HLU-4 Bill 9 (2025) BILL 9 (2025), AMENDING CHAPTERS 19.12, 19.32, AND 19.37, MAUI COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO TRANSIENT VACATION RENTALS IN APARTMENT DISTRICTS (HLU-4)
Aloha , my wife and I live in Upcountry Maui. In 2020, we were fortunate enough to purchase a condo in West Maui. We intended to supplement our income with short-term rentals.
We work as our own listing agent and self-clean our unit between each visit. After struggling through COVID, we finally got the rental running successfully until the fire. Before that time, we were contributing upwards of $30K a year towards Maui County in TA Taxes. Since the fire, we have been lucky to break even. HOA fees and insurance have skyrocketed! We have worked very hard maintaining and promoting our Condo here, and strongly oppose the proposed legislation. Our condo unit was never meant to house long-term tenants. The fees associated with its operation would deem it unaffordable, not to mention the tax revenue that would be lost for the county. We feel this Bill is too broad in its scope and that there are better ways to fix Mau's housing problem. Perhaps build specific workforce housing and speed up the permitting process? We appreciate your time and consideration. Mahalo.
My name is Scott Bland, and my wife and I own a short-term rental property at the Kapalua Resort in Maui County that we also consider our personal home on Maui. I spent my early childhood living on Oahu before my family moved to the mainland in 1972. It has taken me more than 50 years to finally have the opportunity to own a place on the Islands that my wife and I can call our own. 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 ask that you are selective in identifying the properties that are identified in providing housing for our Maui people.
I have worked hard to be a responsible and community-oriented owner. I recommend local restaurants and tour guides in my welcome information. I employ local service providers — cleaners, maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become valued friends over the years. Sadly, some have already been affected by the lack of tourism and lack of work and have left the island. My guests often leave Maui noting they felt more connected to the island because of the personal experience they had in my home. Many visitors have even stated they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation rental option. This matters to me and to all the small local businesses these guests supported during their stay.
Owning at the Kapalua Resort has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special assessments, and massive increases in insurance after the fires. The annual AOAO expense alone is now over $32,000 annually, and upcoming roof and road repairs will dramatically increase this amount. These costs are necessary to ensure that the property remains safe and functional. The Kapalua Resort was also never intended to be constructed for workforce housing. The residences limit occupancy, prohibit pets, and lack storage space.
This legislation will result in the loss of island required income, the loss of jobs, the loss of homes, and the loss of Maui people who would be forced to ultimately leave the island. As the County has approved a $1.56 billion budget for 2025, it seems feasible that measures should be enacted to attract visitors to the island to bolster our economy and support our financial needs rather than further discouraging such. I urge the Council to find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely. Please exclude the Kapalua Resort from any STR ban.
Papakea K202. Margie and Jared Brown
We have been coming to Maui for over 40 years and have owned a unit in Papakea since 1982.
We are opposed to bill 9 for the Papakea Resort. There are many reasons that changing this zoning and use of Papakea to eliminate STR is not in anyone’s best interest. I will list a few of the most important reasons.
First is the resort was designed for short term users who would only have 1 vehicle.
There isn’t sufficient parking for converting into a residential apartment complex. This was evident when many of us allowed families displaced by the fire to house in our units. The parking was a mess because most of those families had 2 or more cars. I also witnessed the same problem at the Honua Kai resort which has much more available parking than Papakea.
The county and state will give up substantial income both in resort taxes and property taxes. We collect and remit 17.25 percent fees from guests. In our
unit in the past this has been about $15,000 per year. Also property taxes for a short term rental are 7 times what residential property taxes are.
The other huge expense that no long term resident will want to pay is the HOA expense to maintain the grounds and especially the sea wall. Papakea was designed as a seaside resort from the beginning with a front desk and a large number of employees to service it. Many of those local employees will have to be terminated to make this change.
Papakea is an old property and special assessments are a constant which won’t be kept up with expenses that a local resident will not want to pay so the property will degrade as improvements will not be affordable for the extra wear and damage that affects every beach front property.
Many owners have made substantial investments and improvements because they have relied on the long term history of the allowance for STR going back to the 1970s. This will affect all property values and also the availability for mortgages and other investments coming into the State which will be long lasting.
Also the security that has kept things under control will be gone to cut expenses. Papakea is a very dense housing with an average of about 500 to 600 square feet per unit. There is absolutely no storage space which will create even more problems if it is residential.
The huge income through both property taxes and the 17.25 percent tax on short term visitors could be allocated to subsiding new and appropriately built houses and apartments for residents.
Eliminating these STR will have many other long lasting detrimental impacts on local people who do management, maintenance, cleaning and caring for a resort property. The net impact will be harmful to the county, state and those who have made investments in Hawaii.
Aloha mai kākou,
My name is Christy Nakahashi and I am a Native Hawaiian woman submitting testimony as a lifelong resident of Hawaiʻi. I live on Maui, and like many other Native Hawaiian families and generational residents, I am one paycheck away from being able to afford safe and stable housing for my ʻohana.
I am writing in strong support of the Minatoya short-term rental (STR) phase-out. This decision is not only about policy, it’s about protecting the future of our people, our culture, and our communities. Native Hawaiian families and other generational residents are being priced out of the place we call home. It’s heartbreaking, happening every day, and it is not okay.
When homes are used as short-term vacation rentals instead of places for actual resident families to live, we all lose. The Minatoya list, created to regulate STRs, has now contributed to the displacement of Native Hawaiians and generational residents and the commodification of our neighborhoods. We cannot keep giving priority to visitor accommodations while our own keiki and families are houseless, sleep in overcrowded homes, live with multiple generations under one roof, often out of necessity, not choice, or leave Hawaiʻi altogether.
It is not perfect, but eliminating Minatoya STRs is a step in the right direction for Maui:
*Housing availability would increase for long-term residents. Homes currently used as STRs could return to the local housing market, offering hope to families like mine who have been searching for years. Something would have to be done to regulate HOAs.
*Home prices and rents could stabilize, helping to reduce the gap between wages and housing costs, especially for single parents, kupuna, and Native Hawaiian and generational families disproportionately impacted by this crisis.
*Our communities would feel like home again, not like hotels. Neighborhoods would be restored to places where children can safely play and neighbors know each other.
*We need to invest in jobs that support residents, not just the tourism industry.
This phase-out is a necessary and overdue step toward putting Hawaiʻi and our ʻohana first. It’s not about punishing STR owners, it’s about survival, equity, and the right of our keiki to grow up in their homeland.
I respectfully urge you to pass the Minatoya STR phase-out and take bold action to restore housing as a basic right, not a luxury investment. Let’s protect Maui and ensure Maui remains the ʻāina where our children can dream of raising ʻohana for generations to come, not fear they’ll be priced out and leave.
Mahalo nui for your time and for considering the voices of ʻohana like mine. Me ka haʻahaʻa.
Thank you for your time and for hearing our opinions on this important matter. I am in strong opposition to this bill and implore you to vote this down. I was born and raised here in Maui and agree that housing is a major issue; but this has been an issue for 40+ years and we never seem to want to tackle the root of the issue like infrastructure, bureaucracy, and increasing resident income. If I actually believed this bill would solve the issue I might change my stance. It will almost certainly make things worse for all of us. I make my living managing these STR's. This business gives me unique insight on the financials and has allowed me to hire many of my friends and family and offer them high paying careers. Today we have a staff of 24 and 70 independent contractors who all depend on these condos to pay their bills.
1. In managing these condos for over 15 years the expense is astronomical. They would not be financially feasible for the vast majority of landlords to rent them out long term. If an owner has any type of mortgage on the unit, you can expect their minimum expense to be in the realm of $3k-4k just for 1 bedroom unit. The Uhero study got this part completely wrong. Please seek additional information from Lenders and Realtors that have accurate data; but even with their lower figures, the study still points out that at these prices the very people this bill is intended to help will not be able to afford the "new rents."
2. Tourism is our lifeblood in Maui, thousands of us depend on it. The Mayor likes to point out that London and New York City banned vacation rentals and they're doing alright. Well that's great, but Maui isn't a metropolis that that has a plethora of thriving industries we can all just switch to. Diversification is good, but that takes time to foster, please don't cut us off at the knees and say good luck. There are not options for us, and I don't see that changing in 2 or 5 years. How many of our favorite restaurants, shops, and tour companies will close their doors for good? How many more residents will be forced to leave when we lose these jobs?
3. Why not use this industry that supplies jobs, tax revenue, and visitor spending to help bring in more income for things like infrastructure. Redesignate so much of the wasted Ag Land to residential only if the landowners commit to developing workforce housing in x number of years. There are so many more creative things that could be done, using this industry as an accelerator rather than killing it.
This bill has created strong emotions and the mayors bill sounds like a quick fix to a 50 year problem, but a fix for our housing problem is not going to be easy. If passed, this bill will hurt so many of my friends, family, employees, and contractors. There will be so many unintended consequences. I know each of are feeling immense pressure on your decision and I do not envy you, but you were each elected to make the right decision. I think it is clear that this bill will hurt more residents than it helps. After looking through all the evidence we have here, if you cannot guarantee this bill will solve our housing problem you need to vote this bill down.
As a resident of Maui in an area with ample unsold homes in Makawao, I am opposed to this bill as I feel it will curtail tourism which is the biggest economic driver of the island.
Aloha, my name is Natalia and I run a housekeeping company in Lahaina. I live in Kahana and personally employ 5 people (4 cleaners and 1 handyperson) and we look after 11 STR units. I oppose this bill because it will be devastating to the local economy of the county. My employees are paid much better than if they were to work in hotels.
We are opposed to bill 9 for the Papakea Resort. There are many reasons that changing this zoning and use of Papakea to eliminate STR is not in anyone’s best interest. I will list a few of the most important reasons.
First is the resort was designed for short term users who would only have 1 vehicle.
There isn’t sufficient parking for converting into a residential apartment complex. This was evident when many of us allowed families displaced by the fire to house in our units. The parking was a mess because most of those families had 2 or more cars. I also witnessed the same problem at the Honua Kai resort which has much more available parking than Papakea.
The county and state will give up substantial income both in resort taxes and property taxes. We collect and remit 17.25 percent fees from guests. In my unit in the past this has been about $15,000 per year. Also property taxes aa a short term rental are 7 times what residential property taxes are.
The other huge expense that no long term resident will want to pay is the HOA expense to maintain the grounds and especially the sea wall. Papakea was designed as a seaside resort from the beginning with a front desk and a large number of employees to service it. Many of those local employees will have to be terminated to make this change.
Papakea is an old property and special assessment are a constant which won’t be kept up with expenses that a local resident will not want to pay so the property will degrade as improvements will not be affordable for the extra wear and damage that affects every beach front property.
Many owners have made substantial investments and improvements because they have relied on the long term history of the allowance for STR going back to the 1970s. This will affect all property values and also the availability for mortgages and other investments coming into the State which will be long lasting.
Also the security that has kept things under control will be gone to cut expenses. Papakea is a very dense housing with an average of about 500 to 600 square feet per unit. There is absolutely no storage space which will create even more problems if it is residential.
The huge income through both property taxes and the 17.25 percent tax on short term visitors could be allocated to subsiding new and appropriate built houses and apartments for residents.
Eliminating these STR will have many other long lasting detrimental impacts on local people who do management, maintenance, cleaning and caring for a resort property. The net impact will be harmful to the county, state and those who have made investments in Hawaii.
I’m sick of the fake opposition to the bill and the fake “controversy “. I’m reading the testimony and half of it sounds like it was written by a robot. SeriouslyAll sound the same with different names on um!
These people who aren’t even living here full time are using chatgpt or some AI to pump out "their concerns" about the bill. But be real! they’re just trying to protect their $$$ while local families are being priced out of our our own neighborhoods.
The Minatoya bill is step one in taking our home back. Maui is not a playground for the malihini while kanaka can’t find housing.
Nuff already 🙄
Papakea is designed as a resort and suitable only for short term housing. There is limited parking , no storage space for the units and not suitable environmentally for long term rental.
Papakea employees a large number of people who will lose jobs if Bill 9 passes, the very substantial monthly HOA fees will not stand up in the rental market, tenants would not be willing to pay for the services currently provided and total rent would be unaffordable for many, many people... perhaps $4,000 per month for a one bedroom unit or more. Surely this is not providing low income housing?
Not to mention the tens or even $100,000 plus debts carried by each unit to pay for the seawall, plumbing and other large capital projects underway.
I love my unit, but would never consider living there long term, it'd be miserable. The units are tiny , mine is barely 600 sq ft.
Aloha,
My name is Steve Meyer, and I am a co-owner—alongside my two sisters and our family—of Maui Sunset Vacation Rentals, a family-operated business since 1980. We are opposed to the proposed legislation as it would significantly disrupt the long-standing balance of uses in the Apartment zones by eliminating one legally permitted use—short-term rentals—without assurance that future property owners will occupy these units as full-time residents
We are deeply invested in the well-being of the Maui community. Our business model emphasizes cultural respect, community engagement, and economic contribution. We strive to create meaningful experiences for our guests by connecting them with local restaurants, tour operators, and cultural activities. Our welcome guide highlights small, locally owned businesses, helping to ensure that tourism dollars stay within the island economy.
We also directly support the island’s workforce. Our operations rely on trusted local partners including Maui Linen, Aloha Automatic Housekeeping, Carbonaro CPA, and a network of independent contractors. These relationships are built on years of collaboration and mutual respect. Beyond our company, the Maui Sunset AOAO employs full-time staff including a property manager, maintenance crew, and front desk personnel. The broader support system includes insurance agents, real estate brokers, managing agents, accountants, attorneys, interior designers, and contractors—all of whom have built their livelihoods here on Maui. It takes a lot to keep a $250 million dollar complex going.
The Maui Sunset property itself has a long and resilient history. When the original developer went bankrupt in the late 1970s, it was the timeshare and vacation rental model that preserved the property. For nearly 50 years, this mixed-use community has welcomed residents, timeshare owners, second-home owners, and guests seeking short-, mid-, and long-term stays. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we housed traveling nurses and essential workers. Following the 2023 Lahaina Fire, we hosted specialists aiding in the recovery, in the early weeks after the fire owners donated space to displaced residents, but they soon moved to be closer to their communities. These critical contributions would not have been possible under a 180-day minimum stay (lease) requirement.
Today, uncertainty surrounding this legislation has already had a chilling effect. In our company alone—managing approximately 70 units—over half a million dollars in planned modernization projects are on hold. Owners are understandably reluctant to invest further without clarity on their future rights. Meanwhile, operating costs have surged. From 2020 to 2025, homeowner dues have increased by 50%, driven largely by rising insurance premiums, utility costs, and mandated reserve funding— Condos had their property tax designation changed to “Short Term Rental” These financial pressures have already forced some owners to sell.
This legislation would significantly disrupt the long-standing balance of uses of properties like Maui Sunset by eliminating one legally permitted use—short-term rentals—without any assurance that future property owners will occupy these units as full-time residents. Removing this option does not guarantee the creation of permanent housing, but it does risk destabilizing a community that has successfully supported a diverse mix of residents, visitors, and local businesses for nearly five decades. We respectfully urge the Council to consider a more balanced, data-informed approach that preserves economic stability while addressing housing concerns.
Mahalo for your time, consideration, and commitment to thoughtful governance.
Sincerely,
Steve Meyer
Maui Sunset Vacation Rentals
808-879-7011
To those opposing Bill 9, I have a simple question: How can you justify choosing profit over people?
I’m a public school teacher here on Maui. Every year, I watch more and more of my students leave the island. Not because they want to, but because they have no choice. Their families are being pushed out by a housing market warped by unchecked short-term rentals. It’s heartbreaking. And frankly, it’s infuriating.
Bill 9 is a lifeline. It would convert hundreds of short-term vacation rentals into long-term housing for local families. These aren’t theoretical homes! They’re real units that could house teachers, nurses, kūpuna, and yes, the very kids we claim to care about.
So when people fight against this bill, what they’re really saying is: “My vacation profits are more important than your child’s ability to live on the land their ancestors called home.” “My side hustle matters more than your community’s survival.”
Well, I’m here to say: enough.
We cannot educate keiki who don’t have homes. We cannot build community when the people who make this island work are forced to leave.
Bill 9 is not a punishment. It’s a step toward balance. It’s a sign that Maui values its people more than tourist dollars.
To those still sitting on the sidelines or blocking progress: Shame on you for putting short-term gain ahead of long-term justice. Shame on you for turning a blind eye while our classrooms empty and our neighborhoods hollow out. Shame on you for pretending this isn’t your problem.
Support Bill 9. Prove that you care about Maui’s future, not just your bottom line.
Hello to all HLU committee members, Chair Kama, and Vice Chair U'u-Hodgins, thank you for your service.
Thank you for reading and considering my comments in strong opposition to Bill 9 which would uniformly, indiscriminately, and categorically eliminate STRs on the Minatoya list.
I am a frequent visitor and part-time resident of Hawaii. When I am on Maui, I reside at the Papakea resort community.
As was suggested by the Planning Commission last July, I feel the Papakea should be excluded from this proposed sweeping change.
Here are a few of the many reasons.
Papakea is situated along a string of hotel-resort zoned properties and shares amenities with the neighboring property of Ka'annapali Shores.
Papakea is already partially hotel-zoned and has been for decades.
Papakea functions as a full resort community with front desk registration, concierge and provides independent hotel and resort amenities.
Papakea Oceanfront Resort was sold and marketed as a legal vacation rental property from the beginning. It has been functioning as a legal vacation rental for 50 years. Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal, based on ordinances, historically since 1989, and most recently in 2022.
The Papakea resort and its' operations provide jobs with competitive wages for 35 benefited on-site staff. Many of them employed here for over 17 years. This does not include the ancillary operations which employ housekeepers, handymen, contractors, fitness instructors, entertainment, and management companies. Many locals would immediately lose their jobs. I know several of them personally.
The Papakea has a 32-million-dollar plumbing project that is underway with Hawaii-based contractors. This project has and will have a significant impact on Papakea owners. Each owner will be require to pay a fractional share of the 32 – million dollar expense. This expense will amount to an average of approximately $100,000 for each unit owner. This is in addition to current maintenance dues, capital reserves, insurance requirements and previous special assessments for the sea wall and painting improvements. These are fixed expenses which are needed simply to maintain the property. Further, since the Papakea is an older property, ongoing projects and repairs are the norm and not the exception. Other costly repairs in the immediate future are concrete spalling repairs and electrical rewiring improvements. These costs are also being absorbed by owners at the Papakea.
*Current maintenance dues range from $ 1,100 to roughly $ 2,800 per month and have been increasing annually along with other carrying costs such as insurance and fees in the form of special assessments. Fixed monthly expenses for a one bedroom unit total $2,833.33. inclusive of real estate taxes. This does not include any mortgage payment.
Other facts to consider:
*Papakea was never designated as workforce housing and therefore was never 'converted' to vacation rental use.
*Papakea has generated nearly $17,000,000 in tax revenue in the last 5 years alone.
Tourism dollars circulating back into the Maui economy would also be lost, creating a negative ripple effect on the economic health of Maui that the county and state simply can't afford.
A final point that I am sure you are already aware of, given the drop in tourism. Many people I have spoken with have already stated they will not visit Maui due to the threat of these properties being eliminated. Most do not want to stay in hotels due to less convenience and increased expense. Hotels pay a proportionately lower tax rate than STRs, and a large percentage of the money generated is sent to corporate headquarters on the mainland and not back into the Maui economy.
This proposal has torn the community apart. Good governance requires leadership that does not harm large numbers of people in an attempt to 'fix' a multifactorial and complex problem, but instead looks to preserve the economy, constitutional rights, and liberties while coming up with mutually beneficial solutions. Affordable housing requires thoughtful planning, budgeting, and this bill will not provide responsible solutions but more harm, than realized good. Please consider options where all can work together to solve this complex problem.
I restate, the Papakea Resort community should not be included in Bill 9 for the many reasons outlined above. Please also see attached PDF, which highlights the key reasons why the Papakea Resort, in particular, should be exempt from any STR ban.
Council Members,
No reason to pass this bill - too many people affected short term and long term. IF this bill is passed it is imperative that the amendment is included to exempt current timeshares.
Thank you
We would like to express our opposition to the proposed revocation of the 1989 decision, which acknowledged that many of the coastal condominium complexes on Maui built before 1989 were built with the intention of providing an option for home ownership while also providing Maui visitors with pleasant and affordable accommodations for family visits. Back in 1989, Maui realized the importance of preserving this use, both for the benefit of visiting families and for the benefit of Maui jobs that would not exist without these visiting families.
One of the primary goals of zoning ordinances is to ensure that building projects are built to align with certain goals and uses. Prior to 1989, the apartment zoned areas in question included ‘Motels’ as an appropriate and desirable use for properties along the ocean. Because of this, many of the condominium projects built before 1989 were designed to function as vacation rentals. Mayor Bissen has stated that, "My proposed bill will revert all Apartment District properties to their intended long-term residential use”. We believe this statement is clearly incorrect and misleading. Many of these properties were built under pre-1989 zoning rules and were never intended for exclusive long-term residential use or to exclude transient rentals. For example, in the original 1974 ‘Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime, Maui Pacific Shores (shortly thereafter renamed as ‘Maui Sunset’)’, it states, “apartments may be leased or rented from time to time to transients.” The proposed legislation would not ‘revert’ properties like this to their intended use, but would attempt to ‘convert’ them to a limited use they were never intended or designed for. A simple example is that many of these complexes are designed with only one parking space per unit, which conflicts with both the legal and functional parking needs of long-term apartment use. Ignoring this parking conflict would certainly lead to an impossible situation involving a lot of anger and confrontation among residents.
One of the challenges of any community is balancing the need for housing with the need for jobs and tax revenues to support those households. Allowing resort condominiums to fill both of these rolls is the wisest course of action.
We believe that a reasonable approach would be to do a case-by-case examination of the involved properties to determine whether they fit into the Mayor’s classification of being originally “intended as long-term residential use” which may argue for reverting to that status, or whether a complex such as the ‘Maui Sunset’ was originally intended and designed to include short-term rental use as a visitor resort project, in which case owners and vacation renters in that project should expect continuation of that use. as described in the origination documents. One consideration would be if time-share units are common within a property, as is the case with the Maui Sunset, which would point to that property’s history and appropriate use for short-term stays.
Another option to acknowledge the wisdom of the historical uses would be to provide a clear and functional path for a newly restricted property which has been blocked from its original and recorded use, to appeal its zoning status so that it could be converted to a zoning that would be in line with its original intent and current use.
Thank you for your consideration in finding a more fair and balanced approach than the current blanket proposal.
We bought in Papakea in the early 1970’s and have relied upon short term rentals to augment the ever increasing costs of owning in Maui. Taxes have mushroomed for all offshore owners and the direct beneficiary are the local residents that rely on the tourist trade to pay these taxes.
If Maui insists on reducing the capability to generate these ‘tourist’ revenues then someone will have to fill the gap which will be the local residents.
I am amazed and surprised that the Council has not completed a financial study of this change in eliminating the short term rentals.
Without this knowledge there are going to be many disappointed residents as the tax burden is shifted to their properties.
It is amazing that Council believes that after more than 50 years, they can change the designation to suit a short term problem.
I vehemently oppose Bill 9. This proposal to ban short term rentals is not the solution to the housing crisis. My Paki Maui condo’s costs are over $7000 per month and I am certain I would not want to pay a monthly rent of over $7000. Our costs to replace aging infrastructure (well over $1 million coming due for sea wall repairs, repairing multiple sinkholes, new plumbing pipes, new roof, etc.) are astronomical and we cannot overlook the blow to Maui’s local economy (my property manager and his crew rely on the business my short-term rental brings). I just wanted to show you how the HOA fees have been increasing (in 2026 they will be well over $3000 per month):
Monthly HOA FEES for My Paki Maui Condo
• 2025 (up 25% YoY) $2899
• 2024 (up 16% YoY) $2161
• 2023 (up 32% over 5 years) $1814
• 2018 $1237
The people of Maui deserve affordable housing and I don’t have an answer as to why the local and state government didn’t see that it was built over the decades before the fire. I just don’t believe that converting STRs into long term rentals makes sense.
Maui County Council June 5, 2025
200 S. High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
As an owner of Papakea Resort, I respectfully urge you to reconsider the proposed phase-out of transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts, particularly as it pertains to properties like ours that have long been legally recognized for such use. Papakea Resort was developed in 1977 and marketed as a legal vacation rental property and has operated under the legal framework established by Maui County Ordinance 1797 and which was further affirmed by the Minatoya legal opinion.
Unsuitability for Long-Term Residential Use
Papakea Resort was never intended to serve as long-term residential housing. The units are too small for full-time residents, with studio units measuring approximately 435 square feet and one-bedroom units around 597 square feet. Additionally, the property lacks garages, private yards, and has very limited storage space. The carrying costs are also prohibitively high, with monthly maintenance fees ranging from $985 to over $1,500, depending on the unit. These fees cover maintenance, utilities, and other shared expenses, all on top of mortgage payments. Such financial burdens make long-term residency impractical for most individuals.
Community Contributions
Papakea is a vital part of the local economy and community by providing full-time, beneficial employment to many local residents, and by supporting a wide range of local trades and small businesses including housekeeping, maintenance, and property management services. Papakea contributes significantly to state and county revenues through property taxes, TAT, and GET.
Economic Impact
The proposed phase-out would have significant economic repercussions. A study by the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization estimates that eliminating TVRs in apartment-zoned districts could reduce visitor spending by nearly $900 million annually and result in job and income losses, declining property values, and a potential $60 million drop in county property tax revenues by 2029 and and additional annual loss of $15 million in General Excise Tax (GET) and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) revenues.. mauicounty.us+2hawaii.edu+2mauinews.com+2
Conclusion
As a longstanding, legally recognized part of Maui's tourism infrastructure and community fabric, short-term rentals need to be allowed at Papakea. I urge the Council to consider the legal precedents, economic contributions, and community ties that properties like ours represent and to allow short-term rentals to continue at Papakea Resort and exclude Papakea from the scope of Bill 9.
Maui Committee Members
Aloha , my wife and I live in Upcountry Maui. In 2020, we were fortunate enough to purchase a condo in West Maui. We intended to supplement our income with short-term rentals.
We work as our own listing agent and self-clean our unit between each visit. After struggling through COVID, we finally got the rental running successfully until the fire. Before that time, we were contributing upwards of $30K a year towards Maui County in TA Taxes. Since the fire, we have been lucky to break even. HOA fees and insurance have skyrocketed! We have worked very hard maintaining and promoting our Condo here, and strongly oppose the proposed legislation. Our condo unit was never meant to house long-term tenants. The fees associated with its operation would deem it unaffordable, not to mention the tax revenue that would be lost for the county. We feel this Bill is too broad in its scope and that there are better ways to fix Mau's housing problem. Perhaps build specific workforce housing and speed up the permitting process? We appreciate your time and consideration. Mahalo.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Scott Bland, and my wife and I own a short-term rental property at the Kapalua Resort in Maui County that we also consider our personal home on Maui. I spent my early childhood living on Oahu before my family moved to the mainland in 1972. It has taken me more than 50 years to finally have the opportunity to own a place on the Islands that my wife and I can call our own. 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 ask that you are selective in identifying the properties that are identified in providing housing for our Maui people.
I have worked hard to be a responsible and community-oriented owner. I recommend local restaurants and tour guides in my welcome information. I employ local service providers — cleaners, maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become valued friends over the years. Sadly, some have already been affected by the lack of tourism and lack of work and have left the island. My guests often leave Maui noting they felt more connected to the island because of the personal experience they had in my home. Many visitors have even stated they wouldn’t have come at all if they didn’t have a vacation rental option. This matters to me and to all the small local businesses these guests supported during their stay.
Owning at the Kapalua Resort has not been easy. We’ve faced huge maintenance costs, special assessments, and massive increases in insurance after the fires. The annual AOAO expense alone is now over $32,000 annually, and upcoming roof and road repairs will dramatically increase this amount. These costs are necessary to ensure that the property remains safe and functional. The Kapalua Resort was also never intended to be constructed for workforce housing. The residences limit occupancy, prohibit pets, and lack storage space.
This legislation will result in the loss of island required income, the loss of jobs, the loss of homes, and the loss of Maui people who would be forced to ultimately leave the island. As the County has approved a $1.56 billion budget for 2025, it seems feasible that measures should be enacted to attract visitors to the island to bolster our economy and support our financial needs rather than further discouraging such. I urge the Council to find a fair and balanced path forward — one that protects local jobs, supports the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely. Please exclude the Kapalua Resort from any STR ban.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott Bland
Scottrbland@icloud.com
Papakea K202. Margie and Jared Brown
We have been coming to Maui for over 40 years and have owned a unit in Papakea since 1982.
We are opposed to bill 9 for the Papakea Resort. There are many reasons that changing this zoning and use of Papakea to eliminate STR is not in anyone’s best interest. I will list a few of the most important reasons.
First is the resort was designed for short term users who would only have 1 vehicle.
There isn’t sufficient parking for converting into a residential apartment complex. This was evident when many of us allowed families displaced by the fire to house in our units. The parking was a mess because most of those families had 2 or more cars. I also witnessed the same problem at the Honua Kai resort which has much more available parking than Papakea.
The county and state will give up substantial income both in resort taxes and property taxes. We collect and remit 17.25 percent fees from guests. In our
unit in the past this has been about $15,000 per year. Also property taxes for a short term rental are 7 times what residential property taxes are.
The other huge expense that no long term resident will want to pay is the HOA expense to maintain the grounds and especially the sea wall. Papakea was designed as a seaside resort from the beginning with a front desk and a large number of employees to service it. Many of those local employees will have to be terminated to make this change.
Papakea is an old property and special assessments are a constant which won’t be kept up with expenses that a local resident will not want to pay so the property will degrade as improvements will not be affordable for the extra wear and damage that affects every beach front property.
Many owners have made substantial investments and improvements because they have relied on the long term history of the allowance for STR going back to the 1970s. This will affect all property values and also the availability for mortgages and other investments coming into the State which will be long lasting.
Also the security that has kept things under control will be gone to cut expenses. Papakea is a very dense housing with an average of about 500 to 600 square feet per unit. There is absolutely no storage space which will create even more problems if it is residential.
The huge income through both property taxes and the 17.25 percent tax on short term visitors could be allocated to subsiding new and appropriately built houses and apartments for residents.
Eliminating these STR will have many other long lasting detrimental impacts on local people who do management, maintenance, cleaning and caring for a resort property. The net impact will be harmful to the county, state and those who have made investments in Hawaii.
Aloha mai kākou,
My name is Christy Nakahashi and I am a Native Hawaiian woman submitting testimony as a lifelong resident of Hawaiʻi. I live on Maui, and like many other Native Hawaiian families and generational residents, I am one paycheck away from being able to afford safe and stable housing for my ʻohana.
I am writing in strong support of the Minatoya short-term rental (STR) phase-out. This decision is not only about policy, it’s about protecting the future of our people, our culture, and our communities. Native Hawaiian families and other generational residents are being priced out of the place we call home. It’s heartbreaking, happening every day, and it is not okay.
When homes are used as short-term vacation rentals instead of places for actual resident families to live, we all lose. The Minatoya list, created to regulate STRs, has now contributed to the displacement of Native Hawaiians and generational residents and the commodification of our neighborhoods. We cannot keep giving priority to visitor accommodations while our own keiki and families are houseless, sleep in overcrowded homes, live with multiple generations under one roof, often out of necessity, not choice, or leave Hawaiʻi altogether.
It is not perfect, but eliminating Minatoya STRs is a step in the right direction for Maui:
*Housing availability would increase for long-term residents. Homes currently used as STRs could return to the local housing market, offering hope to families like mine who have been searching for years. Something would have to be done to regulate HOAs.
*Home prices and rents could stabilize, helping to reduce the gap between wages and housing costs, especially for single parents, kupuna, and Native Hawaiian and generational families disproportionately impacted by this crisis.
*Our communities would feel like home again, not like hotels. Neighborhoods would be restored to places where children can safely play and neighbors know each other.
*We need to invest in jobs that support residents, not just the tourism industry.
This phase-out is a necessary and overdue step toward putting Hawaiʻi and our ʻohana first. It’s not about punishing STR owners, it’s about survival, equity, and the right of our keiki to grow up in their homeland.
I respectfully urge you to pass the Minatoya STR phase-out and take bold action to restore housing as a basic right, not a luxury investment. Let’s protect Maui and ensure Maui remains the ʻāina where our children can dream of raising ʻohana for generations to come, not fear they’ll be priced out and leave.
Mahalo nui for your time and for considering the voices of ʻohana like mine. Me ka haʻahaʻa.
Aloha Council Members,
Thank you for your time and for hearing our opinions on this important matter. I am in strong opposition to this bill and implore you to vote this down. I was born and raised here in Maui and agree that housing is a major issue; but this has been an issue for 40+ years and we never seem to want to tackle the root of the issue like infrastructure, bureaucracy, and increasing resident income. If I actually believed this bill would solve the issue I might change my stance. It will almost certainly make things worse for all of us. I make my living managing these STR's. This business gives me unique insight on the financials and has allowed me to hire many of my friends and family and offer them high paying careers. Today we have a staff of 24 and 70 independent contractors who all depend on these condos to pay their bills.
1. In managing these condos for over 15 years the expense is astronomical. They would not be financially feasible for the vast majority of landlords to rent them out long term. If an owner has any type of mortgage on the unit, you can expect their minimum expense to be in the realm of $3k-4k just for 1 bedroom unit. The Uhero study got this part completely wrong. Please seek additional information from Lenders and Realtors that have accurate data; but even with their lower figures, the study still points out that at these prices the very people this bill is intended to help will not be able to afford the "new rents."
2. Tourism is our lifeblood in Maui, thousands of us depend on it. The Mayor likes to point out that London and New York City banned vacation rentals and they're doing alright. Well that's great, but Maui isn't a metropolis that that has a plethora of thriving industries we can all just switch to. Diversification is good, but that takes time to foster, please don't cut us off at the knees and say good luck. There are not options for us, and I don't see that changing in 2 or 5 years. How many of our favorite restaurants, shops, and tour companies will close their doors for good? How many more residents will be forced to leave when we lose these jobs?
3. Why not use this industry that supplies jobs, tax revenue, and visitor spending to help bring in more income for things like infrastructure. Redesignate so much of the wasted Ag Land to residential only if the landowners commit to developing workforce housing in x number of years. There are so many more creative things that could be done, using this industry as an accelerator rather than killing it.
This bill has created strong emotions and the mayors bill sounds like a quick fix to a 50 year problem, but a fix for our housing problem is not going to be easy. If passed, this bill will hurt so many of my friends, family, employees, and contractors. There will be so many unintended consequences. I know each of are feeling immense pressure on your decision and I do not envy you, but you were each elected to make the right decision. I think it is clear that this bill will hurt more residents than it helps. After looking through all the evidence we have here, if you cannot guarantee this bill will solve our housing problem you need to vote this bill down.
Sincerely,
Dave Englert
Wailuku Hi
As a resident of Maui in an area with ample unsold homes in Makawao, I am opposed to this bill as I feel it will curtail tourism which is the biggest economic driver of the island.
Aloha, my name is Natalia and I run a housekeeping company in Lahaina. I live in Kahana and personally employ 5 people (4 cleaners and 1 handyperson) and we look after 11 STR units. I oppose this bill because it will be devastating to the local economy of the county. My employees are paid much better than if they were to work in hotels.
We are opposed to bill 9 for the Papakea Resort. There are many reasons that changing this zoning and use of Papakea to eliminate STR is not in anyone’s best interest. I will list a few of the most important reasons.
First is the resort was designed for short term users who would only have 1 vehicle.
There isn’t sufficient parking for converting into a residential apartment complex. This was evident when many of us allowed families displaced by the fire to house in our units. The parking was a mess because most of those families had 2 or more cars. I also witnessed the same problem at the Honua Kai resort which has much more available parking than Papakea.
The county and state will give up substantial income both in resort taxes and property taxes. We collect and remit 17.25 percent fees from guests. In my unit in the past this has been about $15,000 per year. Also property taxes aa a short term rental are 7 times what residential property taxes are.
The other huge expense that no long term resident will want to pay is the HOA expense to maintain the grounds and especially the sea wall. Papakea was designed as a seaside resort from the beginning with a front desk and a large number of employees to service it. Many of those local employees will have to be terminated to make this change.
Papakea is an old property and special assessment are a constant which won’t be kept up with expenses that a local resident will not want to pay so the property will degrade as improvements will not be affordable for the extra wear and damage that affects every beach front property.
Many owners have made substantial investments and improvements because they have relied on the long term history of the allowance for STR going back to the 1970s. This will affect all property values and also the availability for mortgages and other investments coming into the State which will be long lasting.
Also the security that has kept things under control will be gone to cut expenses. Papakea is a very dense housing with an average of about 500 to 600 square feet per unit. There is absolutely no storage space which will create even more problems if it is residential.
The huge income through both property taxes and the 17.25 percent tax on short term visitors could be allocated to subsiding new and appropriate built houses and apartments for residents.
Eliminating these STR will have many other long lasting detrimental impacts on local people who do management, maintenance, cleaning and caring for a resort property. The net impact will be harmful to the county, state and those who have made investments in Hawaii.
I’m sick of the fake opposition to the bill and the fake “controversy “. I’m reading the testimony and half of it sounds like it was written by a robot. SeriouslyAll sound the same with different names on um!
These people who aren’t even living here full time are using chatgpt or some AI to pump out "their concerns" about the bill. But be real! they’re just trying to protect their $$$ while local families are being priced out of our our own neighborhoods.
The Minatoya bill is step one in taking our home back. Maui is not a playground for the malihini while kanaka can’t find housing.
Nuff already 🙄
Exclude PAPAKEA from Bill 9
Papakea is designed as a resort and suitable only for short term housing. There is limited parking , no storage space for the units and not suitable environmentally for long term rental.
Papakea employees a large number of people who will lose jobs if Bill 9 passes, the very substantial monthly HOA fees will not stand up in the rental market, tenants would not be willing to pay for the services currently provided and total rent would be unaffordable for many, many people... perhaps $4,000 per month for a one bedroom unit or more. Surely this is not providing low income housing?
Not to mention the tens or even $100,000 plus debts carried by each unit to pay for the seawall, plumbing and other large capital projects underway.
I love my unit, but would never consider living there long term, it'd be miserable. The units are tiny , mine is barely 600 sq ft.
Please exclude PAPAKEA from Bill 9
Aloha,
My name is Steve Meyer, and I am a co-owner—alongside my two sisters and our family—of Maui Sunset Vacation Rentals, a family-operated business since 1980. We are opposed to the proposed legislation as it would significantly disrupt the long-standing balance of uses in the Apartment zones by eliminating one legally permitted use—short-term rentals—without assurance that future property owners will occupy these units as full-time residents
We are deeply invested in the well-being of the Maui community. Our business model emphasizes cultural respect, community engagement, and economic contribution. We strive to create meaningful experiences for our guests by connecting them with local restaurants, tour operators, and cultural activities. Our welcome guide highlights small, locally owned businesses, helping to ensure that tourism dollars stay within the island economy.
We also directly support the island’s workforce. Our operations rely on trusted local partners including Maui Linen, Aloha Automatic Housekeeping, Carbonaro CPA, and a network of independent contractors. These relationships are built on years of collaboration and mutual respect. Beyond our company, the Maui Sunset AOAO employs full-time staff including a property manager, maintenance crew, and front desk personnel. The broader support system includes insurance agents, real estate brokers, managing agents, accountants, attorneys, interior designers, and contractors—all of whom have built their livelihoods here on Maui. It takes a lot to keep a $250 million dollar complex going.
The Maui Sunset property itself has a long and resilient history. When the original developer went bankrupt in the late 1970s, it was the timeshare and vacation rental model that preserved the property. For nearly 50 years, this mixed-use community has welcomed residents, timeshare owners, second-home owners, and guests seeking short-, mid-, and long-term stays. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we housed traveling nurses and essential workers. Following the 2023 Lahaina Fire, we hosted specialists aiding in the recovery, in the early weeks after the fire owners donated space to displaced residents, but they soon moved to be closer to their communities. These critical contributions would not have been possible under a 180-day minimum stay (lease) requirement.
Today, uncertainty surrounding this legislation has already had a chilling effect. In our company alone—managing approximately 70 units—over half a million dollars in planned modernization projects are on hold. Owners are understandably reluctant to invest further without clarity on their future rights. Meanwhile, operating costs have surged. From 2020 to 2025, homeowner dues have increased by 50%, driven largely by rising insurance premiums, utility costs, and mandated reserve funding— Condos had their property tax designation changed to “Short Term Rental” These financial pressures have already forced some owners to sell.
This legislation would significantly disrupt the long-standing balance of uses of properties like Maui Sunset by eliminating one legally permitted use—short-term rentals—without any assurance that future property owners will occupy these units as full-time residents. Removing this option does not guarantee the creation of permanent housing, but it does risk destabilizing a community that has successfully supported a diverse mix of residents, visitors, and local businesses for nearly five decades. We respectfully urge the Council to consider a more balanced, data-informed approach that preserves economic stability while addressing housing concerns.
Mahalo for your time, consideration, and commitment to thoughtful governance.
Sincerely,
Steve Meyer
Maui Sunset Vacation Rentals
808-879-7011
Bill would be an economic disaster for Maui and properties effected are not suitable for affordable long term housing
Don’t water down this bill! Pass it in its effective version! We need your help!!!
To those opposing Bill 9, I have a simple question: How can you justify choosing profit over people?
I’m a public school teacher here on Maui. Every year, I watch more and more of my students leave the island. Not because they want to, but because they have no choice. Their families are being pushed out by a housing market warped by unchecked short-term rentals. It’s heartbreaking. And frankly, it’s infuriating.
Bill 9 is a lifeline. It would convert hundreds of short-term vacation rentals into long-term housing for local families. These aren’t theoretical homes! They’re real units that could house teachers, nurses, kūpuna, and yes, the very kids we claim to care about.
So when people fight against this bill, what they’re really saying is: “My vacation profits are more important than your child’s ability to live on the land their ancestors called home.” “My side hustle matters more than your community’s survival.”
Well, I’m here to say: enough.
We cannot educate keiki who don’t have homes. We cannot build community when the people who make this island work are forced to leave.
Bill 9 is not a punishment. It’s a step toward balance. It’s a sign that Maui values its people more than tourist dollars.
To those still sitting on the sidelines or blocking progress: Shame on you for putting short-term gain ahead of long-term justice. Shame on you for turning a blind eye while our classrooms empty and our neighborhoods hollow out. Shame on you for pretending this isn’t your problem.
Support Bill 9. Prove that you care about Maui’s future, not just your bottom line.
Hello to all HLU committee members, Chair Kama, and Vice Chair U'u-Hodgins, thank you for your service.
Thank you for reading and considering my comments in strong opposition to Bill 9 which would uniformly, indiscriminately, and categorically eliminate STRs on the Minatoya list.
I am a frequent visitor and part-time resident of Hawaii. When I am on Maui, I reside at the Papakea resort community.
As was suggested by the Planning Commission last July, I feel the Papakea should be excluded from this proposed sweeping change.
Here are a few of the many reasons.
Papakea is situated along a string of hotel-resort zoned properties and shares amenities with the neighboring property of Ka'annapali Shores.
Papakea is already partially hotel-zoned and has been for decades.
Papakea functions as a full resort community with front desk registration, concierge and provides independent hotel and resort amenities.
Papakea Oceanfront Resort was sold and marketed as a legal vacation rental property from the beginning. It has been functioning as a legal vacation rental for 50 years. Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal, based on ordinances, historically since 1989, and most recently in 2022.
The Papakea resort and its' operations provide jobs with competitive wages for 35 benefited on-site staff. Many of them employed here for over 17 years. This does not include the ancillary operations which employ housekeepers, handymen, contractors, fitness instructors, entertainment, and management companies. Many locals would immediately lose their jobs. I know several of them personally.
The Papakea has a 32-million-dollar plumbing project that is underway with Hawaii-based contractors. This project has and will have a significant impact on Papakea owners. Each owner will be require to pay a fractional share of the 32 – million dollar expense. This expense will amount to an average of approximately $100,000 for each unit owner. This is in addition to current maintenance dues, capital reserves, insurance requirements and previous special assessments for the sea wall and painting improvements. These are fixed expenses which are needed simply to maintain the property. Further, since the Papakea is an older property, ongoing projects and repairs are the norm and not the exception. Other costly repairs in the immediate future are concrete spalling repairs and electrical rewiring improvements. These costs are also being absorbed by owners at the Papakea.
*Current maintenance dues range from $ 1,100 to roughly $ 2,800 per month and have been increasing annually along with other carrying costs such as insurance and fees in the form of special assessments. Fixed monthly expenses for a one bedroom unit total $2,833.33. inclusive of real estate taxes. This does not include any mortgage payment.
Other facts to consider:
*Papakea was never designated as workforce housing and therefore was never 'converted' to vacation rental use.
*Papakea has generated nearly $17,000,000 in tax revenue in the last 5 years alone.
Tourism dollars circulating back into the Maui economy would also be lost, creating a negative ripple effect on the economic health of Maui that the county and state simply can't afford.
A final point that I am sure you are already aware of, given the drop in tourism. Many people I have spoken with have already stated they will not visit Maui due to the threat of these properties being eliminated. Most do not want to stay in hotels due to less convenience and increased expense. Hotels pay a proportionately lower tax rate than STRs, and a large percentage of the money generated is sent to corporate headquarters on the mainland and not back into the Maui economy.
This proposal has torn the community apart. Good governance requires leadership that does not harm large numbers of people in an attempt to 'fix' a multifactorial and complex problem, but instead looks to preserve the economy, constitutional rights, and liberties while coming up with mutually beneficial solutions. Affordable housing requires thoughtful planning, budgeting, and this bill will not provide responsible solutions but more harm, than realized good. Please consider options where all can work together to solve this complex problem.
I restate, the Papakea Resort community should not be included in Bill 9 for the many reasons outlined above. Please also see attached PDF, which highlights the key reasons why the Papakea Resort, in particular, should be exempt from any STR ban.
Mahalo, for your thoughtful consideration.
John DiCaro
Council Members,
No reason to pass this bill - too many people affected short term and long term. IF this bill is passed it is imperative that the amendment is included to exempt current timeshares.
Thank you
Dear Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members,
We would like to express our opposition to the proposed revocation of the 1989 decision, which acknowledged that many of the coastal condominium complexes on Maui built before 1989 were built with the intention of providing an option for home ownership while also providing Maui visitors with pleasant and affordable accommodations for family visits. Back in 1989, Maui realized the importance of preserving this use, both for the benefit of visiting families and for the benefit of Maui jobs that would not exist without these visiting families.
One of the primary goals of zoning ordinances is to ensure that building projects are built to align with certain goals and uses. Prior to 1989, the apartment zoned areas in question included ‘Motels’ as an appropriate and desirable use for properties along the ocean. Because of this, many of the condominium projects built before 1989 were designed to function as vacation rentals. Mayor Bissen has stated that, "My proposed bill will revert all Apartment District properties to their intended long-term residential use”. We believe this statement is clearly incorrect and misleading. Many of these properties were built under pre-1989 zoning rules and were never intended for exclusive long-term residential use or to exclude transient rentals. For example, in the original 1974 ‘Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime, Maui Pacific Shores (shortly thereafter renamed as ‘Maui Sunset’)’, it states, “apartments may be leased or rented from time to time to transients.” The proposed legislation would not ‘revert’ properties like this to their intended use, but would attempt to ‘convert’ them to a limited use they were never intended or designed for. A simple example is that many of these complexes are designed with only one parking space per unit, which conflicts with both the legal and functional parking needs of long-term apartment use. Ignoring this parking conflict would certainly lead to an impossible situation involving a lot of anger and confrontation among residents.
One of the challenges of any community is balancing the need for housing with the need for jobs and tax revenues to support those households. Allowing resort condominiums to fill both of these rolls is the wisest course of action.
We believe that a reasonable approach would be to do a case-by-case examination of the involved properties to determine whether they fit into the Mayor’s classification of being originally “intended as long-term residential use” which may argue for reverting to that status, or whether a complex such as the ‘Maui Sunset’ was originally intended and designed to include short-term rental use as a visitor resort project, in which case owners and vacation renters in that project should expect continuation of that use. as described in the origination documents. One consideration would be if time-share units are common within a property, as is the case with the Maui Sunset, which would point to that property’s history and appropriate use for short-term stays.
Another option to acknowledge the wisdom of the historical uses would be to provide a clear and functional path for a newly restricted property which has been blocked from its original and recorded use, to appeal its zoning status so that it could be converted to a zoning that would be in line with its original intent and current use.
Thank you for your consideration in finding a more fair and balanced approach than the current blanket proposal.
We bought in Papakea in the early 1970’s and have relied upon short term rentals to augment the ever increasing costs of owning in Maui. Taxes have mushroomed for all offshore owners and the direct beneficiary are the local residents that rely on the tourist trade to pay these taxes.
If Maui insists on reducing the capability to generate these ‘tourist’ revenues then someone will have to fill the gap which will be the local residents.
I am amazed and surprised that the Council has not completed a financial study of this change in eliminating the short term rentals.
Without this knowledge there are going to be many disappointed residents as the tax burden is shifted to their properties.
It is amazing that Council believes that after more than 50 years, they can change the designation to suit a short term problem.
Carl Brandes
Papakea
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Road
Aloha Council members,
I vehemently oppose Bill 9. This proposal to ban short term rentals is not the solution to the housing crisis. My Paki Maui condo’s costs are over $7000 per month and I am certain I would not want to pay a monthly rent of over $7000. Our costs to replace aging infrastructure (well over $1 million coming due for sea wall repairs, repairing multiple sinkholes, new plumbing pipes, new roof, etc.) are astronomical and we cannot overlook the blow to Maui’s local economy (my property manager and his crew rely on the business my short-term rental brings). I just wanted to show you how the HOA fees have been increasing (in 2026 they will be well over $3000 per month):
Monthly HOA FEES for My Paki Maui Condo
• 2025 (up 25% YoY) $2899
• 2024 (up 16% YoY) $2161
• 2023 (up 32% over 5 years) $1814
• 2018 $1237
The people of Maui deserve affordable housing and I don’t have an answer as to why the local and state government didn’t see that it was built over the decades before the fire. I just don’t believe that converting STRs into long term rentals makes sense.
Regards,
Gloria Estrada of Paki Maui
Maui County Council June 5, 2025
200 S. High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
As an owner of Papakea Resort, I respectfully urge you to reconsider the proposed phase-out of transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts, particularly as it pertains to properties like ours that have long been legally recognized for such use. Papakea Resort was developed in 1977 and marketed as a legal vacation rental property and has operated under the legal framework established by Maui County Ordinance 1797 and which was further affirmed by the Minatoya legal opinion.
Unsuitability for Long-Term Residential Use
Papakea Resort was never intended to serve as long-term residential housing. The units are too small for full-time residents, with studio units measuring approximately 435 square feet and one-bedroom units around 597 square feet. Additionally, the property lacks garages, private yards, and has very limited storage space. The carrying costs are also prohibitively high, with monthly maintenance fees ranging from $985 to over $1,500, depending on the unit. These fees cover maintenance, utilities, and other shared expenses, all on top of mortgage payments. Such financial burdens make long-term residency impractical for most individuals.
Community Contributions
Papakea is a vital part of the local economy and community by providing full-time, beneficial employment to many local residents, and by supporting a wide range of local trades and small businesses including housekeeping, maintenance, and property management services. Papakea contributes significantly to state and county revenues through property taxes, TAT, and GET.
Economic Impact
The proposed phase-out would have significant economic repercussions. A study by the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization estimates that eliminating TVRs in apartment-zoned districts could reduce visitor spending by nearly $900 million annually and result in job and income losses, declining property values, and a potential $60 million drop in county property tax revenues by 2029 and and additional annual loss of $15 million in General Excise Tax (GET) and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) revenues.. mauicounty.us+2hawaii.edu+2mauinews.com+2
Conclusion
As a longstanding, legally recognized part of Maui's tourism infrastructure and community fabric, short-term rentals need to be allowed at Papakea. I urge the Council to consider the legal precedents, economic contributions, and community ties that properties like ours represent and to allow short-term rentals to continue at Papakea Resort and exclude Papakea from the scope of Bill 9.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Craig Wilmovsky
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Rd. #A201