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)
I moved to Maui 38 years ago from Oahu. My ancestors are from Maui County, and my children and grandchildren live here. Maui is my home.
I work in the vacation rental industry. Our company employs 20 local residents and uses around 75 cleaners and maintenance workers. All of the independent contractors are licensed small business owners. Our guests spend their money in restaurants, activities, and other businesses around Maui. If this bill passes, my company and those we work with would be greatly impacted so I oppose this bill.
The properties on the Minatoya list are older properties that are now requiring costly repairs such as roofing, plumbing, and concrete work. The cost of these repairs is paid for by owners through special assessments that can be tens of thousands of dollars per owner, sometimes payable within one year. This means, in addition to their mortgage, property tax, insurance, and homeowner association fees, they also must come up with $20- or $30,000. For local families trying to make ends meet, adding a special assessment would be a real hardship. It’s not realistic to think these properties will be affordable to buy or to rent long-term.
I agree that Maui has a housing crisis. I don’t agree that removing the short-term rental option for Minatoya properties is the answer as it will not translate into affordable housing. Instead, I suggest we focus on shutting down illegal STRs, building affordable homes, and creating financing options with lower-than-market interest rates.
Aloha, my name is Joseph and I was born in upcountry and now live in North Kihei. I wish to express opposition to this bill as it will significantly reduce our local business (housekeeping and maintenance for 5 resort complexes along Kihei Rd). The STR units we look after pay living wages to our employees and their owners are very respectful. They and their guests also support numerous businesses all around the county.
All these units have been operating as STRs for over 40 years and most of these buildings are old and very costly to maintain. It's quite hard to understand how anyone can rent these units long term when the HOA alone of a one-bedroom is $1,500 a month. These places are NOT affordable and will cost more to maintain as time goes by. I understand these places pay a significant amount of taxes to continue operating as an STR. Why have we not used these tax revenue to build affordable housing??
Mahalo!
I have a condo that would be affected by this legislature. However, if the legislation is passed it won't have the effect intended, in fact it will have just the opposite.
I currently rent my condo by the day. If I'm no longer allowed to do this I will NOT rent it by the month as Maui County hopes I will. I can't rent my condo by the month for anywhere close to what I get by renting it by the day; in fact renting it by the month won't even pay for my expenses. In addition, if I rent my condo long-term I won't have the ability to use it myself. Currently, I travel to Maui at least three times a year and I'm able to do that because I rent my condo by the day and I can block time for myself. So first off, if this legislation passes, my condo will not create a residence for a local family because I won't rent it long-term. That explains why this legislation won't accomplish it's intended goal. Now let me explain why it will actually HURT Maui County.
Because I rent my condo by the day, Maui County benefits from me in several ways. One significant way is that I pay a hotel tax which is a significant amount of money. If the legislation passes and I no longer rent my condo, this revenue stream for Maui County goes away. Secondly, I employ a local person to clean my condo between guests. This amounts to the equivalent of over a month of work for a local person per year. Again, if I no longer rent my condo then I will no longer need this service and my cleaning person loses this business.
So by passing this legislation, no additional housing for local residences is created, but funding for Maui County is lost and unemployment goes up. So the net effect is it's a loss for me, it's a loss for Maui County, and it's a loss for Maui County citizens, while no one gains anything. There is absolutely no reason to pass this bill. It makes no sense whatsoever and seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the devastating wildfires. Now that we can sit back and think about whether this will help the situation it's clear that this bill will not help and should be rejected.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Kimiko Hosaki, and I am submitting this testimony in strong opposition to the amendments proposed in Bill 9.
Growing up with my family on Oʻahu, it was a dream of mine from a young age to move to Maui and build a life on this beautiful island. Over the past 11 years, I’ve done exactly that. I moved to Maui, built a successful business that employs local residents, and supported hundreds of small businesses through the wedding and events industry—bringing millions in group business to the island over the years. In 2019, after years of saving and working full-time as a resident, I was finally able to purchase a home in Kīhei in a building where I loved the residents and the location allowed me to get home quickly from work. It was a major milestone—an opportunity to root my family and livelihood in the community I love.
Then came the pandemic. Like many in the wedding and events industry, my business was hit hard. My husband had to accept employment on the mainland, and I began commuting back and forth to Maui for work with our infant son. Just as we were preparing to return to Maui full-time, the devastating wildfires struck—disrupting the economy, further slowing business, and delaying our plans to return home.
Today, I still operate my business on Maui and return for extended stays—ranging from two to six weeks—often with my now four-year-old son, who lovingly refers to our condo as his “Maui home.” When we are away, we rent our unit at Haleakalā Shores to visitors. This is not a vacation property or speculative investment—it is our family’s primary residence and a vital part of our ability to afford to stay connected to Maui. Without the ability to rent our home short-term, we would not be able to cover our mortgage and rising HOA fees, which have doubled since the fires.
I am not alone. I’ve spoken with longtime residents in our building, many of whom are seniors who rely on short-term rentals for a few months each year while they visit family or escape the hottest months for health reasons. They’ve lived on Maui for decades and do not want to leave—but if this bill passes, they may be forced to, simply because they can no longer afford the costs.
While well-intentioned, the amendments to this bill will have unintended consequences that hurt the very residents it aims to protect. It does not create housing—it displaces current homeowners. It does not improve affordability—it removes a critical financial tool that helps local families remain on island.
These changes are already negatively affecting Maui’s wedding and events industry with the couple’s anticipating the outcome. We are seeing a decline in bookings because wedding groups cannot afford to stay in costly resort hotels and are concerned with the international news of short term rentals being banned which could leave them without accommodations as their wedding approaches. In the past two weeks alone, I’ve spoken with five seasoned wedding business owners—each operating on Maui for over a decade—who are seriously considering relocating to the Big Island or shutting down entirely. I myself have had to take my events to international locations because the level of business just is not available on Maui anymore. This industry is not just about weddings—it sustains florists, caterers, musicians, nail salons, bakeries, photographers, stationery designers, makers of local gifts, and so many others. Our local economy suffers when we lose this ecosystem.
In my opinion, what Maui truly needs is:
* A comprehensive housing strategy focused on building new, affordable homes.
* Reduced permitting barriers for local families and small-scale development.
* Practical and compassionate regulation of short-term rentals—not blanket bans that displace working residents.
* Policies to curb excessive resort pricing and fees, which are deterring family travel and smaller-scale tourism.
* Support for small businesses that depend on a balanced, sustainable visitor economy.
Please reconsider Bill 9 in its current form. The proposed changes will displace long-standing residents, cripple small businesses, and harm the heart of our Maui community.
Let’s work together on real, forward-thinking solutions—ones that keep current residents in their homes, build new opportunities for future generations, and allow all of us to continue thriving on this special island.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
My wife and I are Maui residents living full time in a small 2 bed/1 bath condo in Kihei that we specifically purchased in 2005 because it was on the Minatoya List and therefore legal for short-term rentals. Although our 18 unit complex has no amenities whatsoever, between landscaping, water and insurance HOAs are nearly $1000/mo and going up. HOAs of other complexes on the list are even higher.
What kind of "affordable" rentals add on an extra $1000+/mo before the owner sees a penny with which to pay property taxes, mortgage and upkeep? I'd need to charge minimum $3500-4000/mo to break even with a 20 year old low interest mortgage. Who in need of an affordable rental could afford that?
Instead of revoking established use rights from individual owners on the Minatoya List, build more affordable projects like the ones between Longs and Safeway in Kihei with new revenue streams from those who have already proven they can well afford large expenditures.
Revenue for affordable projects could be generated from a tourist tax on high end hotels that are already charging those who can well afford rooms $1000+ PER NIGHT! (not per month, per night!)
Charge resorts and golf courses more for their exorbitant water use while upcountry endures drought restrictions.
Add/increase a vacancy tax for non-resident owners whose "second", usually NOT "affordable" Maui vacation homes sit empty for weeks or months at a time... i.e. how much more revenue could the row of often vacant mansions lining Keawakapu Beach create for affordable housing projects? (one was recently auctioned for $25 million after once listing for $65 million)
How much could a Billionaire Builders Tax for Amazon Jeff, Lanai Larry and Oprah raise without the blink of an eye?
Why continue to squeeze the little guys when the wealthy are so much more able to afford such things?
DO NOT take away the long established use rights of those on the Minatoya List!
Testimony Before the Housing and Land Use Committee
Re: Support for Allowing Short-Term Rentals at Papakea Resort
Mark & Jody Nelson – Owner at Papakea, K304
June 8, 2025
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair U’u-Hodgins, and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the proposed zoning changes that would impact the ability of Papakea Resort to continue operating short-term rentals.
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
I respectfully urge you to preserve short-term rental (STR) rights for Papakea Resort for several critical reasons:
1. Historical Legality and Longstanding Use
Papakea was intentionally marketed and legally sold as a vacation rental property decades ago—well before zoning restrictions affecting apartment-zoned properties were put into place. For nearly 50 years, owners have operated their units as lawful short-term rentals, in full compliance with county regulations.
2. Not Workforce Housing – Never Was
Papakea has never functioned as workforce housing. It is not a case of a residential building converting into vacation rentals. In fact, the vast majority of units are under 600 square feet and are not practical for long-term family living. The property also has limited parking, further making it unsuitable for conversion to long-term housing.
3. Location & Resort Infrastructure
Papakea is not located in a residential neighborhood. It is situated alongside a long corridor of hotel-zoned properties and is directly adjacent to commercially-zoned areas. The property is structured and operated as a resort, with a front desk, activity concierge, shared recreational spaces, and full resort-style amenities—features not typical of long-term housing complexes.
4. Owner Investment and Reasonable Expectations
Papakea owners made their purchases with the reasonable and legally grounded expectation that short-term rentals were allowed, relying on county ordinances in place since 1989 and reaffirmed as recently as 2022. Many have made substantial investments in renovations, furnishings, mortgages—based on these laws and state and federal constitutional protections of investment-backed expectations. A retroactive removal of STR rights would not only be unfair, but legally questionable.
5. Employment and Economic Support
Papakea’s resort operations provide full-time, benefited employment for 35 local residents—some of whom have worked there for over 17 years. This includes individuals who started in entry-level roles and have grown into leadership positions. In addition, Papakea sustains a large network of local trades and contractors: HVAC technicians, plumbers, electricians, painters, general contractors, and more.
6. Support for Local Small Businesses and Entrepreneurs
Many local, resident-owned businesses rely directly on Papakea’s short-term rentals—housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and independent service providers. These small business owners set their own rates, schedules, and standards, allowing them the freedom and flexibility to thrive outside of the constraints of low-wage, corporate jobs. To eliminate STRs at Papakea is to eliminate their livelihoods and tell these hardworking community members to simply “get another job”—a deeply unfair and shortsighted outcome.
7. Tax Revenues and Economic Ripple Effect
Papakea owners and guests contribute significantly to the State of Hawaiʻi and the County of Maui through:
• Property taxes (many assessed at STR rates)
• Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)
• General Excise Tax (GET)
• Maui County TAT
Guests also support countless local small businesses—restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, shops, parks, and cultural sites—circulating tourism dollars into the heart of the community.
8. Community Engagement and Giving Back
Papakea owners and guests are not absentee landlords. Many participate in beach cleanups, local philanthropy, hospital volunteering, and support causes like the Maui Humane Society and local cultural preservation efforts. They are active, caring members of the community.
In Summary:
Papakea is a unique and established resort community with a clear legal history of short-term rental use, strong economic contributions, and deep community integration. It is not taking away from workforce housing. It is supporting Maui’s workers, businesses, and economy in measurable, meaningful ways.
I respectfully ask that you honor the legal history, the community contributions, and the very real lives that depend on Papakea’s continued operation as a short-term rental property.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark & Jody Nelson
3543 Loer Honoapiilani Road
Apartment K304
Lahaina, HI 96762
Aloha Maui County Council Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Morea Mendoza and I am the Director of Leadership and Operations at Pacific Birth Collective. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting women and families during their childbearing years. We strongly support Bill 9 and believe this measure is crucial for the wellness and stability of our community.
As an organization deeply embedded in the fabric of Maui’s community, we witness firsthand the challenges faced by families in securing stable housing. These challenges were only exasperated by the fires.
What I want to speak to today is the connection between of housing security, community support, and Maternal Health.
Housing security directly contributes to reduced stress and anxiety for pregnant women and postpartum mothers. This stability is crucial during pregnancy, as chronic stress can adversely affect maternal health and fetal development. Studies show that unstable housing conditions, such as homelessness or frequent moves, are associated with higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight infants. Both are issues we cannot afford, especially on Maui, as we have no neonatal intensive care unit. Stable housing reduces these risks by providing a consistent and supportive environment for maternal health.
With regards to community support - support during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum significantly improves the likelihood of positive birth outcomes. This includes reduced rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, and complications during delivery. Emotional and practical support should come not only from healthcare providers but also from partners, family members, and the communities we build around us. So where is the support if our communities are being forced to move away? The transient nature of TVRs disrupts the sense of community that is vital for supporting families during the vulnerable and transformative period of pregnancy, birth, and early parenthood.
By phasing out TVRs on the Minatoya list, Maui County has an opportunity to prioritize the immediate and essential needs of its residents. We urge you to consider the long-term benefits of this measure for the health and welfare of this generation of families and for the generations to come. This is just the first step in ensuring that families can continue to call Maui home with confidence and security.
Mahalo,
Morea Mendoza
Director of Leadership and Operations
Pacific Birth Collective Inc.
To the MAUI planning commission.
My name is Michelle Zambetti and I am a STR property owner as well as a full time resident. I'm writing this testimony to express my disappointment for a the elimination of the proposed legislation, aiming to eliminate over 7,000 STR units also as known as the Minatoya list zoned A1-A2. I am definitely opposing the proposed legislation to phase out the legal STR units in Maui that will directly affect the range of visitors that able to visit Maui and tremendously contribute to the local economy.
The elimination of the STR units is a detriment to the MAUI economy and for the local residents. The residents count definitely on tourism to provide jobs for their families in MAUI. When guests come to enjoy our Maui, they are able to have a more affordable option. The money that the guests are able to save will be spent on local merchants, such as, restaurants, coffee shops, gift, shops, gas stations, clothing stores, small mom and pop operations, airlines, rental cars companies, etc., etc. etc. The legal STR OWNERS will provide jobs as well for, HANDYMAN, Electricians, cleaners, plumbers, gardeners, property management, painters, mechanics, and many, many other jobs. All this money that the STR guests will bring to the table will provide a huge boost into the job sector providing security and serenity to the local families. In return the tax revenues generated by the thriving tourist contributions which is the heart of this economy will as well boost great funds for Maui county and therefore thrive with the a win win situation.
Again I would like to reiterate that I am against the proposal legislation to eliminate the legal STR's on the Minatoya zoned A1 – A2. To the MAUI planning commission please take into consideration my testimony and consideration for the success for the residents of the Maui county.
Aloha and good morning,
My family and I have been full time residents here on Maui for 6 years. I am in full support of Bill 9, as it will massively impact our community in a positive way.
Never should tourists be prioritized over our local families and community members. The community deserves better. We have people who are houseless, while these short term rentals sit empty, waiting for the next booking.
To the owners of these STRs, crying out that they will lose out on their investment, I say this:
Local families and community members have been losing out for YEARS.
Additionally, once a decision was made to rent out an Airbnb, the owners became business owners. Occasionally, things happen that can adversely affect your business. That is, in fact, the risk of doing business. Flip your STR to a long term rental, and maintain your investment.
It is beyond time for us to take care of our local families and community members, and stop prioritizing people and entities who are care not for Maui and its people, but for themselves and their pocketbooks.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is David Eckert, and my wife and I own a short-term rental property in Maui County. 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.
My wife and I have wanted to purchase a property in Maui since the 1990's, and the time never seemed right. We will be empty nesters this Fall, finally. We plan on moving to Maui after our youngest son graduates from College. The fact that we are permitted to rent our condominium out short-term is the only way that we can afford to keep our property for eventual relocation full-time to Hawaii. We made this decision on our unit because it is on the Minotoya list. We looked at other units that were less expensive, and we were told by agents that even though the units were not legal, Minatoya listed condominiums that owners were still renting them sometimes, short-term. This did not seem right to us. So, we paid a high price and obtained a much bigger loan from a local Hawaiian bank. Why not go after the folks who are not following to existing rules?
I work hard to be a good and community-oriented owner. I am still a certified scuba diving instructor, and I intend to purchase a boat when I move to Hawaii and run trips. If this bill passes, I don't know what I am going to do with my long-term goals. I suppose I could accelerate my plans and move to Hawaii. I would, however, like to stay a little longer with my youngest son to help him acclimate to college life. He is autistic, and he has special needs. I employ local service providers — cleaners, maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become like family over the years.
Some of my guests have small children have 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 the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David Eckert
david@eastbayhills.com
510-333-2150
My name is John, and I am a property owner in Maui who strongly opposes Bill 9.
This bill does not merely “close a loophole”—it attempts to erase long-established legal rights that have been on the books for over three decades. As stewards of the law, the County Council must recognize that rights granted by Ordinance 1797 in 1989 and codified in Section 19.12.020(G) of the Maui County Code are not discretionary, negotiable, or optional—they are vested property rights protected under state law and the U.S. Constitution.
1. The Law Was Clear in 1989—Minatoya Merely Reaffirmed It
When Ordinance 1797 was adopted in 1989, it explicitly preserved the legality of transient vacation rentals in A-1 and A-2 apartment zones for properties with valid permits as of April 20, 1989. This was not a policy favor or a loophole—it was a legally codified, constitutionally protected right. Section 19.12.020(G) of the County Code still reflects this protection.
The 2001 Minatoya Opinion didn’t create new law. It clarified the application of existing law, giving property owners, banks, and County staff clear, consistent guidance. Properties often referred to as “Minatoya List” units are not beneficiaries of a carveout—they are legal, vested, and long-recognized by Maui County itself.
2. Repealing These Rights Is a Legal and Financial Risk
If the County enacts Bill 9 and attempts to revoke these rights, it will almost certainly face well-founded legal challenges on constitutional grounds. Such actions are likely to be deemed a regulatory taking under both the Hawaiʻi and U.S. Constitutions. Leading land use scholars and legal authorities—such as Professor David Callies and former Attorney General David Louie—have warned that such an overreach could leave the County vulnerable to substantial litigation costs and damages.
Further, the Council has itself acknowledged these legal risks by allocating funds for an economic and legal impact study. Why rush to pass a law that would override existing statutes and invite lawsuits the County is likely to lose?
3. These Buildings Are Not Suitable for Affordable Housing
Even if Bill 9 were legally viable—which it is not—it would still fail on practical grounds. Many of the apartment-zoned buildings targeted by this bill were designed and built as vacation properties decades ago. They often lack adequate parking, storage, infrastructure, and soundproofing for long-term residential use. They have high maintenance fees and operating costs that make affordable long-term rental pricing impossible.
Assuming these units will become viable long-term housing is a fantasy unsupported by market realities. Most owners will be forced to sell or hold vacant, not convert to affordable rentals. This will only destabilize property values, devastate condo associations, and depress County revenues, all without adding meaningful affordable housing stock.
4. Economic Fallout: Maui Can’t Afford This
According to UHERO, the forced elimination of these legal units could result in:
Over $900 million in annual lost visitor spending
$60 million in reduced property tax revenues
Up to 1,900 lost jobs—equal to the employment impact of the Lahaina wildfires
This bill is economic self-sabotage at a time when Maui can least afford it.
5. A Better Path Forward
There is broad agreement that Maui faces a serious housing crisis. But the solution is not to punish legal operators or erase longstanding rights. Instead, the Council should:
Crack down on illegal and non-compliant vacation rentals
Incentivize the development of new, dedicated affordable housing
Support permitting reforms to speed up housing construction
Encourage voluntary long-term rental conversions through market-based incentives, not coercive legislation
Conclusion
Bill 9 is not just bad policy—it’s bad law. It undermines the rule of law, disregards vested rights, invites costly litigation, and fails to solve the affordable housing crisis. Let us focus on real, legally sound, and economically sustainable solutions.
My name is Robert Adams I'm a married full-time resident, and I run a small local business that’s really feeling the impacts of the drop in tourism. I wanted to share what this proposed phase-out of short-term rentals could mean for families like mine and the people we work with every day.
My business, depends on visitors who stay in short-term rentals. Many of them come back year after year, and they support local restaurants, shops, and tour companies — not just the big-name spots, but the mom-and-pop places that make Maui special. If these rentals go away, I worry we’ll lose those repeat visitors, and with them, a huge part of what keeps us going.
I also only use local workers — folks who rely on this work to take care of their families. We’re not just talking about numbers. These are real people — my neighbors, my friends — who are going to be hit hard if these jobs disappear.
This phase-out feels like it’s targeting the very people who are trying to make it here — local families doing our best to stay afloat. I understand there are concerns about housing, and I agree we need real solutions. But taking away our income without a clear plan just makes things harder.
We need the County to protect locals on every front — not just in housing, but in employment, education, services, and economic opportunity. We need a balanced approach, not one that removes critical sources of income and support.
Now there are many new housing projects that are in development and some that are open. With all of the increased building why do you still feel the need to take the vacation rentals away? This is the real question. It makes it seem that it is only to support the big business such as the Hotels and timeshares.
Please, don’t move forward with this phase-out. Work with us. Listen to us. Let’s find a way that protects our jobs, preserves our communities, and helps Maui thrive.
Mahalo for your time and for listening to our stories.
Sincerely,
Robert & Melissa Adams
483 S. Kihei Rd
My wife and I have owned a condo for 31 years in a west Maui Resort -- Kapalua Bay Villas and have used it for ourselves as well as making it available as a short term rental to defray the high costs of ownership in Hawaii. This has been legally consistent with the original design of the Kapalua Resort years before our purchase.
If you proceed to change the "rules of the road", it seems to us that this is particularly unfair and represents a violation of our rights as property owners who made a purchase decision consistent with the laws and original uses. In turn, this will also reduce the value of our property. We believe such a change "after the fact", should be accompanied by the County allowing a "grandfather category" which allows continued legal operation for us as a short term rental in areas that have historically been developed as resorts.
We also understand that some are suggesting that such a resort location as ours should pursue a rezone to a Resort/and or Hotel designation. If this becomes a recommended direction by the County, we hope that the County will develop a "fast track" process that facilitates this change. As we understand the process, a zoning change is usually an extended, costly process taking years to complete. This can be streamlined if the county leads the process to re-designate all the resort developments that also include condominiums and remove such projects from the "apartment" list.
🏠 1. Economic Foundations of Maui
• UHERO projects that removing approximately 6,000 TVR units would cut visitor spending by $900 million annually, leading to an estimated 1,900 job losses—equivalent to those lost in the Lahaina wildfire.
• Property taxes from these units currently generate $55–90 million, funding essential county services, such as housing, infrastructure, and wildfire recovery.
📉 2. Housing Supply & Affordability
• Converting all apartment-zoned TVRs might add ~6,000 long-term units—a decade’s worth of development—but UHERO warns of unintended consequences: reduced tourism, economic contraction, lost tax revenue, and fewer job opportunities.
• TVR owners earn 3–3.5× more than long-term rental income—without them, many local homeowners would be unable to afford to stay here .
⚖️ 3. Legal & Fair Use Rights
• Removing rights from conforming TVRs—those registered, taxed, permitted, and paying TAT/GST—is both unjust and potentially unlawful, as judicial decisions (e.g. in BC) have upheld protections for non-conforming uses .
• Authorities should focus on enforcing against illegal rentals, which violate zoning, safety, and tax regulations—not penalize homeowners who operate legally.
🛠️ 4. Community Impact
• Many TVRs are principal residences or owner-occupied homes; they support the local service economy, cultural exchange, and community resilience .
• Abrupt phase-outs risk displacement of hardworking families, harming Lahaina’s long-term recovery and social fabric.
✅ Balanced Approach Needed
• Address the HOA housing crisis with better enforcement of illegal units, incentives for affordable development, and improved permitting—not by penalizing lawful operators.
• Support responsible, regulated TVRs while directing Maui county development efforts to meaningful and inclusive long-term housing solutions!
I am a full time Maui resident who has lived here for over 40 years of my life. I have depended on South Maui short-term vacation rental owners to support my cleaning business which has been the primary source of income for myself, my husband and 2 children for over 25 years. My clients provide consistent work for not only myself, but the cleaners I work with, the handyman, the carpet cleaning company, the window cleaner, various appliance repairman, plumbers, electricians, painters, contractors that do remodeling, etc. So many other small businesses also rely on the dollars spent by guests that stay in these STR’s. Think of all the restaurants, food trucks, retail shops and various other activities in South Maui as well as the West side that are also dependent on their guests. We are all dependent in one way or another on tourism to sustain our life on Maui.
That being said, I strongly oppose a bill that will ban short term rentals in condominiums that are on the Minatoya list. This is not the answer to the housing crisis on our island. Doing so will cause many local people to loose their jobs and drive even more locals away from their homeland. These condos are small and not set up for families. They have limited parking stalls. The rent to offset the mortgage, association dues and assessments will not be considered affordable for most local families. I believe these condos will just sit empty and be used a vacation homes or be sold to foreigners that have the capital to purchase them which will only causing more problems. This is not the answer, we need to find another solution to the housing crisis.
I have personally put my blood, sweat and tears into building my cleaning business and hope that it will not come to an end that will force my family to move away from our home and all that we have worked so hard for.
Please do not move forward with this phase out of short term rentals. Handing over Maui tourism to the corporate hotel industry will not keep all of us local people working and will be catastrophic to Maui County in so many ways.
Sincerely,
Anita Cagasan
Neat and Tidy Condo Care
(808) 276-4523
To the MAUI planning commission.
My name is Francesco good morning, I am a STR property owner. I'm writing this testimony to express my disappointment for a the elimination of the proposed legislation, aiming to eliminate over 7,000 STR units also as known as the Minatoya list zoned A1-A2. I am definitely opposing the proposed legislation to phase out the legal STR units in Maui that will directly affect the range of visitors that able to visit Maui and tremendously contribute to the local economy.
The elimination of the STR units is a detriment to the MAUI economy and for the local residents. The residents count definitely on tourism to provide jobs for their families in MAUI. When guests come to enjoy our Maui, they are able to have a more affordable option. The money that the guests are able to save will be spent on local merchants, such as, restaurants, coffee shops, gift, shops, gas stations, clothing stores, small mom and pop operations, airlines, rental cars companies, etc., etc. etc. The legal STR OWNERS will provide jobs as well for, HANDYMAN, Electricians, cleaners, plumbers, gardeners, property management, painters, mechanics, and many, many other jobs. All this money that the STR
guests will bring to the table will provide a huge boost into the job sector providing security and serenity to the local families. In return the tax revenues generated by the thriving tourist contributions which is the heart of this economy will as well boost great funds for Maui county and therefore thrive with the a win win situation.
Again I would like to reiterate that I am against the proposal legislation to eliminate the legal STR's on the Minatoya zoned A1 – A2. To the MAUI planning commission please take into consideration my testimony and consideration for the success for the residents of the Maui county.
Sincerely,
Francesco Funiciello
310-980-1958
ffuniciello@me.com
Aloha Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 9 (2025). This bill would eliminate long-standing, legally operating short-term rentals—including timeshare usage—that have contributed positively to Maui’s economy and community for decades.
However, I do appreciate the amendment in the current draft (CD1) that exempts validly existing timeshare units and timeshare plans from the phase-out. If the Council moves forward with Bill 9, I urge you to retain this exemption as a minimum safeguard to prevent serious harm to owners, workers, and the local economy.
I am a timeshare owner at the Kuleana Club. Like hundreds of others, I own one week per year—not a second home, not an investment property. I return regularly, support local restaurants, spend at neighborhood shops, and have built lasting relationships on the island. Timeshare owners like me are part of a stable community of repeat visitors who care deeply about Maui’s well-being.
Timeshare properties are fundamentally different from vacation rentals. Units are deeded one week at a time to hundreds of families, which makes them impossible to convert to long-term housing. Including timeshares in a short-term rental ban would not create housing—but it would devastate workers and remove a reliable source of local tax revenue. Properties like Kuleana Club operate legally under Maui County Code 19.37.010, and are fully compliant with TAT and GET tax regulations. Our occupancy rates are high, and our owners consistently contribute to the island’s economy, even in difficult times.
More importantly, timeshares support stable jobs. Many employees at the Kuleana Club have been with the property for over 25 years. Several lost their homes in the Lahaina fire. If timeshare usage is eliminated, these long-standing staff members risk losing the only thing they have left—their livelihood.
Timeshare owners and resorts have also stepped up in times of crisis. The industry has contributed millions to wildfire recovery and donated thousands of room nights to displaced families and first responders. That commitment continues today.
In summary:
I urge you to oppose Bill 9 entirely.
But if it passes, please retain the CD1 amendment exempting timeshares.
Timeshares are not TVRs.
This exemption is a fair, balanced, and lawful solution that protects jobs, housing neutrality, and tax revenue—without compromising the County’s broader goals.
Mahalo for your time, your service, and for considering the perspective of owners like me.
Ryan & Karen
Kuleana Club Timeshare Owner – Unit 315, Week 32
As Lahaina residents, our family has lived, worked, and contributed to the community for over 15 years. We lost our home, our long-term and our short-term rental investments in the August 2023 fire — wiping out our livelihood & finances.
We fully understand the urgent need for affordable housing, but that responsibility falls on the County and developers — not on residents who have followed the rules, paid taxes, and invested in their properties legally for years.
Targeting small, law-abiding property owners does not solve the housing crisis — it only deepens the pain for families like ours, who are still fighting to return and rebuild.
Please support balanced solutions that create real housing options without punishing those already suffering.
Hawaii Appleseed is submitting testimony in strong support of Bill 9 (2025), which seeks to phase out transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts across Maui.
Hawai‘i Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing systemic change to address the root causes of economic insecurity and inequality in our state. Through research, policy development, legislative advocacy, and community engagement, we work to build a more just and equitable Hawai‘i. Our focus areas include affordable housing, transportation equity, food security, and expanding access to economic opportunity.
Hawaii Appleseed recognizes Bill 9 (2025) as a meaningful step toward realigning housing policy with the needs of local residents.
The proliferation of TVRs has been widely identified as a significant contributor to a city's housing crisis. They negatively impact both the availability and affordability of homes for long-term residents. By directly removing units from the long-term rental market, TVRs intensify supply constraints that result in higher rents and inflated home values.
Investors capitalize on TVR demand by buying and renting properties for exclusive TVR use, evidenced by the 13,000 TVR units on Maui - accounting for nearly 21% of Maui’s housing stock. According to AirDNA, a short term rental data analytics site, the average rate for a vacation rental in 2024 in Maui was $472.48 per night. The average annual revenue for TVR owners this past year was $94,200 equating to $7,850/month, significantly higher than the median asking rent of $2,400 per month.
This creates strong financial incentives for property owners to favor short-term rental use over long-term tenancies. Additionally, the commercialization of residential homes for use as TVRs can create market externalities that increase nearby property values by influencing comparable sales and fueling speculative expectations. This upward pressure on prices contributes to housing cost inflation that outpaces local income growth, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to afford homes.
Housing affordability also cannot be addressed without significantly increasing the supply of homes available for local residents. Yet TVRs have fundamentally undermined this goal by preventing new affordable development from meaningfully expanding the housing stock. Even when new housing units were added, the net residential housing supply on Maui remained essentially unchanged from 2018-2022, as any marginal new construction was immediately absorbed or replaced by conversions to vacation rentals.
This problem is compounded by resource constraints, particularly water availability, which further limit the feasibility of new housing construction. In water-scarce West Maui, this impact is already preventing affordable housing from being built. Tourist accommodations exacerbate this problem by disproportionately consuming high amounts of water, energy, and waste services, compared to residential units. Continuing to allow short-term rentals in apartment-zoned areas means that scarce water and infrastructure capacity is allocated to visitors rather than residents.
There are approximately 6,172 active STRs under the Minatoya list, primarily located in residential apartment-zoned districts, that are permitted to continue TVR operations despite their non-conforming status. By withdrawing their permitted status through Bull 9, Maui can return these properties to the long-term housing market and potentially increase Maui’s long-term residential housing stock by 13%. This would represent the equivalent of ten years' worth of housing production on Maui, without breaking ground or straining public infrastructure. According to UHERO, full phase out of all the Minatoya properties could also result in rents dropping by 6-14% and condo prices declining by 20-40%. This would be a much-needed relief to local residents struggling to find affordable housing.
As outlined in the UHERO report, several mitigating factors may dampen the policy’s expected impact on housing affordability.The phase-out of non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas does not guarantee that all affected units will immediately transition to long-term residential use, meaning the impact on housing affordability may not fully materialize. Additionally, the policy may result in only a one-time downward shock in prices, maintaining prices at a lower trajectory than they would have followed without intervention but still continuing to rise at the same rate as before. The phase out may also carry risks associated with losses in visitor spending, employment, income and tax revenue.
Although the phase-out of non-conforming TVRs may affect visitor-related revenue, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of the visitor demand displaced by the residential conversion of Minatoya List condominium units could be absorbed by existing hotel capacity. In 2023, Maui hotels operated at an average occupancy rate of 66.1% across a total supply of 13,730 rooms, leaving approximately 4,660 hotel rooms vacant each night. While hotel accommodations may not meet the needs of all visitors previously served by vacation rentals, and hotel inventory may not fully offset the volume of STR units, a substantial share of visitors could still be accommodated. As a result, visitor spending and some local employment would likely shift rather than disappear entirely, helping to mitigate the broader economic impact on the visitor industry.
Additionally, housing can function as critical economic infrastructure. When housing is scarce or unaffordable, businesses across all sectors - not just tourism - face challenges in hiring and retaining employees. Hawaii has experienced consistent net out-migration of working-age adults, with housing unaffordability cited as the primary reason. This exodus has created severe workforce shortages across critical sectors. Hawaii faces one of the worst physician shortages in the U.S., across all specialties; The Department of Education reports significant teacher vacancies; and DBEDT continues to report slow labor growth. Continued out-migration of families and workers such as teachers, healthcare professionals, first responders, and cultural practitioners could pose a far greater long-term threat to Maui’s economy than a calibrated reduction in the number of tourist accommodations.
While Bill 9 will not resolve Maui's housing crisis alone, this does not justify continued permitting of non-conforming TVRs - especially when additional policy tools are available to address these concerns without compromising zoning integrity. The TVR ban creates a critical window of opportunity by temporarily reducing housing prices, allowing time to implement complementary measures - such as those recommended by UHERO - that can work in tandem with the phase-out. These policies can help maximize the conversion of units into long-term housing and maintain or even exceed current levels of tax revenue, serving as a supplement to the TVR phase-out rather than a replacement for it.
Maui County’s effort to phase out non-conforming STRs also rests on a solid legal foundation. State law explicitly grants this power and encourages its use to address housing shortages. Courts have also consistently upheld the authority of local governments to regulate land use through zoning, including the right to prohibit certain uses such as TVRs. Evidenced in rulings such as Short Term Rental Alliance of San Diego vs City of San Diego (2021) and Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans (2022) federal courts ruled in favor of the cities and found no constitutional takings as long as owners retained core property rights (such as living in it, selling it, or renting it long-term) and that property owners do not have a vested right to operate transient vacation rentals. Additionally, a federal judge also ruled that San Diego’s amortization period of 2 years was sufficient in providing fair notice and transition time to property owners.
However, the proposed exemption of timeshares from the TVR ban may weaken the county’s legal position. Although timeshares differ structurally from other short-term rentals, their continued allowance could invite equal protection claims from STR owners who argue they are being treated unfairly compared to similarly situated properties. In the previously mentioned New Orleans case, the city’s initial TVR regulations requiring owner occupancy were struck down by the courts due to violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause - discriminating against non local property owners when nondiscriminatory alternatives existed. Because the STR regulation was not uniformly applied, the cities’ TVR provisions were deemed favoring certain classes of transient accommodations. The ruling found that the provisions also undermined the jurisdiction’s legal rationale to protect housing affordability which increased their vulnerability to other constitutional challenges. An unexplained exemption for timeshares could be construed as undermining the county’s stated purpose of preserving residential housing and preventing the overconsumption of limited resources like water and infrastructure capacity. To maintain the legal integrity of Bill 9, Maui County should reconsider the exemption entirely.
Bill 9 represents a step to reclaim housing for Maui residents and realign our land use policies with community needs. While no single policy can solve the housing crisis, phasing out non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas addresses a major structural barrier to affordability and opens the door to additional solutions. By advancing this measure, Maui County has the opportunity to protect its residents and preserve its housing. Hawaii Appleseed respectfully urges the Council to pass Bill 9 without exemptions and promote a more equitable housing landscape.
Aloha Committee Members,
I moved to Maui 38 years ago from Oahu. My ancestors are from Maui County, and my children and grandchildren live here. Maui is my home.
I work in the vacation rental industry. Our company employs 20 local residents and uses around 75 cleaners and maintenance workers. All of the independent contractors are licensed small business owners. Our guests spend their money in restaurants, activities, and other businesses around Maui. If this bill passes, my company and those we work with would be greatly impacted so I oppose this bill.
The properties on the Minatoya list are older properties that are now requiring costly repairs such as roofing, plumbing, and concrete work. The cost of these repairs is paid for by owners through special assessments that can be tens of thousands of dollars per owner, sometimes payable within one year. This means, in addition to their mortgage, property tax, insurance, and homeowner association fees, they also must come up with $20- or $30,000. For local families trying to make ends meet, adding a special assessment would be a real hardship. It’s not realistic to think these properties will be affordable to buy or to rent long-term.
I agree that Maui has a housing crisis. I don’t agree that removing the short-term rental option for Minatoya properties is the answer as it will not translate into affordable housing. Instead, I suggest we focus on shutting down illegal STRs, building affordable homes, and creating financing options with lower-than-market interest rates.
Mahalo,
Lisa Bryant
Aloha, my name is Joseph and I was born in upcountry and now live in North Kihei. I wish to express opposition to this bill as it will significantly reduce our local business (housekeeping and maintenance for 5 resort complexes along Kihei Rd). The STR units we look after pay living wages to our employees and their owners are very respectful. They and their guests also support numerous businesses all around the county.
All these units have been operating as STRs for over 40 years and most of these buildings are old and very costly to maintain. It's quite hard to understand how anyone can rent these units long term when the HOA alone of a one-bedroom is $1,500 a month. These places are NOT affordable and will cost more to maintain as time goes by. I understand these places pay a significant amount of taxes to continue operating as an STR. Why have we not used these tax revenue to build affordable housing??
Mahalo!
I have a condo that would be affected by this legislature. However, if the legislation is passed it won't have the effect intended, in fact it will have just the opposite.
I currently rent my condo by the day. If I'm no longer allowed to do this I will NOT rent it by the month as Maui County hopes I will. I can't rent my condo by the month for anywhere close to what I get by renting it by the day; in fact renting it by the month won't even pay for my expenses. In addition, if I rent my condo long-term I won't have the ability to use it myself. Currently, I travel to Maui at least three times a year and I'm able to do that because I rent my condo by the day and I can block time for myself. So first off, if this legislation passes, my condo will not create a residence for a local family because I won't rent it long-term. That explains why this legislation won't accomplish it's intended goal. Now let me explain why it will actually HURT Maui County.
Because I rent my condo by the day, Maui County benefits from me in several ways. One significant way is that I pay a hotel tax which is a significant amount of money. If the legislation passes and I no longer rent my condo, this revenue stream for Maui County goes away. Secondly, I employ a local person to clean my condo between guests. This amounts to the equivalent of over a month of work for a local person per year. Again, if I no longer rent my condo then I will no longer need this service and my cleaning person loses this business.
So by passing this legislation, no additional housing for local residences is created, but funding for Maui County is lost and unemployment goes up. So the net effect is it's a loss for me, it's a loss for Maui County, and it's a loss for Maui County citizens, while no one gains anything. There is absolutely no reason to pass this bill. It makes no sense whatsoever and seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the devastating wildfires. Now that we can sit back and think about whether this will help the situation it's clear that this bill will not help and should be rejected.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Kimiko Hosaki, and I am submitting this testimony in strong opposition to the amendments proposed in Bill 9.
Growing up with my family on Oʻahu, it was a dream of mine from a young age to move to Maui and build a life on this beautiful island. Over the past 11 years, I’ve done exactly that. I moved to Maui, built a successful business that employs local residents, and supported hundreds of small businesses through the wedding and events industry—bringing millions in group business to the island over the years. In 2019, after years of saving and working full-time as a resident, I was finally able to purchase a home in Kīhei in a building where I loved the residents and the location allowed me to get home quickly from work. It was a major milestone—an opportunity to root my family and livelihood in the community I love.
Then came the pandemic. Like many in the wedding and events industry, my business was hit hard. My husband had to accept employment on the mainland, and I began commuting back and forth to Maui for work with our infant son. Just as we were preparing to return to Maui full-time, the devastating wildfires struck—disrupting the economy, further slowing business, and delaying our plans to return home.
Today, I still operate my business on Maui and return for extended stays—ranging from two to six weeks—often with my now four-year-old son, who lovingly refers to our condo as his “Maui home.” When we are away, we rent our unit at Haleakalā Shores to visitors. This is not a vacation property or speculative investment—it is our family’s primary residence and a vital part of our ability to afford to stay connected to Maui. Without the ability to rent our home short-term, we would not be able to cover our mortgage and rising HOA fees, which have doubled since the fires.
I am not alone. I’ve spoken with longtime residents in our building, many of whom are seniors who rely on short-term rentals for a few months each year while they visit family or escape the hottest months for health reasons. They’ve lived on Maui for decades and do not want to leave—but if this bill passes, they may be forced to, simply because they can no longer afford the costs.
While well-intentioned, the amendments to this bill will have unintended consequences that hurt the very residents it aims to protect. It does not create housing—it displaces current homeowners. It does not improve affordability—it removes a critical financial tool that helps local families remain on island.
These changes are already negatively affecting Maui’s wedding and events industry with the couple’s anticipating the outcome. We are seeing a decline in bookings because wedding groups cannot afford to stay in costly resort hotels and are concerned with the international news of short term rentals being banned which could leave them without accommodations as their wedding approaches. In the past two weeks alone, I’ve spoken with five seasoned wedding business owners—each operating on Maui for over a decade—who are seriously considering relocating to the Big Island or shutting down entirely. I myself have had to take my events to international locations because the level of business just is not available on Maui anymore. This industry is not just about weddings—it sustains florists, caterers, musicians, nail salons, bakeries, photographers, stationery designers, makers of local gifts, and so many others. Our local economy suffers when we lose this ecosystem.
In my opinion, what Maui truly needs is:
* A comprehensive housing strategy focused on building new, affordable homes.
* Reduced permitting barriers for local families and small-scale development.
* Practical and compassionate regulation of short-term rentals—not blanket bans that displace working residents.
* Policies to curb excessive resort pricing and fees, which are deterring family travel and smaller-scale tourism.
* Support for small businesses that depend on a balanced, sustainable visitor economy.
Please reconsider Bill 9 in its current form. The proposed changes will displace long-standing residents, cripple small businesses, and harm the heart of our Maui community.
Let’s work together on real, forward-thinking solutions—ones that keep current residents in their homes, build new opportunities for future generations, and allow all of us to continue thriving on this special island.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Mahalo nui loa,
Kimiko Hosaki
My wife and I are Maui residents living full time in a small 2 bed/1 bath condo in Kihei that we specifically purchased in 2005 because it was on the Minatoya List and therefore legal for short-term rentals. Although our 18 unit complex has no amenities whatsoever, between landscaping, water and insurance HOAs are nearly $1000/mo and going up. HOAs of other complexes on the list are even higher.
What kind of "affordable" rentals add on an extra $1000+/mo before the owner sees a penny with which to pay property taxes, mortgage and upkeep? I'd need to charge minimum $3500-4000/mo to break even with a 20 year old low interest mortgage. Who in need of an affordable rental could afford that?
Instead of revoking established use rights from individual owners on the Minatoya List, build more affordable projects like the ones between Longs and Safeway in Kihei with new revenue streams from those who have already proven they can well afford large expenditures.
Revenue for affordable projects could be generated from a tourist tax on high end hotels that are already charging those who can well afford rooms $1000+ PER NIGHT! (not per month, per night!)
Charge resorts and golf courses more for their exorbitant water use while upcountry endures drought restrictions.
Add/increase a vacancy tax for non-resident owners whose "second", usually NOT "affordable" Maui vacation homes sit empty for weeks or months at a time... i.e. how much more revenue could the row of often vacant mansions lining Keawakapu Beach create for affordable housing projects? (one was recently auctioned for $25 million after once listing for $65 million)
How much could a Billionaire Builders Tax for Amazon Jeff, Lanai Larry and Oprah raise without the blink of an eye?
Why continue to squeeze the little guys when the wealthy are so much more able to afford such things?
DO NOT take away the long established use rights of those on the Minatoya List!
Testimony Before the Housing and Land Use Committee
Re: Support for Allowing Short-Term Rentals at Papakea Resort
Mark & Jody Nelson – Owner at Papakea, K304
June 8, 2025
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair U’u-Hodgins, and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the proposed zoning changes that would impact the ability of Papakea Resort to continue operating short-term rentals.
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning.
I respectfully urge you to preserve short-term rental (STR) rights for Papakea Resort for several critical reasons:
1. Historical Legality and Longstanding Use
Papakea was intentionally marketed and legally sold as a vacation rental property decades ago—well before zoning restrictions affecting apartment-zoned properties were put into place. For nearly 50 years, owners have operated their units as lawful short-term rentals, in full compliance with county regulations.
2. Not Workforce Housing – Never Was
Papakea has never functioned as workforce housing. It is not a case of a residential building converting into vacation rentals. In fact, the vast majority of units are under 600 square feet and are not practical for long-term family living. The property also has limited parking, further making it unsuitable for conversion to long-term housing.
3. Location & Resort Infrastructure
Papakea is not located in a residential neighborhood. It is situated alongside a long corridor of hotel-zoned properties and is directly adjacent to commercially-zoned areas. The property is structured and operated as a resort, with a front desk, activity concierge, shared recreational spaces, and full resort-style amenities—features not typical of long-term housing complexes.
4. Owner Investment and Reasonable Expectations
Papakea owners made their purchases with the reasonable and legally grounded expectation that short-term rentals were allowed, relying on county ordinances in place since 1989 and reaffirmed as recently as 2022. Many have made substantial investments in renovations, furnishings, mortgages—based on these laws and state and federal constitutional protections of investment-backed expectations. A retroactive removal of STR rights would not only be unfair, but legally questionable.
5. Employment and Economic Support
Papakea’s resort operations provide full-time, benefited employment for 35 local residents—some of whom have worked there for over 17 years. This includes individuals who started in entry-level roles and have grown into leadership positions. In addition, Papakea sustains a large network of local trades and contractors: HVAC technicians, plumbers, electricians, painters, general contractors, and more.
6. Support for Local Small Businesses and Entrepreneurs
Many local, resident-owned businesses rely directly on Papakea’s short-term rentals—housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and independent service providers. These small business owners set their own rates, schedules, and standards, allowing them the freedom and flexibility to thrive outside of the constraints of low-wage, corporate jobs. To eliminate STRs at Papakea is to eliminate their livelihoods and tell these hardworking community members to simply “get another job”—a deeply unfair and shortsighted outcome.
7. Tax Revenues and Economic Ripple Effect
Papakea owners and guests contribute significantly to the State of Hawaiʻi and the County of Maui through:
• Property taxes (many assessed at STR rates)
• Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)
• General Excise Tax (GET)
• Maui County TAT
Guests also support countless local small businesses—restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, shops, parks, and cultural sites—circulating tourism dollars into the heart of the community.
8. Community Engagement and Giving Back
Papakea owners and guests are not absentee landlords. Many participate in beach cleanups, local philanthropy, hospital volunteering, and support causes like the Maui Humane Society and local cultural preservation efforts. They are active, caring members of the community.
In Summary:
Papakea is a unique and established resort community with a clear legal history of short-term rental use, strong economic contributions, and deep community integration. It is not taking away from workforce housing. It is supporting Maui’s workers, businesses, and economy in measurable, meaningful ways.
I respectfully ask that you honor the legal history, the community contributions, and the very real lives that depend on Papakea’s continued operation as a short-term rental property.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark & Jody Nelson
3543 Loer Honoapiilani Road
Apartment K304
Lahaina, HI 96762
Testimony in SUPPORT of Bill 9
Aloha Maui County Council Housing and Land Use Committee,
My name is Morea Mendoza and I am the Director of Leadership and Operations at Pacific Birth Collective. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting women and families during their childbearing years. We strongly support Bill 9 and believe this measure is crucial for the wellness and stability of our community.
As an organization deeply embedded in the fabric of Maui’s community, we witness firsthand the challenges faced by families in securing stable housing. These challenges were only exasperated by the fires.
What I want to speak to today is the connection between of housing security, community support, and Maternal Health.
Housing security directly contributes to reduced stress and anxiety for pregnant women and postpartum mothers. This stability is crucial during pregnancy, as chronic stress can adversely affect maternal health and fetal development. Studies show that unstable housing conditions, such as homelessness or frequent moves, are associated with higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight infants. Both are issues we cannot afford, especially on Maui, as we have no neonatal intensive care unit. Stable housing reduces these risks by providing a consistent and supportive environment for maternal health.
With regards to community support - support during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum significantly improves the likelihood of positive birth outcomes. This includes reduced rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, and complications during delivery. Emotional and practical support should come not only from healthcare providers but also from partners, family members, and the communities we build around us. So where is the support if our communities are being forced to move away? The transient nature of TVRs disrupts the sense of community that is vital for supporting families during the vulnerable and transformative period of pregnancy, birth, and early parenthood.
By phasing out TVRs on the Minatoya list, Maui County has an opportunity to prioritize the immediate and essential needs of its residents. We urge you to consider the long-term benefits of this measure for the health and welfare of this generation of families and for the generations to come. This is just the first step in ensuring that families can continue to call Maui home with confidence and security.
Mahalo,
Morea Mendoza
Director of Leadership and Operations
Pacific Birth Collective Inc.
To the MAUI planning commission.
My name is Michelle Zambetti and I am a STR property owner as well as a full time resident. I'm writing this testimony to express my disappointment for a the elimination of the proposed legislation, aiming to eliminate over 7,000 STR units also as known as the Minatoya list zoned A1-A2. I am definitely opposing the proposed legislation to phase out the legal STR units in Maui that will directly affect the range of visitors that able to visit Maui and tremendously contribute to the local economy.
The elimination of the STR units is a detriment to the MAUI economy and for the local residents. The residents count definitely on tourism to provide jobs for their families in MAUI. When guests come to enjoy our Maui, they are able to have a more affordable option. The money that the guests are able to save will be spent on local merchants, such as, restaurants, coffee shops, gift, shops, gas stations, clothing stores, small mom and pop operations, airlines, rental cars companies, etc., etc. etc. The legal STR OWNERS will provide jobs as well for, HANDYMAN, Electricians, cleaners, plumbers, gardeners, property management, painters, mechanics, and many, many other jobs. All this money that the STR guests will bring to the table will provide a huge boost into the job sector providing security and serenity to the local families. In return the tax revenues generated by the thriving tourist contributions which is the heart of this economy will as well boost great funds for Maui county and therefore thrive with the a win win situation.
Again I would like to reiterate that I am against the proposal legislation to eliminate the legal STR's on the Minatoya zoned A1 – A2. To the MAUI planning commission please take into consideration my testimony and consideration for the success for the residents of the Maui county.
Sincerely,
Michelle Zambetti
808-871-2396
michelle@mauicatz.com
Aloha and good morning,
My family and I have been full time residents here on Maui for 6 years. I am in full support of Bill 9, as it will massively impact our community in a positive way.
Never should tourists be prioritized over our local families and community members. The community deserves better. We have people who are houseless, while these short term rentals sit empty, waiting for the next booking.
To the owners of these STRs, crying out that they will lose out on their investment, I say this:
Local families and community members have been losing out for YEARS.
Additionally, once a decision was made to rent out an Airbnb, the owners became business owners. Occasionally, things happen that can adversely affect your business. That is, in fact, the risk of doing business. Flip your STR to a long term rental, and maintain your investment.
It is beyond time for us to take care of our local families and community members, and stop prioritizing people and entities who are care not for Maui and its people, but for themselves and their pocketbooks.
Mahalo for your time.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is David Eckert, and my wife and I own a short-term rental property in Maui County. 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.
My wife and I have wanted to purchase a property in Maui since the 1990's, and the time never seemed right. We will be empty nesters this Fall, finally. We plan on moving to Maui after our youngest son graduates from College. The fact that we are permitted to rent our condominium out short-term is the only way that we can afford to keep our property for eventual relocation full-time to Hawaii. We made this decision on our unit because it is on the Minotoya list. We looked at other units that were less expensive, and we were told by agents that even though the units were not legal, Minatoya listed condominiums that owners were still renting them sometimes, short-term. This did not seem right to us. So, we paid a high price and obtained a much bigger loan from a local Hawaiian bank. Why not go after the folks who are not following to existing rules?
I work hard to be a good and community-oriented owner. I am still a certified scuba diving instructor, and I intend to purchase a boat when I move to Hawaii and run trips. If this bill passes, I don't know what I am going to do with my long-term goals. I suppose I could accelerate my plans and move to Hawaii. I would, however, like to stay a little longer with my youngest son to help him acclimate to college life. He is autistic, and he has special needs. I employ local service providers — cleaners, maintenance techs, and landscapers — many of whom have become like family over the years.
Some of my guests have small children have 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 the economy, and holds STR owners to high standards, instead of phasing us out completely.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David Eckert
david@eastbayhills.com
510-333-2150
Testimony OPPOSING Bill 9
Aloha Chair and Council Members,
My name is John, and I am a property owner in Maui who strongly opposes Bill 9.
This bill does not merely “close a loophole”—it attempts to erase long-established legal rights that have been on the books for over three decades. As stewards of the law, the County Council must recognize that rights granted by Ordinance 1797 in 1989 and codified in Section 19.12.020(G) of the Maui County Code are not discretionary, negotiable, or optional—they are vested property rights protected under state law and the U.S. Constitution.
1. The Law Was Clear in 1989—Minatoya Merely Reaffirmed It
When Ordinance 1797 was adopted in 1989, it explicitly preserved the legality of transient vacation rentals in A-1 and A-2 apartment zones for properties with valid permits as of April 20, 1989. This was not a policy favor or a loophole—it was a legally codified, constitutionally protected right. Section 19.12.020(G) of the County Code still reflects this protection.
The 2001 Minatoya Opinion didn’t create new law. It clarified the application of existing law, giving property owners, banks, and County staff clear, consistent guidance. Properties often referred to as “Minatoya List” units are not beneficiaries of a carveout—they are legal, vested, and long-recognized by Maui County itself.
2. Repealing These Rights Is a Legal and Financial Risk
If the County enacts Bill 9 and attempts to revoke these rights, it will almost certainly face well-founded legal challenges on constitutional grounds. Such actions are likely to be deemed a regulatory taking under both the Hawaiʻi and U.S. Constitutions. Leading land use scholars and legal authorities—such as Professor David Callies and former Attorney General David Louie—have warned that such an overreach could leave the County vulnerable to substantial litigation costs and damages.
Further, the Council has itself acknowledged these legal risks by allocating funds for an economic and legal impact study. Why rush to pass a law that would override existing statutes and invite lawsuits the County is likely to lose?
3. These Buildings Are Not Suitable for Affordable Housing
Even if Bill 9 were legally viable—which it is not—it would still fail on practical grounds. Many of the apartment-zoned buildings targeted by this bill were designed and built as vacation properties decades ago. They often lack adequate parking, storage, infrastructure, and soundproofing for long-term residential use. They have high maintenance fees and operating costs that make affordable long-term rental pricing impossible.
Assuming these units will become viable long-term housing is a fantasy unsupported by market realities. Most owners will be forced to sell or hold vacant, not convert to affordable rentals. This will only destabilize property values, devastate condo associations, and depress County revenues, all without adding meaningful affordable housing stock.
4. Economic Fallout: Maui Can’t Afford This
According to UHERO, the forced elimination of these legal units could result in:
Over $900 million in annual lost visitor spending
$60 million in reduced property tax revenues
Up to 1,900 lost jobs—equal to the employment impact of the Lahaina wildfires
This bill is economic self-sabotage at a time when Maui can least afford it.
5. A Better Path Forward
There is broad agreement that Maui faces a serious housing crisis. But the solution is not to punish legal operators or erase longstanding rights. Instead, the Council should:
Crack down on illegal and non-compliant vacation rentals
Incentivize the development of new, dedicated affordable housing
Support permitting reforms to speed up housing construction
Encourage voluntary long-term rental conversions through market-based incentives, not coercive legislation
Conclusion
Bill 9 is not just bad policy—it’s bad law. It undermines the rule of law, disregards vested rights, invites costly litigation, and fails to solve the affordable housing crisis. Let us focus on real, legally sound, and economically sustainable solutions.
Please reject Bill 9.
Mahalo for your time and consideration,
John V.
Nohonani
3723 Lower Honoapiilani Road
I submitted testimony yesterday but forgot to click in OPPOSE.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Robert Adams I'm a married full-time resident, and I run a small local business that’s really feeling the impacts of the drop in tourism. I wanted to share what this proposed phase-out of short-term rentals could mean for families like mine and the people we work with every day.
My business, depends on visitors who stay in short-term rentals. Many of them come back year after year, and they support local restaurants, shops, and tour companies — not just the big-name spots, but the mom-and-pop places that make Maui special. If these rentals go away, I worry we’ll lose those repeat visitors, and with them, a huge part of what keeps us going.
I also only use local workers — folks who rely on this work to take care of their families. We’re not just talking about numbers. These are real people — my neighbors, my friends — who are going to be hit hard if these jobs disappear.
This phase-out feels like it’s targeting the very people who are trying to make it here — local families doing our best to stay afloat. I understand there are concerns about housing, and I agree we need real solutions. But taking away our income without a clear plan just makes things harder.
We need the County to protect locals on every front — not just in housing, but in employment, education, services, and economic opportunity. We need a balanced approach, not one that removes critical sources of income and support.
Now there are many new housing projects that are in development and some that are open. With all of the increased building why do you still feel the need to take the vacation rentals away? This is the real question. It makes it seem that it is only to support the big business such as the Hotels and timeshares.
Please, don’t move forward with this phase-out. Work with us. Listen to us. Let’s find a way that protects our jobs, preserves our communities, and helps Maui thrive.
Mahalo for your time and for listening to our stories.
Sincerely,
Robert & Melissa Adams
483 S. Kihei Rd
Greetings Committee Members,
My wife and I have owned a condo for 31 years in a west Maui Resort -- Kapalua Bay Villas and have used it for ourselves as well as making it available as a short term rental to defray the high costs of ownership in Hawaii. This has been legally consistent with the original design of the Kapalua Resort years before our purchase.
If you proceed to change the "rules of the road", it seems to us that this is particularly unfair and represents a violation of our rights as property owners who made a purchase decision consistent with the laws and original uses. In turn, this will also reduce the value of our property. We believe such a change "after the fact", should be accompanied by the County allowing a "grandfather category" which allows continued legal operation for us as a short term rental in areas that have historically been developed as resorts.
We also understand that some are suggesting that such a resort location as ours should pursue a rezone to a Resort/and or Hotel designation. If this becomes a recommended direction by the County, we hope that the County will develop a "fast track" process that facilitates this change. As we understand the process, a zoning change is usually an extended, costly process taking years to complete. This can be streamlined if the county leads the process to re-designate all the resort developments that also include condominiums and remove such projects from the "apartment" list.
We appreciate your consideration.
Gregg and Martha Anderson
Kapalua Bay Villas
Aloha
I oppose Bill 9
🏠 1. Economic Foundations of Maui
• UHERO projects that removing approximately 6,000 TVR units would cut visitor spending by $900 million annually, leading to an estimated 1,900 job losses—equivalent to those lost in the Lahaina wildfire.
• Property taxes from these units currently generate $55–90 million, funding essential county services, such as housing, infrastructure, and wildfire recovery.
📉 2. Housing Supply & Affordability
• Converting all apartment-zoned TVRs might add ~6,000 long-term units—a decade’s worth of development—but UHERO warns of unintended consequences: reduced tourism, economic contraction, lost tax revenue, and fewer job opportunities.
• TVR owners earn 3–3.5× more than long-term rental income—without them, many local homeowners would be unable to afford to stay here .
⚖️ 3. Legal & Fair Use Rights
• Removing rights from conforming TVRs—those registered, taxed, permitted, and paying TAT/GST—is both unjust and potentially unlawful, as judicial decisions (e.g. in BC) have upheld protections for non-conforming uses .
• Authorities should focus on enforcing against illegal rentals, which violate zoning, safety, and tax regulations—not penalize homeowners who operate legally.
🛠️ 4. Community Impact
• Many TVRs are principal residences or owner-occupied homes; they support the local service economy, cultural exchange, and community resilience .
• Abrupt phase-outs risk displacement of hardworking families, harming Lahaina’s long-term recovery and social fabric.
✅ Balanced Approach Needed
• Address the HOA housing crisis with better enforcement of illegal units, incentives for affordable development, and improved permitting—not by penalizing lawful operators.
• Support responsible, regulated TVRs while directing Maui county development efforts to meaningful and inclusive long-term housing solutions!
Mahalo for considering my perspective
Aloha Committee Members,
I am a full time Maui resident who has lived here for over 40 years of my life. I have depended on South Maui short-term vacation rental owners to support my cleaning business which has been the primary source of income for myself, my husband and 2 children for over 25 years. My clients provide consistent work for not only myself, but the cleaners I work with, the handyman, the carpet cleaning company, the window cleaner, various appliance repairman, plumbers, electricians, painters, contractors that do remodeling, etc. So many other small businesses also rely on the dollars spent by guests that stay in these STR’s. Think of all the restaurants, food trucks, retail shops and various other activities in South Maui as well as the West side that are also dependent on their guests. We are all dependent in one way or another on tourism to sustain our life on Maui.
That being said, I strongly oppose a bill that will ban short term rentals in condominiums that are on the Minatoya list. This is not the answer to the housing crisis on our island. Doing so will cause many local people to loose their jobs and drive even more locals away from their homeland. These condos are small and not set up for families. They have limited parking stalls. The rent to offset the mortgage, association dues and assessments will not be considered affordable for most local families. I believe these condos will just sit empty and be used a vacation homes or be sold to foreigners that have the capital to purchase them which will only causing more problems. This is not the answer, we need to find another solution to the housing crisis.
I have personally put my blood, sweat and tears into building my cleaning business and hope that it will not come to an end that will force my family to move away from our home and all that we have worked so hard for.
Please do not move forward with this phase out of short term rentals. Handing over Maui tourism to the corporate hotel industry will not keep all of us local people working and will be catastrophic to Maui County in so many ways.
Sincerely,
Anita Cagasan
Neat and Tidy Condo Care
(808) 276-4523
To the MAUI planning commission.
My name is Francesco good morning, I am a STR property owner. I'm writing this testimony to express my disappointment for a the elimination of the proposed legislation, aiming to eliminate over 7,000 STR units also as known as the Minatoya list zoned A1-A2. I am definitely opposing the proposed legislation to phase out the legal STR units in Maui that will directly affect the range of visitors that able to visit Maui and tremendously contribute to the local economy.
The elimination of the STR units is a detriment to the MAUI economy and for the local residents. The residents count definitely on tourism to provide jobs for their families in MAUI. When guests come to enjoy our Maui, they are able to have a more affordable option. The money that the guests are able to save will be spent on local merchants, such as, restaurants, coffee shops, gift, shops, gas stations, clothing stores, small mom and pop operations, airlines, rental cars companies, etc., etc. etc. The legal STR OWNERS will provide jobs as well for, HANDYMAN, Electricians, cleaners, plumbers, gardeners, property management, painters, mechanics, and many, many other jobs. All this money that the STR
guests will bring to the table will provide a huge boost into the job sector providing security and serenity to the local families. In return the tax revenues generated by the thriving tourist contributions which is the heart of this economy will as well boost great funds for Maui county and therefore thrive with the a win win situation.
Again I would like to reiterate that I am against the proposal legislation to eliminate the legal STR's on the Minatoya zoned A1 – A2. To the MAUI planning commission please take into consideration my testimony and consideration for the success for the residents of the Maui county.
Sincerely,
Francesco Funiciello
310-980-1958
ffuniciello@me.com
Aloha Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 9 (2025). This bill would eliminate long-standing, legally operating short-term rentals—including timeshare usage—that have contributed positively to Maui’s economy and community for decades.
However, I do appreciate the amendment in the current draft (CD1) that exempts validly existing timeshare units and timeshare plans from the phase-out. If the Council moves forward with Bill 9, I urge you to retain this exemption as a minimum safeguard to prevent serious harm to owners, workers, and the local economy.
I am a timeshare owner at the Kuleana Club. Like hundreds of others, I own one week per year—not a second home, not an investment property. I return regularly, support local restaurants, spend at neighborhood shops, and have built lasting relationships on the island. Timeshare owners like me are part of a stable community of repeat visitors who care deeply about Maui’s well-being.
Timeshare properties are fundamentally different from vacation rentals. Units are deeded one week at a time to hundreds of families, which makes them impossible to convert to long-term housing. Including timeshares in a short-term rental ban would not create housing—but it would devastate workers and remove a reliable source of local tax revenue. Properties like Kuleana Club operate legally under Maui County Code 19.37.010, and are fully compliant with TAT and GET tax regulations. Our occupancy rates are high, and our owners consistently contribute to the island’s economy, even in difficult times.
More importantly, timeshares support stable jobs. Many employees at the Kuleana Club have been with the property for over 25 years. Several lost their homes in the Lahaina fire. If timeshare usage is eliminated, these long-standing staff members risk losing the only thing they have left—their livelihood.
Timeshare owners and resorts have also stepped up in times of crisis. The industry has contributed millions to wildfire recovery and donated thousands of room nights to displaced families and first responders. That commitment continues today.
In summary:
I urge you to oppose Bill 9 entirely.
But if it passes, please retain the CD1 amendment exempting timeshares.
Timeshares are not TVRs.
This exemption is a fair, balanced, and lawful solution that protects jobs, housing neutrality, and tax revenue—without compromising the County’s broader goals.
Mahalo for your time, your service, and for considering the perspective of owners like me.
Ryan & Karen
Kuleana Club Timeshare Owner – Unit 315, Week 32
Aloha Councilmembers,
We strongly oppose Bill 9.
As Lahaina residents, our family has lived, worked, and contributed to the community for over 15 years. We lost our home, our long-term and our short-term rental investments in the August 2023 fire — wiping out our livelihood & finances.
We fully understand the urgent need for affordable housing, but that responsibility falls on the County and developers — not on residents who have followed the rules, paid taxes, and invested in their properties legally for years.
Targeting small, law-abiding property owners does not solve the housing crisis — it only deepens the pain for families like ours, who are still fighting to return and rebuild.
Please support balanced solutions that create real housing options without punishing those already suffering.
Mahalo, Jason, Ginger, Koa (13) & Autumn (9) | Lahaina
Hawaii Appleseed is submitting testimony in strong support of Bill 9 (2025), which seeks to phase out transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts across Maui.
Hawai‘i Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing systemic change to address the root causes of economic insecurity and inequality in our state. Through research, policy development, legislative advocacy, and community engagement, we work to build a more just and equitable Hawai‘i. Our focus areas include affordable housing, transportation equity, food security, and expanding access to economic opportunity.
Hawaii Appleseed recognizes Bill 9 (2025) as a meaningful step toward realigning housing policy with the needs of local residents.
The proliferation of TVRs has been widely identified as a significant contributor to a city's housing crisis. They negatively impact both the availability and affordability of homes for long-term residents. By directly removing units from the long-term rental market, TVRs intensify supply constraints that result in higher rents and inflated home values.
Investors capitalize on TVR demand by buying and renting properties for exclusive TVR use, evidenced by the 13,000 TVR units on Maui - accounting for nearly 21% of Maui’s housing stock. According to AirDNA, a short term rental data analytics site, the average rate for a vacation rental in 2024 in Maui was $472.48 per night. The average annual revenue for TVR owners this past year was $94,200 equating to $7,850/month, significantly higher than the median asking rent of $2,400 per month.
This creates strong financial incentives for property owners to favor short-term rental use over long-term tenancies. Additionally, the commercialization of residential homes for use as TVRs can create market externalities that increase nearby property values by influencing comparable sales and fueling speculative expectations. This upward pressure on prices contributes to housing cost inflation that outpaces local income growth, making it increasingly difficult for local residents to afford homes.
Housing affordability also cannot be addressed without significantly increasing the supply of homes available for local residents. Yet TVRs have fundamentally undermined this goal by preventing new affordable development from meaningfully expanding the housing stock. Even when new housing units were added, the net residential housing supply on Maui remained essentially unchanged from 2018-2022, as any marginal new construction was immediately absorbed or replaced by conversions to vacation rentals.
This problem is compounded by resource constraints, particularly water availability, which further limit the feasibility of new housing construction. In water-scarce West Maui, this impact is already preventing affordable housing from being built. Tourist accommodations exacerbate this problem by disproportionately consuming high amounts of water, energy, and waste services, compared to residential units. Continuing to allow short-term rentals in apartment-zoned areas means that scarce water and infrastructure capacity is allocated to visitors rather than residents.
There are approximately 6,172 active STRs under the Minatoya list, primarily located in residential apartment-zoned districts, that are permitted to continue TVR operations despite their non-conforming status. By withdrawing their permitted status through Bull 9, Maui can return these properties to the long-term housing market and potentially increase Maui’s long-term residential housing stock by 13%. This would represent the equivalent of ten years' worth of housing production on Maui, without breaking ground or straining public infrastructure. According to UHERO, full phase out of all the Minatoya properties could also result in rents dropping by 6-14% and condo prices declining by 20-40%. This would be a much-needed relief to local residents struggling to find affordable housing.
As outlined in the UHERO report, several mitigating factors may dampen the policy’s expected impact on housing affordability.The phase-out of non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas does not guarantee that all affected units will immediately transition to long-term residential use, meaning the impact on housing affordability may not fully materialize. Additionally, the policy may result in only a one-time downward shock in prices, maintaining prices at a lower trajectory than they would have followed without intervention but still continuing to rise at the same rate as before. The phase out may also carry risks associated with losses in visitor spending, employment, income and tax revenue.
Although the phase-out of non-conforming TVRs may affect visitor-related revenue, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of the visitor demand displaced by the residential conversion of Minatoya List condominium units could be absorbed by existing hotel capacity. In 2023, Maui hotels operated at an average occupancy rate of 66.1% across a total supply of 13,730 rooms, leaving approximately 4,660 hotel rooms vacant each night. While hotel accommodations may not meet the needs of all visitors previously served by vacation rentals, and hotel inventory may not fully offset the volume of STR units, a substantial share of visitors could still be accommodated. As a result, visitor spending and some local employment would likely shift rather than disappear entirely, helping to mitigate the broader economic impact on the visitor industry.
Additionally, housing can function as critical economic infrastructure. When housing is scarce or unaffordable, businesses across all sectors - not just tourism - face challenges in hiring and retaining employees. Hawaii has experienced consistent net out-migration of working-age adults, with housing unaffordability cited as the primary reason. This exodus has created severe workforce shortages across critical sectors. Hawaii faces one of the worst physician shortages in the U.S., across all specialties; The Department of Education reports significant teacher vacancies; and DBEDT continues to report slow labor growth. Continued out-migration of families and workers such as teachers, healthcare professionals, first responders, and cultural practitioners could pose a far greater long-term threat to Maui’s economy than a calibrated reduction in the number of tourist accommodations.
While Bill 9 will not resolve Maui's housing crisis alone, this does not justify continued permitting of non-conforming TVRs - especially when additional policy tools are available to address these concerns without compromising zoning integrity. The TVR ban creates a critical window of opportunity by temporarily reducing housing prices, allowing time to implement complementary measures - such as those recommended by UHERO - that can work in tandem with the phase-out. These policies can help maximize the conversion of units into long-term housing and maintain or even exceed current levels of tax revenue, serving as a supplement to the TVR phase-out rather than a replacement for it.
Maui County’s effort to phase out non-conforming STRs also rests on a solid legal foundation. State law explicitly grants this power and encourages its use to address housing shortages. Courts have also consistently upheld the authority of local governments to regulate land use through zoning, including the right to prohibit certain uses such as TVRs. Evidenced in rulings such as Short Term Rental Alliance of San Diego vs City of San Diego (2021) and Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans (2022) federal courts ruled in favor of the cities and found no constitutional takings as long as owners retained core property rights (such as living in it, selling it, or renting it long-term) and that property owners do not have a vested right to operate transient vacation rentals. Additionally, a federal judge also ruled that San Diego’s amortization period of 2 years was sufficient in providing fair notice and transition time to property owners.
However, the proposed exemption of timeshares from the TVR ban may weaken the county’s legal position. Although timeshares differ structurally from other short-term rentals, their continued allowance could invite equal protection claims from STR owners who argue they are being treated unfairly compared to similarly situated properties. In the previously mentioned New Orleans case, the city’s initial TVR regulations requiring owner occupancy were struck down by the courts due to violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause - discriminating against non local property owners when nondiscriminatory alternatives existed. Because the STR regulation was not uniformly applied, the cities’ TVR provisions were deemed favoring certain classes of transient accommodations. The ruling found that the provisions also undermined the jurisdiction’s legal rationale to protect housing affordability which increased their vulnerability to other constitutional challenges. An unexplained exemption for timeshares could be construed as undermining the county’s stated purpose of preserving residential housing and preventing the overconsumption of limited resources like water and infrastructure capacity. To maintain the legal integrity of Bill 9, Maui County should reconsider the exemption entirely.
Bill 9 represents a step to reclaim housing for Maui residents and realign our land use policies with community needs. While no single policy can solve the housing crisis, phasing out non-conforming TVRs in apartment-zoned areas addresses a major structural barrier to affordability and opens the door to additional solutions. By advancing this measure, Maui County has the opportunity to protect its residents and preserve its housing. Hawaii Appleseed respectfully urges the Council to pass Bill 9 without exemptions and promote a more equitable housing landscape.