster in droves. Not the economic disaster predicted by those in opposition to phasing out the Minatoya list STR's. rather the existing economic disaster that is Maui's housing crisis. This crisis hurts people, destabilizes their lives, separates people from their families, communities, and culture.
The arguments against Bill 9 are economic, not humanitarian. The opposition bemoans their loss of profits and feigns concern for "their" people who clean and maintain their condominiums. These are the people wealthy enough to own condos, who in most cases do not provide a living wage that allows those employees and contractors to afford to live here.
Even if you only care about the economics and not the impact to people, opposing this bill makes no sense. You cannot have a thriving economy and stable tax base when the working level people in the community do not have secure housing. It would take more than a decade to build the infrastructure and amount of housing provided by the Minatoya list units. These are UNPERMITTED STRs. These units on average have been owned only 8 years by the current owners. Any grandfather clause should have expired with the sale of these units. The owners are investors who are profiting from the extractive tourism industry.
EVERY economist believes that Maui should diversify it's economy. Bill 9 is predicted to increase available housing, reduce housing costs island-wide, and reduce the amount of tourism. Continuing to support offshore investors profiting from exploitation rather than the people of Maui goes counter to the goals and objectives of County policies including the Maui Island Plan and community plans.
A representative of the people, elected and sworn to uphold the rule of law, cannot in good conscience support public policy that is in contravention to the human rights of the people to have shelter, secure food supply, and enough water. It's time to put people over profits. Support Bill 9. Most of the objections, other than investors losing profits, can be addressed through amendments to carefully craft a bill that works. Support Bill 9 and the working class people of Maui County.
P.S. When you hear testimony today, ask yourself if the testifier is a Maui County voter, and consider that in your deliberations.
Aloha. My name is Timothy Sullivan, and I own two short-term rental condominiums at Wailea Ekahi, a one-bed/one-bath and a two-bed/two-bath. I am strongly opposed to the proposed legislation aiming to phase out over 7,000 short term rental units on Maui.
I believe that phasing out short term rentals would have a devastating impact on Maui’s economy. The popularity of short term rentals in Maui indicates that they deliver value to a segment of travelers who do not wish to stay in hotels. Whether that is due to a generally lower price, the convenience of having a full kitchen, the ability to more comfortably house entire families or all of the above, short term rentals have become the preferred accommodations for a large segment of US and international travelers. Given the volume of short term renters traveling to Maui, any limitation of available units definitionally means fewer travelers will visit Maui. Many short term renters will not stay in hotels, whether due to the high cost in Maui or the lack of convenience as compared to short term rental properties. I believe we are already seeing the impact of this controversy on travel patterns to Maui, and the situation will only become significantly worse if this proposed legislation is passed.
Short term rentals significantly contribute to the local economy. I have reviewed the financial statements of Wailea Ekahi’s HOA. Over 75% of the my annual HOA dues of over $46,000 stay in the local economy, supporting the management, landscaping, construction, repair, and local service providers that work for Wailea Ekahi (50+ employees). My two units also generate approximately $12,000 per year in cleaning revenue to the husband-wife team that cleans my unit, and approximately $20,000 to my local management company (which employs 15 people). This is over $78,000 per year I personally spend in the local economy, supported by short term rental revenue. I conservatively estimate that the guests in my two units spend approximately between $100,000 and $150,000 on dining, retail purchases, recreation and other local activity during their stay at my two condos.
Phasing out short term rentals such as mine would greatly impact local spending, as fewer guests means lower spending. Maui experienced a significant economic contraction during the COVID pandemic, and I believe that phasing out short term rentals would create a more significant and prolonged economic contraction in Maui than COVID did. Local residents in need of housing will not have jobs with which to pay rents necessary for such housing as a result of a complete phase out. Changing the permitted use of short term rentals will greatly and negatively impact property, TAT and GET tax revenue to Maui and Hawaii at a time when local residents would be in greater need for government support. It is hard for me to see who benefits from proposed change given these predictable and likely outcomes.
Owning these two properties is obviously not without significant costs. I have already noted the HOA and management dues that total $66,000 per year. Electricity and maintenance is approximately $9,000/year. Mortgage, insurance and taxes are $76,000. These costs, which total over $151,000, are required to maintain the property quality and longevity as well as meeting the financial requirements of ownership. This works out to over $12,500/month for a one bedroom and a two bedroom unit. I do not believe that the local long-term rental market could support monthly rents anywhere close to making continued ownership of these units financially viable.
I understand the need for local oversight and regulation over short-term rentals, and I urge the Committee to consider a balanced approach with stricter regulations and enforcement rather than a blanket phase-out. Permits and inspections have been used successfully in other jurisdictions, and enforcement against illegal short term rentals should be a high priority. The location of specific short term rentals on Maui should also be considered. For example, those in Wailea, which was designed as a resort community, are quite different from short term rentals in Maui’s residential neighborhoods and should be regulated differently.
While it considers other approaches, I ask that the Commiteee recommend denial of the proposed bill phasing out short-term rentals in apartment districts.
Thank you for your consideration of my testimony.
Timothy Sullivan
Wailea Ekahi 45F and 43A
Hawaii Appleseed is submitting testimony in strong support of Bill 9 (2025), which seeks to phase out transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts across Maui.
Hawai‘i Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing systemic change to address the root causes of economic insecurity and inequality in our state. Through research, policy development, legislative advocacy, and community engagement, we work to build a more just and equitable Hawai‘i. Our focus areas include affordable housing, transportation equity, food security, and expanding access to economic opportunity.
Hawaii Appleseed recognizes Bill 9 (2025) as a meaningful step toward realigning housing policy with the needs of local residents.
The proliferation of TVRs has been widely identified as a significant contributor to a city's housing crisis. They negatively impact both the availability and affordability of homes for long-term residents. By directly removing units from the long-term rental market, TVRs intensify supply constraints that result in higher rents and inflated home values.
Investors capitalize on TVR demand by buying and renting properties for exclusive TVR use, evidenced by the 13,000 TVR units on Maui - accounting for nearly 21% of Maui’s housing stock. According to AirDNA, a short term rental data analytics site, the average rate for a vacation rental in 2024 in Maui was $472.48 per night. The average annual revenue for TVR owners this past year was $94,200 equating to $7,850/month, significantly higher than the median asking rent of $2,400 per month.
This creates strong financial incentives for property owners to favor short-term rental use over long-term tenancies. Additionally, the commercialization of residential homes for use as TVRs can create market externalities that increase nearby property values by influencing comparable sales and fueling speculative expectations. This upward pressure on prices contributes to housing cost inflation that outpaces local income growth, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to afford homes.
Housing affordability also cannot be addressed without significantly increasing the supply of homes available for local residents. Yet TVRs have fundamentally undermined this goal by preventing new affordable development from meaningfully expanding the housing stock. Even when new housing units were added, the net residential housing supply on Maui remained essentially unchanged from 2018-2022, as any marginal new construction was immediately absorbed or replaced by conversions to vacation rentals.
This problem is compounded by resource constraints, particularly water availability, which further limit the feasibility of new housing construction. In water-scarce West Maui, this impact is already preventing affordable housing from being built. Tourist accommodations exacerbate this problem by disproportionately consuming high amounts of water, energy, and waste services, compared to residential units. Continuing to allow short-term rentals in apartment-zoned areas means that scarce water and infrastructure capacity is allocated to visitors rather than residents.
There are approximately 6,172 active STRs under the Minatoya list, primarily located in residential apartment-zoned districts, that are permitted to continue TVR operations despite their non-conforming status. By withdrawing their permitted status through Bull 9, Maui can return these properties to the long-term housing market and potentially increase Maui’s long-term residential housing stock by 13%. This would represent the equivalent of ten years' worth of housing production on Maui, without breaking ground or straining public infrastructure. According to UHERO, full phase out of all the Minatoya properties could also result in rents dropping by 6-14% and condo prices declining by 20-40%. This would be a much-needed relief to local residents struggling to find affordable housing.
As outlined in the UHERO report, several mitigating factors may dampen the policy’s expected impact on housing affordability.The phase-out of non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas does not guarantee that all affected units will immediately transition to long-term residential use, meaning the impact on housing affordability may not fully materialize. Additionally, the policy may result in only a one-time downward shock in prices, maintaining prices at a lower trajectory than they would have followed without intervention but still continuing to rise at the same rate as before. The phase out may also carry risks associated with losses in visitor spending, employment, income and tax revenue.
Although the phase-out of non-conforming TVRs may affect visitor-related revenue, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of the visitor demand displaced by the residential conversion of Minatoya List condominium units could be absorbed by existing hotel capacity. In 2023, Maui hotels operated at an average occupancy rate of 66.1% across a total supply of 13,730 rooms, leaving approximately 4,660 hotel rooms vacant each night. While hotel accommodations may not meet the needs of all visitors previously served by vacation rentals, and hotel inventory may not fully offset the volume of STR units, a substantial share of visitors could still be accommodated. As a result, visitor spending and some local employment would likely shift rather than disappear entirely, helping to mitigate the broader economic impact on the visitor industry.
Additionally, housing can function as critical economic infrastructure. When housing is scarce or unaffordable, businesses across all sectors - not just tourism - face challenges in hiring and retaining employees. Hawaii has experienced consistent net out-migration of working-age adults, with housing unaffordability cited as the primary reason. This exodus has created severe workforce shortages across critical sectors. Hawaii faces one of the worst physician shortages in the U.S., across all specialties; The Department of Education reports significant teacher vacancies; and DBEDT continues to report slow labor growth. Continued out-migration of families and workers such as teachers, healthcare professionals, first responders, and cultural practitioners could pose a far greater long-term threat to Maui’s economy than a calibrated reduction in the number of tourist accommodations.
While Bill 9 will not resolve Maui's housing crisis alone, this does not justify continued permitting of non-conforming TVRs - especially when additional policy tools are available to address these concerns without compromising zoning integrity. The TVR ban creates a critical window of opportunity by temporarily reducing housing prices, allowing time to implement complementary measures - such as those recommended by UHERO - that can work in tandem with the phase-out. These policies can help maximize the conversion of units into long-term housing and maintain or even exceed current levels of tax revenue, serving as a supplement to the TVR phase-out rather than a replacement for it.
Maui County’s effort to phase out non-conforming STRs also rests on a solid legal foundation. State law explicitly grants this power and encourages its use to address housing shortages. Courts have also consistently upheld the authority of local governments to regulate land use through zoning, including the right to prohibit certain uses such as TVRs. Evidenced in rulings such as Short Term Rental Alliance of San Diego vs City of San Diego (2021) and Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans (2022) federal courts ruled in favor of the cities and found no constitutional takings as long as owners retained core property rights (such as living in it, selling it, or renting it long-term) and that property owners do not have a vested right to operate transient vacation rentals. Additionally, a federal judge also ruled that San Diego’s amortization period of 2 years was sufficient in providing fair notice and transition time to property owners.
However, the proposed exemption of timeshares from the TVR ban may weaken the county’s legal position. Although timeshares differ structurally from other short-term rentals, their continued allowance could invite equal protection claims from STR owners who argue they are being treated unfairly compared to similarly situated properties. In the previously mentioned New Orleans case, the city’s initial TVR regulations requiring owner occupancy were struck down by the courts due to violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause - discriminating against non local property owners when nondiscriminatory alternatives existed. Because the STR regulation was not uniformly applied, the cities’ TVR provisions were deemed favoring certain classes of transient accommodations. The ruling found that the provisions also undermined the jurisdiction’s legal rationale to protect housing affordability which increased their vulnerability to other constitutional challenges. An unexplained exemption for timeshares could be construed as undermining the county’s stated purpose of preserving residential housing and preventing the overconsumption of limited resources like water and infrastructure capacity. To maintain the legal integrity of Bill 9, Maui County should reconsider the exemption entirely.
Bill 9 represents a step to reclaim housing for Maui residents and realign our land use policies with community needs. While no single policy can solve the housing crisis, phasing out non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas addresses a major structural barrier to affordability and opens the door to additional solutions. By advancing this measure, Maui County has the opportunity to protect its residents and preserve its housing. Hawaii Appleseed respectfully urges the Council to pass Bill 9 without exemptions and promote a more equitable housing landscape.
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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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,
Tara Gallagher
From: Tim and Laura Gavigan
My wife and I have been owners for 4+ years. Maui is in our hearts.
Removing STR will have a dramatic impact on the local community. The STRs help support all of the local businesses as a steady income stream for Maui. We ourselves support all of the local businesses, including Napili Market, O'O farms, Miso Phat and more. We are now friendly many people within our community, and we will continue to foster these relationships. We love Maui and want nothing more than to see the community stable and secure.
I am against the proposed ban on short term rentals, especially those on the Minatoya list. .
If enacted, the ban will result in thousands of jobs disappearing overnight. Most people can’t afford to rent/own if they don’t have a job.
It will shut down thousands of legal, tax-paying small businesses owned by locals (estimated at 49%) and mainlanders (estimated at 51%) If the Council decided to shut down that many businesses in any other segment of the economy, there would a huge outcry.
This ban will negatively impact the economy if passed. Fewer families will come to Maui because they can’t afford the hotel nightly rate of $400-$500, and can’t afford to eat three meals a day at restaurants. This is a gift to the large, out-of-state corporations that run the hotels.
The County gets 42% of property tax revenue from STRs. How are they going to replace it? Raise property taxes on everyone else in all likelihood.
The unintended consequences to our economy will be devastating.
Since the Mayor announced this proposal, condos listed for sale have increased dramatically over a year ago. Prices asked for these one bedroom condos have fallen 30% at my complex.
Also, last year our complex’s insurance went up 240% so our AOAO fees are now over $2000 per month.
Why aren’t the locals buying these one bedroom, one parking spot, no storage condos?
They can’t afford them. Even with prices at $600,000, a mortgage and a $2012 monthly AOAO fee puts them out of reach for most people. Track the number of units sold to locals who use them as their primary residences if you don’t believe me.
If I were to rent my condo long term I would have to ask around $4000 per month to break even. This isn’t affordable housing.
And let’s not forget about the millions the county would have to spend to defend itself if short term rentals of Minatoya List condos is prohibited.
Vote no.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. There’s no doubt that there is a housing shortage in Maui. My opinion is that the mayors proposal does not address the housing problem in Maui.
There are other types of short term rentals that are being ignored.
First of all, there are illegal short term rentals in Maui. There doesn’t seem to be a very good system to track these down and eliminate them. I know of a few myself and wonder how they are operating. The truth is not only do they take housing from the legitimate businesses that are operating. They don’t put any money back into the system to support the economy.
The second are short term rentals that are operating under use permits that are revocable. Most of these units are located in residential areas where the locals need housing. I’m curious as to why this bill does not address these short term rentals and why these permits haven’t been revoked already to provide housing for Locals.
Third of all, why would the mayor want to lose all the revenue that short term rentals provide when they could take the money and build more affordable housing for the Maui workforce.
It’s unfathomable to me that this bill will eliminate an affordable option for visitors to stay in Maui. I believe that this will really impact the tourist industry and the economy in Maui in a very negative way as you know tourism is the largest part of the economy in Maui and the people that support this bill will be the ones that are really impacted. Obviously the big winner would be the hotels who don’t pay their employees a fair wage. Now they will have a larger pool of available workers and that will keep wages low for these workers.
To me, the best solution is to affordable build housing where the locals want to live and subsidize it with revenue from the short term, rental income, property, taxes, and transient occupancy taxes.
Thank you so much for considering my opinion.
Jackson Mosher.
I oppose this ban on STR's. Totally unfair to the owners who are being unfairly targeted and placed in this situation to solve the long term low income housing problem. The biggest obstacle to low income housing has been not designating and building on more land that is plentiful on the island. Maui land is sacred we don't need condo's covering all of it, but more land should be allowed to build to help improve this problem. Don't make the owners of STR's the scapegoat and have to cover the cost of a big problem. A problem that could be improved by the cutting of the ridiculous red tape by government that has prevented more low income housing. If we eliminate some of the barriers to actually building, this way low income housing can develop that actually MEETS THE NEEDS for local families can built. I OPPOSE THIS BILL THAT WILL HURT ALL OF MAUI'S PEOPLE!
Of all the options for creating affordable housing, why are we spending our time on the worst possible option? This will wreck our economy and force businesses to close or layoff residents. This divisive and damaging approach only benefits the hotels and new condo owners who will leave the units vacant or make deals with their friends to stay there. There is no way to make these aging buildings on the beach affordable.
Subject: Opposition to Bill 9 – STR Phaseout Proposal
Aloha Members of the Maui County Council,
My name is Raphael Tamari, and I’ve called Hawaii home since I was 15 years old. I was on Kauai when Hurricane Iniki devastated the island, and I spent years helping rebuild our community. Today, I’m deeply concerned that Bill 9—Mayor Bissen’s proposal to phase out short-term rentals (STRs)—will harm Maui’s economy without solving the housing crisis. This bill is not the answer.
My condo is not affordable housing—it’s a small studio with an HOA fee over $1,000 a month. Units like mine were never meant for long-term living, and forcing them into the long-term rental market won’t magically make them affordable. Meanwhile, STRs bring critical revenue to our island—money that should be allocated toward real solutions, like deed-restricted housing, workforce housing, and smart development.
Maui has plenty of land, yet instead of encouraging new housing projects (like my brother’s town in Crested Butte, Colorado, which built qualified workforce housing and apartments), this bill targets STR owners who contribute to our economy. Visitors staying in STRs support local businesses, create jobs, and generate tax revenue—$900 million in spending and thousands of jobs are at risk if this passes.
If the goal is affordable housing, then:
Build it. Maui needs deed-restricted and workforce housing, not forced conversions of unsuitable units.
Use STR revenue wisely. Taxing STRs could fund housing programs instead of eliminating them.
Learn from other communities. Crested Butte didn’t ban STRs—they built smart, qualified housing.
Don’t punish small owners like me while ignoring the real issue: Maui needs more housing, not fewer options. Please reject Bill 9 and work with the community on solutions that actually work.
Mahalo, Raphael Tamari
Dear Chair, Vice, Chair, and Committee Members,
First, let me thank you for your service to our beautiful county, the island of Maui. Mahalo and much aloha.
I am writing today to express my opposition to Bill 9, the elimination of STRs. As a long time (2007) owner of a property on Maui, and provider of a service to the wonderful visitors to our island, I am opposed to this bill. I currently provide jobs to many residents of Maui, including property management, electrical/painting/plumbing and cleaning services. Without my condo being used for STRs, I would not be able to help the economy of Maui. While I respectfully understand the challenges of affordable housing on Maui, and the impacts of the Lahaina fires on housing, I do not believe that removing STRs is the answer. For the most part, our homes will not be affordable to the average Mauian on the island, and respectfully, I would not offer my home for long term use if I am forced by this bill to abandon STRs.
I respectfully ask that you consider the wider economic impact of removing STRs and find alternative solutions to the housing crisis on Maui. Please do not implement Bill 9 as it is not the answer to the housing crisis on Maui and will only exacerbate already challenging economic conditions on Maui with tourism down >20% on Maui.
Best regards,
Chris Faris
Dear Chair, Vice, Chair, and Committee Members.
I live in Maui and I own a short term rental property in Kihei. I am a local resident that will be detrimentally affected if this law passes and I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7000 short term rentals.
As a local resident I strongly agree we need more affordable housing but to eliminate STRs with no plan for STR owners to transition to LTR or to replace jobs that would be lost or to replace the billions STRs bring to the Maui economy would be irresponsible.
I could list all the pros and cons to STR but in the end it all boils down political agendas and money, dividing the community and pitting one group of individual’s interests over another for systemic issues in housing on Maui that are not really related. This is not fair and encourages hostility over an issue that we should be working on together to fix. Can we share the aloha and find a compromise that works for all instead of rushing through this legislation?
I urge the Council to work with all affected parties to find a fair and balanced path forward that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and provides affordable housing for the community without phasing STR on the Minatoya list completely.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Meredith Hauger
Aloha Committee Members,
I have been living on Maui full time for over 20 years. My wife and I have been actively supporting Maui communities in various positions; founders of Maui Preparatory Academy, advisory board committee member of Hawaii Community Foundation, major donors to the Maui Memorial Hospital etc... in short we understand extremely well the various issues that Maui faces.
The housing problem has been going on for over 40 years and the Lahaina fire only exacerbated it. The main premise of the Bill 9 is incorrect. Yes, some developments were originally built for the workforce housing, however, most of the communities on the Minatoya List were not. They were built as vacation rental and therefore are not suited for long term housing for families. These should be zoned as Hotel. Some units may work for a couple but would not allow a larger family to live decently. Lack of parking space, lack of storage space, restricted cooking appliances, restricted barbecue usage, etc... and more importantly high maintenance fees, hence high rents, would limit the number of people who would be able to enjoy them. For your information, the maintenance fees have been going up dramatically recently due to the recent update of the insured replacement value, and the upgrades that most development built in the 80s and 90s need.
Many second home owners have a mortgage and rely on their income to pay for their ownership. In most cases, the rent generated by vacation rental barely pays for all the fees associated with owning a condo on Maui, and often the owners have to pay the balance on the monthly dues out of their pockets. So, lowering the rent is a non starter, and actually the long term rents may go up to cover the cost of ownership.
People who cannot afford to keep their condos will not sell them at a huge discounted price, the market may adjust a little but not collapse. The only people who will buy these condos are people from the mainland who can afford to own them without renting them, or rent them long term at a price unaffordable for locals. Locals cannot afford to pay $400,000 to $600,000 to buy a 600 sq. ft .1 bedroom condos and pay the monthly fee.
Lastly, small businesses and large like Costco, Safeway and others rely heavily on second home owners and tourists. With the loss of traffic, these will certainly have to adjust their offerings or close all together, adding to the increase in job losses. It seems that many do not believe that will happen or simply do not care, and think that the economy will pivote to something else. Maui is in the middle of the Pacific and there is nothing else. The agriculture experiment failed and pivoted to tourism and its service industry. For a vacation destination, there is nothing else to pivote to. The mayor did not offer a mid to long term economic plan to show us how he will sustain Maui economy and make up for the $1B forecasted loss. This is very worrisome as all the sectors of the economy will be impacted if this bill pass.
There is a strong need for affordable housing and it should be sponsored by the county, state or through developers' incentives. Community like Kaiāulu o Kūkuʻia is a perfect example of what can be achieved in a short period of time.
Thank you.