My name is Jenn Alberts, and I am the owner of a unit at The Palms at Wailea that has operated as a legally permitted transient vacation rental for many years. I am submitting testimony in respectful opposition to Bill 9 (2025), CD1.
This unit has been governed under long-established Maui County law, including the exceptions laid out in Ordinances 1797 and 4167. At the time of purchase, the legal ability to operate a short-term rental was clearly recognized and documented. We have consistently complied with County and State tax laws, maintained active licenses, and ensured our guests follow all community rules.
Bill 9’s proposal to phase out these lawful uses — even with an amortization period — retroactively removes rights that were granted in good faith. It disregards the legal framework under which thousands of owners made long-term financial and operational decisions. I believe this raises serious concerns about due process and government reliability.
I support the County’s broader housing goals. But rather than blanket removal, the Council should focus on differentiating between compliant, well-managed rentals and problematic ones. There is a fairer path forward — one that doesn’t destabilize those who have followed every rule the County has set.
Please reconsider the broad application of this phase-out and explore more tailored, effective alternatives that uphold existing legal commitments while advancing housing priorities.
My name is Ileene Voss. My husband and I purchased two short-term rental condos in Kihei
more than 20 years ago, with the hope of one day retiring and spending more time on the island
we love. This was never just a business venture for us - it was a personal dream that we worked
hard for many years to achieve.
Over time, we've invested not only financially, but emotionally as well. We've built relationships
with families, local workers who have cared for our property - housekeepers, landscapers,
contractors - who have become dear friends and part of our Maui family. Our guests return
year after year, supporting local restaurants, shops, and tour operators who depend on this
type of tourism.
If Bill 9 passes, we would lose a major part of our retirement plan and contribute to the loss of
income for the many Maui residents who count on short-term rental jobs to support their families.
Meanwhile, the large resorts continue operating unaffected.
I respectfully ask that you consider the real human impact of this bill - not only on families like ours,
but on the many local workers and businesses who depend on STRs for their livelihood.
I sincerely appreciate you for allowing my voice to be heard. Thank-you so much!
Gratefully,
Ileene K. Voss
ileenev@wearsurfacespecialists.com
Submitted by: Thomas Voss
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Council Members,
My name is Thomas Voss. My wife and I own two short-term rental condominiums in Kihei. We invested in these properties over two decades ago as part of our long-term retirement plan - not as speculators, but as individuals who worked hard to create stability for our future.
The proposed Bill 9 represents not only a significant financial hardship - with an estimated $200,000 per unit already lost in value due to this legislation - but also raises serious fairness concerns. While small, individual owners like us are targeted, large resort operators remain unaffected. The burden of this policy is being placed entirely on private individuals while major corporate entities are allowed to continue operations without restriction.
Our properties directly support Maui's economy through employment of local service providers -cleaners, maintenance staff, landscapers, and contractors - many of whom have become long-standing partners and friends. Our guests contribute significantly to small local businesses throughout the island that depend on visitors who prefer alternative accommodations.
We recognize the importance of addressing Maui's housing needs, but dismantling the STR sector while exempting powerful resort interests is not an equitable or balanced solution. I respectfully request that the Council pursue regulations that address housing while preserving the livelihoods of both small owners and the many local workers who depend on us.
Mahalo for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas Voss
tomv@metaltechus.com
As a short term rental owner, I have to agree that it is time to control and limit the continued expansion of short term rentals. The influx of visitors has taken a major toll on the environment, culture and heritage of the Hawaiian Islands. Without controls put in place to limit short term rentals, the islands of Hawaii will be come the equivalent of Easter vacation/spring break in Florida.
My name is Maureen McGregor, and I’m the owner of a short-term rental unit in Luana Kai. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals in Maui County.
Professionally, I’ve spent my career working for mission-driven nonprofit organizations — including those focused on economic opportunity and environmental conservation. I care deeply about equity, sustainability, and the future of this island. I also believe those values can coexist with a well-managed, community-conscious approach to short-term rentals.
I’ve always aimed to operate in a way that supports the local economy. I employ cleaners and maintenance professionals and furnish my unit with items purchased on island. I point guests toward small, locally owned businesses to help ensure their dollars stay in the community.
Ownership comes with real costs: steep maintenance fees, special assessments, and insurance hikes — especially in the aftermath of the fires. Income from short-term rentals helps cover those expenses and maintain the property in a way that’s safe, functional, and welcoming.
I understand the concerns that have led to this proposal, but I’m deeply worried that the current approach is too sweeping and doesn’t reflect the realities or contributions of responsible owners. I urge you to take a more thoughtful path — one that protects housing and community well-being while preserving the livelihoods of the many local workers and small businesses who benefit from regulated, respectful STR operations.
My name is Milo McGarry. I own 2 STR's near Lahaina. We were shocked and deeply saddened by the destruction and loss of life that the fires of Aug 8 2023 caused. We love Maui and consider it our second home. We also care about the local people and have done our best to support them.
My concern is over the economy and jobs. We have seen good local people leave Maui for the mainland time and again since the fire. We are concerned that Maui's workforce will be further hollowed out by this proposed legislation. Respectfully, it doesn't make sense. In our view, the housing shortage will be solved by reducing demand for housing because Maui's productive workforce will be forced to leave to find jobs on the mainland.
Please listen to reason and reject this legislation.
I respect the level of attention housing has finally gotten, but it was unfortunate it took a fire to get us here.
The fire was a tragedy, the human loss was immeasurable, the trauma may never go away for some. It was truly a tragic event. My hope is to see Lahaina come back to being the lively town it once was, whatever that may be.
What was also lost in the fire were memories. Experiences. Places that seemed to never change, no matter the season, no matter the age.
Buildings were, and still are the most visible remnant of that tragic day. These were people's homes. They contained memories and experiences and smells and visuals that will never be replaced.
I lost my home that night. I lost every material thing that meant anything to me. My late father's favorite chair, the dining table I got for my wedding. The yard where my kids learned to walk. The mango tree we planted when my second child was born. The car we'd all pile into when we'd go to the beach. My community cried with me.
This was an unexpected loss, but as the 2 year anniversary approaches I have more clarity. I feel less anger. I react less to snaps and flashes of light. I feel we're all healing.
As often as I could, I was on the beach protesting. I shared the view with my community that housing was the most important thing for our community. But over time, calls for housing led to calls for OTHER PEOPLE'S HOUSES. I just lost mine. I started to feel that all those things I missed about my house, someone else felt about theirs. I've been very present for all of this. I sat in that crowded chamber hearing all the testimonies from all those in blue and from all those in red. Some people have a condo that their parents passed on to them when they died or became too old to travel. They were raised in that condo. They are raising their kids in that condo. They have pictures, art, furniture, memories - they have SMELLS - that remind them of all those days spent in that condo.
When my house burned it became a gray pile of nothingness and it did so by complete accident.
Bill 9 is looking to take everything from these people that I lost in the fire. But it seeks to do it with purpose, with intent. It is calculated, and it is callous and it is cruel. I am under NO ILLUSION that taking these condos from these people will materially benefit our community, and even if it did, it's as abhorrent an idea as Trump "taking" Greenland or "making" Canada the 51st state. To take these condos from these people against their will for the alleged benefit of my community should cause outrage from a community who seem to admire Mark Ing, Paele Kiakona, Kai Nishiki - people who will NEVER let anyone forget that Hawaii was TAKEN.
So, I oppose Bill 9 because I - we - are not better as takers than the colonialists who took for themselves, who took for their own benefit, and took for their own gain. It is 2025 and we know more now than we did hundreds of years ago, so I don't fault the colonizers. It was a different time. Owning a slave now is not the same as owning one in 1780. We look back on human history with a learned eye, and our future selves will not be proud of taking intentionally, and with purpose, and by the heavy hand of the law, condos that are legally and rightfully someone else's, ESPECIALLY with the false hope that this will unlock the kingdom for us poor fire victims.
County, do your job. Act like the fiduciaries you are. Build more housing and allow people to keep what they are so very fortunate to still have. We do not win simply because we've forced a loss on someone else. We can peacefully coexist as we have for decades.
- Name withheld SPECIFICALLY out of fear of retribution from the red-shirt wearing feral animals in my community. Kekai, you know who you are.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Richard Barnett and I own a short-term rental property in Maui County. Me and my family have been coming to Maui regularly for over 36 years and we live in Maui on a part time basis, as well as on the main land. This would not be possible if we did not have the short term rental. We have been an active part of the Maui community and economy. I am writing
today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase
out more than 7,000 vacation rentals.
I’ve worked hard to be a responsible and community-oriented owner. I recommend local
restaurants and tour guides in my welcome guide. I employ local service providers — cleaners,
maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become like family over the years.
My guests often leave Maui saying they felt more connected to the island because of the
personal experience they had in my home.
Some of my guests have even said they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation
rental option. That matters — not just to me, but to all the small businesses they supported
during their stay.
Owning in this complex has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special
assessments, and massive increases in insurance after the fires. These aren’t luxuries —
they’re costs that ensure the property remains safe, functional, and appealing. STR income
helps cover those costs while supporting local workers.
This legislation feels rushed and one-sided. I urge the Council to work with owners like me to
find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports options for visitors and tourists, and makes it possible for us to live in Maui part time and support the economy and provide cost effective housing options for visitors, vrs. The high costs of hotels. Please make a balanced decision that is beneficial to everyone. Most tourists can’t afford high costs hotels for their families, vs much more economical stays at STRs. This legislation will make Maui too expensive for most tourists and they will then choose to go to other tropical locations. Thus the Maui economy will be devastated, and there will be a significant majority of jobs on the island lost. Thus, most current employees will be forces to leave the island to find work and affordable housing elsewhere.
Please be objective and make a balanced decision that takes all of these factors into account. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these facts and the devastating outcomes of this legislation if passed. Please do NOT support the elimination of STRs in Maui, for the reasons outlined above. Mahalo, Richard and Kandi Barnett
Bill 9 will not create housing for local residents. Bill 9 does not “convert” any units from short-term rental to long-term rental. The repeated use of the word "conversion" is misinformation that creates the false impression that Maui County is going to be playing Oprah by handing out condos if the bill passes. If Bill 9 passes, there will be lawsuits that will be costly and disruptive for the County given the number of investment-backed decisions made in reliance on decades of vested property rights. Even if the County prevails, how many owners will actually conduct long-term rental? When monthly carrying costs grossly exceed what local residents consider to be reasonable monthly rent, how can these condos become sustainable long-term rentals? Who would want to own a condo that operates at a monthly loss with no ability to use the property? With property values rapidly declining, why are local residents not rushing to purchase any one of the numerous units on the market? Is it because local residents are not excited about the $1,000-$2,000 per month association dues and the risk of future special assessments? Passage of Bill 9 may prevent short-term rental, but it won't create long-term rentals. Passage of Bill 9 will create vacation properties. Those that cannot afford to hold these properties as vacation properties will sell and the buyers will be wealthier individuals who can.
Why are we still talking about this? The answer is that Bill 9 is part of a global anticompetitive strategy by BigHotel to eliminate the privately-owned STR industry. BigHotel consists of hotel brands such as Marriott, Hyatt, and Hilton which are really just management companies for the hotel properties which are owned by real estate investment trusts operated by hedge funds such as Blackstone. BigHotel is behind every instance of short-term rental regulation globally. In jurisdictions where these regulations have passed such as New York, the hotel rates skyrocketed, yet the legislation did not lower long-term rental rates or create housing. Companies like Marriott, Hilton, and Hyatt pay executives 8 figure total compensation and then systematically mistreat the front-line workers until there is a mass strike. BigHotel tells its investors that unionization of employees will jeopardize its profits and disrupt operations. BigHotel does not pay livable wages. BigHotel avoided obligations to build affordable housing for workers and now seeks re-direct the focus on STR properties that have been operating as vacation rentals for nearly 50 years. BigHotel are the largest water consumers on the island. Ironic when Lahaina Strong pretends to care about water use but then blindly props up the biggest and most wasteful water consumers on the island.
By eliminating over 7,000 short-term rentals, Maui County would be complicit in BigHotel’s global anticompetitive conspiracy to eliminate competitors in hospitality market and in the labor market. Less competition is never beneficial to consumers or workers. BigHotel would love to have workers with fewer options which drives wages down and increases BigHotel leverage in future collective bargaining negotiations.
Anyone who doubts this theory, just ask yourself why did the Hawaii Hotel Alliance and the American Hotel and Lodging Association have paid lobbyists pushing for passage of SB2919, which had nothing to do with hotels? This was an obvious attack on a competitor sector of the hospitality industry to eliminate competition. Any claim by disingenuous hotel executives that they care about affordable housing rings hollow.
If any Maui County residents believe that Bill 9 is about housing, they are all being played by a massive machine that only cares about profit and used naïve Lahaina Strong organizers to do what BigHotel could never do in its own name; rally the community. BigHotel has Lahaina Strong out shouting about off-island owners while 100% of the BigHotel operations and hedge funds that own the hotels are off-island.
The massive BigHotel operations procure supplies and labor from outside Hawaii through global supply chains whereas independently-owned short-term rentals procure supplies locally and work with local small businesses. A much higher percentage of money generated from independently-owned short-term rentals stays on Maui vs. the BigHotel extractors. Short-term rentals also pay higher property taxes than hotels and object to tax assessments far less than hotels. Some properties on the Minatoya list have on-site, benefited positions to support resort operations.
Marriott plainly tells its investors in SEC filings that competition from privately-owned vacation rentals is the biggest risk factor for profitability. BigHotel is violating federal antitrust law by colluding through the Hawaii Hotel Alliance to eliminate a competitor segment of the hospitality sector and divide the market among large hotel operators. This behavior is illegal and subject to enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission. Maui County must not play into BigHotel’s game to eliminate competition and take control of the Maui hospitality market which will harm consumers and workers.
I am strongly opposed to this legislation. I have owned my 1-bedroom condo at Wavecrest on Moloka'i for over 20 years and I purchased it with the intent to rent it short term until I retired and then to live in it full time after retirement 3 years ago. A large majority of the condos on Moloka'i are 1-bedroom. There is no demand from Hawaiian families to be renting 1-bedroom condos. This legislation will destroy all of Maui County's economy and Moloka'i should be removed from being affected as it will heavily damage Molokai's economy. Within a year of implementing this possibly unconstitutional legislation Maui County will be broke! All the legitimet analysis has clearly stated that. Why is this even continuing forward? STRONGLY OPPOSED!
This testimony is intended to help educate people to the history of the properties that would be impacted by this proposed legislation. It is not taking a position on the legislation but hopefully will help those who do take a position better understand the history of the legal TVR uses of these properties.
The legal use of short term rental in the Apartment districts of Maui County is an issue that goes back more than 50 years. It has been governed by 4 ordinances passed by the Maui County Council since 1981. Each of these ordinances conditionally affirmed the legal right to rent properties located in Apartment districts for period less than 180 days at a time. Listed below are links to each of these ordinances and comments on how each affirmed legal short term rental use in the Apartment districts.
On April 20, 1981 Ordinance 1174 took effect:
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17628/Ord-1134
Ordinance 1174 was the first reference in Maui County Code to Short Term Rental uses. It created definitions for Timeshares and Transient Vacation Rentals. And it specifically defined that these uses that were already taking place would not be impaired by this new ordinance. Essentially grandfathering all Timeshare and Transient Vacation Rentals uses legally taking place in any zoning district of Maui County. It went on further to specify that new Time Share and Transient vacation rental uses would be directed exclusively to the Apartment and Hotel Districts. It conditioned these uses with a requirement that the use be prominently be authorized in the project documents.
Exactly 8 years later Ordinance 1797 became effective on April 20, 1989:
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15902/Ord-1797
This ordinance removed motels as being allowable structures in the Apartment districts and amended the definitions of the types of structures allowed in the Apartment Districts and restricted the Apartment districts to Long Term Residential use. Most importantly this ordinance contained a section that stated that this ordinance would not apply to buildings having approved building permits or SMA issued prior to the enactment of this ordinance. This exception being called out was a bit different from grandfathering and existing use. It meant that these existing buildings, and existing permits to build new buildings, would not be impacted by this ordinance. Specifically that these buildings would not need to be occupied on a long term residential basis. It is notable, that this ordinance did not remove the part of the County Code that specifically directed Timeshare and Transient Vacation Rentals use to the Apartment districts. This omission created an inconsistency within the County code for newly created Timeshare and Transient Vacation Rentals use uses. But did not impact legally existing uses.
On March 4, 1991, Ordnance 1989 sought to address the inconsistency noted above by amending the Geographic Restrictions contained Maui Count Code 19.37.010 by removing the Apartment District from the areas where Timeshares and Transient Vacation Rentals had been directed to by the code. But again made clear that those uses legally taking place in the Apartment district may continue unimpaired by this new restriction.
On July 27, 2001, then Maui County Mayor James Kimo Apana asked his Corporation Council for a legal opinion on what apartment zoned properties were legally allowed to make Transient Vacation Rental uses. Deputy Corporation Council, Richard Minatoya, responded in a memo to the Mayor with an answer to this question with the following response:
http://www.luxuryrealestatemaui.com/uploads/agent-1/minatoya.opinion.pdf
This memo has since been referred to as the Minatoya Opinion. That gave the name to the apartment zoned properties impacted by the aforementioned ordinances. His opinion confirmed the legal status for apartment zoned properties built or having permits issued prior to April 20, 1989 OR having started making Transient Vacation Rental uses prior to March 4, 1991.
On April 8, 2014, Ordinance 4167 was signed into law
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/96114/Ord-4167
The stated purpose of this ordinance was to codify the exceptions contained in section 11 of Ordinance 1797 and to remove any questions about these properties right to make Transient Vacation Rental uses. This codification of this use made all the aforementioned history irrelevant. Because it placed into code the legal conditional Transient Vacation Rentals uses in the apartment district. So no one would ever have to look back to ordinances passed 25 years earlier and debate what the meaning of un codified sections are or question the Minatoya Opinion.
On September 26, 2020, Ordinance 5126 was signed into law,
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/124091/Ord-5126
This ordinance again confirmed the legal Use of Transient Vacation Rentals uses in the apartment districts, but requiring that these uses must have been initiated prior to September 24, 2020. The intent of this ordinance was to keep any new Transient Vacation Rentals from being started in buildings that had not previously made such uses.
The permissible uses in the Apartment districts were amended two more times since 2020, each time affirming the ongoing legal use of Transient Vacation Rental in the properties previously identified as the Minatoya properties.
My wife and I are owners of a unit in Luana Kai. We would like to go on record as strongly opposing the legislation eliminating short term rentals on Maui. We bought our unit for personal use but rent it out when we are not using it. We, along with others in the complex, contract with the local management firm to book, clean, and maintain the unit. There are at least 4 employees, and now friends of ours, that are likely to lose their jobs if this bill goes through. Because we love Maui and want to continue to enjoy time there, we will not be selling our unit. Hence, from a personal perspective, the elimination of short term rentals will not help solve the housing issue, which we understand is a serious issue, but rather exacerbate the problem. We would urge you, rather, to consider expediting the permit process to allow more family homes to be constructed. That, to us, is a win-win for all - more jobs, more homes, more tax revenue - we urge you to grow and flourish, not retract and diminish.
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to Maui.
Sincerely
Ralph and Robin Wilson
Aloha Chair Kama and Committee Members,
My name is Jenn Alberts, and I am the owner of a unit at The Palms at Wailea that has operated as a legally permitted transient vacation rental for many years. I am submitting testimony in respectful opposition to Bill 9 (2025), CD1.
This unit has been governed under long-established Maui County law, including the exceptions laid out in Ordinances 1797 and 4167. At the time of purchase, the legal ability to operate a short-term rental was clearly recognized and documented. We have consistently complied with County and State tax laws, maintained active licenses, and ensured our guests follow all community rules.
Bill 9’s proposal to phase out these lawful uses — even with an amortization period — retroactively removes rights that were granted in good faith. It disregards the legal framework under which thousands of owners made long-term financial and operational decisions. I believe this raises serious concerns about due process and government reliability.
I support the County’s broader housing goals. But rather than blanket removal, the Council should focus on differentiating between compliant, well-managed rentals and problematic ones. There is a fairer path forward — one that doesn’t destabilize those who have followed every rule the County has set.
Please reconsider the broad application of this phase-out and explore more tailored, effective alternatives that uphold existing legal commitments while advancing housing priorities.
Thank you for your time and service.
Submitted by: Ileene K. Voss
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Council Members,
My name is Ileene Voss. My husband and I purchased two short-term rental condos in Kihei
more than 20 years ago, with the hope of one day retiring and spending more time on the island
we love. This was never just a business venture for us - it was a personal dream that we worked
hard for many years to achieve.
Over time, we've invested not only financially, but emotionally as well. We've built relationships
with families, local workers who have cared for our property - housekeepers, landscapers,
contractors - who have become dear friends and part of our Maui family. Our guests return
year after year, supporting local restaurants, shops, and tour operators who depend on this
type of tourism.
If Bill 9 passes, we would lose a major part of our retirement plan and contribute to the loss of
income for the many Maui residents who count on short-term rental jobs to support their families.
Meanwhile, the large resorts continue operating unaffected.
I respectfully ask that you consider the real human impact of this bill - not only on families like ours,
but on the many local workers and businesses who depend on STRs for their livelihood.
I sincerely appreciate you for allowing my voice to be heard. Thank-you so much!
Gratefully,
Ileene K. Voss
ileenev@wearsurfacespecialists.com
Submitted by: Thomas Voss
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Council Members,
My name is Thomas Voss. My wife and I own two short-term rental condominiums in Kihei. We invested in these properties over two decades ago as part of our long-term retirement plan - not as speculators, but as individuals who worked hard to create stability for our future.
The proposed Bill 9 represents not only a significant financial hardship - with an estimated $200,000 per unit already lost in value due to this legislation - but also raises serious fairness concerns. While small, individual owners like us are targeted, large resort operators remain unaffected. The burden of this policy is being placed entirely on private individuals while major corporate entities are allowed to continue operations without restriction.
Our properties directly support Maui's economy through employment of local service providers -cleaners, maintenance staff, landscapers, and contractors - many of whom have become long-standing partners and friends. Our guests contribute significantly to small local businesses throughout the island that depend on visitors who prefer alternative accommodations.
We recognize the importance of addressing Maui's housing needs, but dismantling the STR sector while exempting powerful resort interests is not an equitable or balanced solution. I respectfully request that the Council pursue regulations that address housing while preserving the livelihoods of both small owners and the many local workers who depend on us.
Mahalo for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas Voss
tomv@metaltechus.com
As a short term rental owner, I have to agree that it is time to control and limit the continued expansion of short term rentals. The influx of visitors has taken a major toll on the environment, culture and heritage of the Hawaiian Islands. Without controls put in place to limit short term rentals, the islands of Hawaii will be come the equivalent of Easter vacation/spring break in Florida.
My name is Maureen McGregor, and I’m the owner of a short-term rental unit in Luana Kai. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals in Maui County.
Professionally, I’ve spent my career working for mission-driven nonprofit organizations — including those focused on economic opportunity and environmental conservation. I care deeply about equity, sustainability, and the future of this island. I also believe those values can coexist with a well-managed, community-conscious approach to short-term rentals.
I’ve always aimed to operate in a way that supports the local economy. I employ cleaners and maintenance professionals and furnish my unit with items purchased on island. I point guests toward small, locally owned businesses to help ensure their dollars stay in the community.
Ownership comes with real costs: steep maintenance fees, special assessments, and insurance hikes — especially in the aftermath of the fires. Income from short-term rentals helps cover those expenses and maintain the property in a way that’s safe, functional, and welcoming.
I understand the concerns that have led to this proposal, but I’m deeply worried that the current approach is too sweeping and doesn’t reflect the realities or contributions of responsible owners. I urge you to take a more thoughtful path — one that protects housing and community well-being while preserving the livelihoods of the many local workers and small businesses who benefit from regulated, respectful STR operations.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Milo McGarry. I own 2 STR's near Lahaina. We were shocked and deeply saddened by the destruction and loss of life that the fires of Aug 8 2023 caused. We love Maui and consider it our second home. We also care about the local people and have done our best to support them.
My concern is over the economy and jobs. We have seen good local people leave Maui for the mainland time and again since the fire. We are concerned that Maui's workforce will be further hollowed out by this proposed legislation. Respectfully, it doesn't make sense. In our view, the housing shortage will be solved by reducing demand for housing because Maui's productive workforce will be forced to leave to find jobs on the mainland.
Please listen to reason and reject this legislation.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
I respect the level of attention housing has finally gotten, but it was unfortunate it took a fire to get us here.
The fire was a tragedy, the human loss was immeasurable, the trauma may never go away for some. It was truly a tragic event. My hope is to see Lahaina come back to being the lively town it once was, whatever that may be.
What was also lost in the fire were memories. Experiences. Places that seemed to never change, no matter the season, no matter the age.
Buildings were, and still are the most visible remnant of that tragic day. These were people's homes. They contained memories and experiences and smells and visuals that will never be replaced.
I lost my home that night. I lost every material thing that meant anything to me. My late father's favorite chair, the dining table I got for my wedding. The yard where my kids learned to walk. The mango tree we planted when my second child was born. The car we'd all pile into when we'd go to the beach. My community cried with me.
This was an unexpected loss, but as the 2 year anniversary approaches I have more clarity. I feel less anger. I react less to snaps and flashes of light. I feel we're all healing.
As often as I could, I was on the beach protesting. I shared the view with my community that housing was the most important thing for our community. But over time, calls for housing led to calls for OTHER PEOPLE'S HOUSES. I just lost mine. I started to feel that all those things I missed about my house, someone else felt about theirs. I've been very present for all of this. I sat in that crowded chamber hearing all the testimonies from all those in blue and from all those in red. Some people have a condo that their parents passed on to them when they died or became too old to travel. They were raised in that condo. They are raising their kids in that condo. They have pictures, art, furniture, memories - they have SMELLS - that remind them of all those days spent in that condo.
When my house burned it became a gray pile of nothingness and it did so by complete accident.
Bill 9 is looking to take everything from these people that I lost in the fire. But it seeks to do it with purpose, with intent. It is calculated, and it is callous and it is cruel. I am under NO ILLUSION that taking these condos from these people will materially benefit our community, and even if it did, it's as abhorrent an idea as Trump "taking" Greenland or "making" Canada the 51st state. To take these condos from these people against their will for the alleged benefit of my community should cause outrage from a community who seem to admire Mark Ing, Paele Kiakona, Kai Nishiki - people who will NEVER let anyone forget that Hawaii was TAKEN.
So, I oppose Bill 9 because I - we - are not better as takers than the colonialists who took for themselves, who took for their own benefit, and took for their own gain. It is 2025 and we know more now than we did hundreds of years ago, so I don't fault the colonizers. It was a different time. Owning a slave now is not the same as owning one in 1780. We look back on human history with a learned eye, and our future selves will not be proud of taking intentionally, and with purpose, and by the heavy hand of the law, condos that are legally and rightfully someone else's, ESPECIALLY with the false hope that this will unlock the kingdom for us poor fire victims.
County, do your job. Act like the fiduciaries you are. Build more housing and allow people to keep what they are so very fortunate to still have. We do not win simply because we've forced a loss on someone else. We can peacefully coexist as we have for decades.
- Name withheld SPECIFICALLY out of fear of retribution from the red-shirt wearing feral animals in my community. Kekai, you know who you are.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Richard Barnett and I own a short-term rental property in Maui County. Me and my family have been coming to Maui regularly for over 36 years and we live in Maui on a part time basis, as well as on the main land. This would not be possible if we did not have the short term rental. We have been an active part of the Maui community and economy. I am writing
today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase
out more than 7,000 vacation rentals.
I’ve worked hard to be a responsible and community-oriented owner. I recommend local
restaurants and tour guides in my welcome guide. I employ local service providers — cleaners,
maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become like family over the years.
My guests often leave Maui saying they felt more connected to the island because of the
personal experience they had in my home.
Some of my guests have even said they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation
rental option. That matters — not just to me, but to all the small businesses they supported
during their stay.
Owning in this complex has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special
assessments, and massive increases in insurance after the fires. These aren’t luxuries —
they’re costs that ensure the property remains safe, functional, and appealing. STR income
helps cover those costs while supporting local workers.
This legislation feels rushed and one-sided. I urge the Council to work with owners like me to
find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports options for visitors and tourists, and makes it possible for us to live in Maui part time and support the economy and provide cost effective housing options for visitors, vrs. The high costs of hotels. Please make a balanced decision that is beneficial to everyone. Most tourists can’t afford high costs hotels for their families, vs much more economical stays at STRs. This legislation will make Maui too expensive for most tourists and they will then choose to go to other tropical locations. Thus the Maui economy will be devastated, and there will be a significant majority of jobs on the island lost. Thus, most current employees will be forces to leave the island to find work and affordable housing elsewhere.
Please be objective and make a balanced decision that takes all of these factors into account. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these facts and the devastating outcomes of this legislation if passed. Please do NOT support the elimination of STRs in Maui, for the reasons outlined above. Mahalo, Richard and Kandi Barnett
Bill 9 will not create housing for local residents. Bill 9 does not “convert” any units from short-term rental to long-term rental. The repeated use of the word "conversion" is misinformation that creates the false impression that Maui County is going to be playing Oprah by handing out condos if the bill passes. If Bill 9 passes, there will be lawsuits that will be costly and disruptive for the County given the number of investment-backed decisions made in reliance on decades of vested property rights. Even if the County prevails, how many owners will actually conduct long-term rental? When monthly carrying costs grossly exceed what local residents consider to be reasonable monthly rent, how can these condos become sustainable long-term rentals? Who would want to own a condo that operates at a monthly loss with no ability to use the property? With property values rapidly declining, why are local residents not rushing to purchase any one of the numerous units on the market? Is it because local residents are not excited about the $1,000-$2,000 per month association dues and the risk of future special assessments? Passage of Bill 9 may prevent short-term rental, but it won't create long-term rentals. Passage of Bill 9 will create vacation properties. Those that cannot afford to hold these properties as vacation properties will sell and the buyers will be wealthier individuals who can.
Why are we still talking about this? The answer is that Bill 9 is part of a global anticompetitive strategy by BigHotel to eliminate the privately-owned STR industry. BigHotel consists of hotel brands such as Marriott, Hyatt, and Hilton which are really just management companies for the hotel properties which are owned by real estate investment trusts operated by hedge funds such as Blackstone. BigHotel is behind every instance of short-term rental regulation globally. In jurisdictions where these regulations have passed such as New York, the hotel rates skyrocketed, yet the legislation did not lower long-term rental rates or create housing. Companies like Marriott, Hilton, and Hyatt pay executives 8 figure total compensation and then systematically mistreat the front-line workers until there is a mass strike. BigHotel tells its investors that unionization of employees will jeopardize its profits and disrupt operations. BigHotel does not pay livable wages. BigHotel avoided obligations to build affordable housing for workers and now seeks re-direct the focus on STR properties that have been operating as vacation rentals for nearly 50 years. BigHotel are the largest water consumers on the island. Ironic when Lahaina Strong pretends to care about water use but then blindly props up the biggest and most wasteful water consumers on the island.
By eliminating over 7,000 short-term rentals, Maui County would be complicit in BigHotel’s global anticompetitive conspiracy to eliminate competitors in hospitality market and in the labor market. Less competition is never beneficial to consumers or workers. BigHotel would love to have workers with fewer options which drives wages down and increases BigHotel leverage in future collective bargaining negotiations.
Anyone who doubts this theory, just ask yourself why did the Hawaii Hotel Alliance and the American Hotel and Lodging Association have paid lobbyists pushing for passage of SB2919, which had nothing to do with hotels? This was an obvious attack on a competitor sector of the hospitality industry to eliminate competition. Any claim by disingenuous hotel executives that they care about affordable housing rings hollow.
If any Maui County residents believe that Bill 9 is about housing, they are all being played by a massive machine that only cares about profit and used naïve Lahaina Strong organizers to do what BigHotel could never do in its own name; rally the community. BigHotel has Lahaina Strong out shouting about off-island owners while 100% of the BigHotel operations and hedge funds that own the hotels are off-island.
The massive BigHotel operations procure supplies and labor from outside Hawaii through global supply chains whereas independently-owned short-term rentals procure supplies locally and work with local small businesses. A much higher percentage of money generated from independently-owned short-term rentals stays on Maui vs. the BigHotel extractors. Short-term rentals also pay higher property taxes than hotels and object to tax assessments far less than hotels. Some properties on the Minatoya list have on-site, benefited positions to support resort operations.
Marriott plainly tells its investors in SEC filings that competition from privately-owned vacation rentals is the biggest risk factor for profitability. BigHotel is violating federal antitrust law by colluding through the Hawaii Hotel Alliance to eliminate a competitor segment of the hospitality sector and divide the market among large hotel operators. This behavior is illegal and subject to enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission. Maui County must not play into BigHotel’s game to eliminate competition and take control of the Maui hospitality market which will harm consumers and workers.
I am strongly opposed to this legislation. I have owned my 1-bedroom condo at Wavecrest on Moloka'i for over 20 years and I purchased it with the intent to rent it short term until I retired and then to live in it full time after retirement 3 years ago. A large majority of the condos on Moloka'i are 1-bedroom. There is no demand from Hawaiian families to be renting 1-bedroom condos. This legislation will destroy all of Maui County's economy and Moloka'i should be removed from being affected as it will heavily damage Molokai's economy. Within a year of implementing this possibly unconstitutional legislation Maui County will be broke! All the legitimet analysis has clearly stated that. Why is this even continuing forward? STRONGLY OPPOSED!
Minatoya history
This testimony is intended to help educate people to the history of the properties that would be impacted by this proposed legislation. It is not taking a position on the legislation but hopefully will help those who do take a position better understand the history of the legal TVR uses of these properties.
The legal use of short term rental in the Apartment districts of Maui County is an issue that goes back more than 50 years. It has been governed by 4 ordinances passed by the Maui County Council since 1981. Each of these ordinances conditionally affirmed the legal right to rent properties located in Apartment districts for period less than 180 days at a time. Listed below are links to each of these ordinances and comments on how each affirmed legal short term rental use in the Apartment districts.
On April 20, 1981 Ordinance 1174 took effect:
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17628/Ord-1134
Ordinance 1174 was the first reference in Maui County Code to Short Term Rental uses. It created definitions for Timeshares and Transient Vacation Rentals. And it specifically defined that these uses that were already taking place would not be impaired by this new ordinance. Essentially grandfathering all Timeshare and Transient Vacation Rentals uses legally taking place in any zoning district of Maui County. It went on further to specify that new Time Share and Transient vacation rental uses would be directed exclusively to the Apartment and Hotel Districts. It conditioned these uses with a requirement that the use be prominently be authorized in the project documents.
Exactly 8 years later Ordinance 1797 became effective on April 20, 1989:
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15902/Ord-1797
This ordinance removed motels as being allowable structures in the Apartment districts and amended the definitions of the types of structures allowed in the Apartment Districts and restricted the Apartment districts to Long Term Residential use. Most importantly this ordinance contained a section that stated that this ordinance would not apply to buildings having approved building permits or SMA issued prior to the enactment of this ordinance. This exception being called out was a bit different from grandfathering and existing use. It meant that these existing buildings, and existing permits to build new buildings, would not be impacted by this ordinance. Specifically that these buildings would not need to be occupied on a long term residential basis. It is notable, that this ordinance did not remove the part of the County Code that specifically directed Timeshare and Transient Vacation Rentals use to the Apartment districts. This omission created an inconsistency within the County code for newly created Timeshare and Transient Vacation Rentals use uses. But did not impact legally existing uses.
On March 4, 1991, Ordnance 1989 sought to address the inconsistency noted above by amending the Geographic Restrictions contained Maui Count Code 19.37.010 by removing the Apartment District from the areas where Timeshares and Transient Vacation Rentals had been directed to by the code. But again made clear that those uses legally taking place in the Apartment district may continue unimpaired by this new restriction.
On July 27, 2001, then Maui County Mayor James Kimo Apana asked his Corporation Council for a legal opinion on what apartment zoned properties were legally allowed to make Transient Vacation Rental uses. Deputy Corporation Council, Richard Minatoya, responded in a memo to the Mayor with an answer to this question with the following response:
http://www.luxuryrealestatemaui.com/uploads/agent-1/minatoya.opinion.pdf
This memo has since been referred to as the Minatoya Opinion. That gave the name to the apartment zoned properties impacted by the aforementioned ordinances. His opinion confirmed the legal status for apartment zoned properties built or having permits issued prior to April 20, 1989 OR having started making Transient Vacation Rental uses prior to March 4, 1991.
On April 8, 2014, Ordinance 4167 was signed into law
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/96114/Ord-4167
The stated purpose of this ordinance was to codify the exceptions contained in section 11 of Ordinance 1797 and to remove any questions about these properties right to make Transient Vacation Rental uses. This codification of this use made all the aforementioned history irrelevant. Because it placed into code the legal conditional Transient Vacation Rentals uses in the apartment district. So no one would ever have to look back to ordinances passed 25 years earlier and debate what the meaning of un codified sections are or question the Minatoya Opinion.
On September 26, 2020, Ordinance 5126 was signed into law,
https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/124091/Ord-5126
This ordinance again confirmed the legal Use of Transient Vacation Rentals uses in the apartment districts, but requiring that these uses must have been initiated prior to September 24, 2020. The intent of this ordinance was to keep any new Transient Vacation Rentals from being started in buildings that had not previously made such uses.
The permissible uses in the Apartment districts were amended two more times since 2020, each time affirming the ongoing legal use of Transient Vacation Rental in the properties previously identified as the Minatoya properties.
My wife and I are owners of a unit in Luana Kai. We would like to go on record as strongly opposing the legislation eliminating short term rentals on Maui. We bought our unit for personal use but rent it out when we are not using it. We, along with others in the complex, contract with the local management firm to book, clean, and maintain the unit. There are at least 4 employees, and now friends of ours, that are likely to lose their jobs if this bill goes through. Because we love Maui and want to continue to enjoy time there, we will not be selling our unit. Hence, from a personal perspective, the elimination of short term rentals will not help solve the housing issue, which we understand is a serious issue, but rather exacerbate the problem. We would urge you, rather, to consider expediting the permit process to allow more family homes to be constructed. That, to us, is a win-win for all - more jobs, more homes, more tax revenue - we urge you to grow and flourish, not retract and diminish.
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to Maui.
Sincerely
Ralph and Robin Wilson