Compromise solution: convert a smaller number, about 3,000-3,500 units of minatoya STR's to long term housing so that it doesn't affect tourism so much, but also lowers the price of housing.
This number will cover 2,200 units lost in Lahaina fires. But rents were already high before Lahaina fire, so maybe another 1,000+ units or so to bring rent prices down a bit. In several years Lahaina homes will be rebuilt, this will add more units to long term housing.
If you ban all 7,000 of Minatoya STR's (which is almost half of all STR's on Maui) the negative affect on the tourism, economy, jobs and income will be inevitable, it's basic math.
Sure, the rent prices will go down, but then you lose a job or your income halves if you are a contractor/self-employed dependent on tourism, so how does that help?
If legally you have to either ban all Minatoya STR's or none, you can ban all first and then issue conditional STR permits to units that are least likely to be rented or purchased by local residents: for example, expensive properties in high end neighbourhoods with ocean views and high HOA fees.
About me: I am self-employed, owner of Maui Rainbow Tea small business, I make and sell tea wholesale to shops in Hawaii. My income depends on tourism. I am also a renter. Our rent is 3 times higher than 15 years ago, while income is not. I would love to see lower rent prices, but would also like to keep my income. I am sure most people on Maui are in similar situation. This compromise approach can be a solution.
Aloha council members,
I believe the Minatoya exception short term rentals should be converted to long term rentals as proposed. I do not believe this will affect tourism very much although we could see a small drop in tourism but it is my understanding there are more than enough hotel rooms to accommodate tourists who would have otherwise been staying in the short-term rentals. This is where we want tourism located on the island this is the zoning of the hotel district and this would keep the tourists out of our neighborhoods which I think we all prefer. This would also ensure that we follow the principle enacted by the Council of quality over quantity tourism as this is the best quality of tourism we could have in the hotel districts. I do not believe the calculations of the economic loss include the fact that the TAT would still be collected from the tourists they would just be collected from the hotels and the short-term rentals that are still in operation which is over half of the ones on the island. Also, they would be able to potentially charge higher fees because of increased demand for the remaining short-term rentals and so this would also increase the amount of revenue to the county. I do not believe the economic Forecasts are correct but overestimate the amount of the potential decrease. I also do not believe the economic forecasts subtract the amount of property taxes that would be continued to be paid when these conversion units are in long term rental; it would be less than short term rental rentals taxes obviously but this is not really the issue because we need housing and if we raise the taxes on the empty 2nd homes and empty 2nd condos then that would more than accommodate for the economic loss and would also encourage people not to have so many empty homes on the island which would be better for home affordability and home availability for our residents which we sorely need. Some people have said that these units would not and are not suitable for long term rental and this is just completely false and all the information I have tells me that all of these units could easily be long term rentals especially given many of our residents have been living in less than adequate housing because that’s all of available or they have actually left the island. Please note that no exceptions to the bill should be granted no amendments should be made because that would be discriminatory and would then be unconstitutional as that was the reason why this ordinance failed in South Tahoe CA. We must not have economic discrimination and sort those affected into categories such as resident and nonresident because that would be discriminatory. These units were always meant to be apartments that’s why they were in the apartment zoning and theoretically the exception should never have been allowed in retrospect it seems like a very poor ruling and a poor decision from the past which it’s time to correct and I would encourage us to do that now and pass the bill the way it is. We have been talking about this for a very long time and I don’t think it’s any surprise and I feel bad for those who have invested in these units but it’s not like every investment is guaranteed in this world and clearly this rezoning has been a possibility for a long time. Mahalo, Genesis Young MD
Compromise solution: convert a smaller number, about 3,000-3,500 units of minatoya STR's to long term housing so that it doesn't affect tourism so much, but also lowers the price of housing.
This number will cover 2,200 units lost in Lahaina fires. But rents were already high before Lahaina fire, so maybe another 1,000+ units or so to bring rent prices down a bit. In several years Lahaina homes will be rebuilt, this will add more units to long term housing.
If you ban all 7,000 of Minatoya STR's (which is almost half of all STR's on Maui) the negative affect on the tourism, economy, jobs and income will be inevitable, it's basic math.
Sure, the rent prices will go down, but then you lose a job or your income halves if you are a contractor/self-employed dependent on tourism, so how does that help?
If legally you have to either ban all Minatoya STR's or none, you can ban all first and then issue conditional STR permits to units that are least likely to be rented or purchased by local residents: for example, expensive properties in high end neighbourhoods with ocean views and high HOA fees.
About me: I am self-employed, owner of Maui Rainbow Tea small business, I make and sell tea wholesale to shops in Hawaii. My income depends on tourism. I am also a renter. Our rent is 3 times higher than 15 years ago, while income is not. I would love to see lower rent prices, but would also like to keep my income. I am sure most people on Maui are in similar situation. This compromise approach can be a solution.
Aloha council members,
I believe the Minatoya exception short term rentals should be converted to long term rentals as proposed. I do not believe this will affect tourism very much although we could see a small drop in tourism but it is my understanding there are more than enough hotel rooms to accommodate tourists who would have otherwise been staying in the short-term rentals. This is where we want tourism located on the island this is the zoning of the hotel district and this would keep the tourists out of our neighborhoods which I think we all prefer. This would also ensure that we follow the principle enacted by the Council of quality over quantity tourism as this is the best quality of tourism we could have in the hotel districts. I do not believe the calculations of the economic loss include the fact that the TAT would still be collected from the tourists they would just be collected from the hotels and the short-term rentals that are still in operation which is over half of the ones on the island. Also, they would be able to potentially charge higher fees because of increased demand for the remaining short-term rentals and so this would also increase the amount of revenue to the county. I do not believe the economic Forecasts are correct but overestimate the amount of the potential decrease. I also do not believe the economic forecasts subtract the amount of property taxes that would be continued to be paid when these conversion units are in long term rental; it would be less than short term rental rentals taxes obviously but this is not really the issue because we need housing and if we raise the taxes on the empty 2nd homes and empty 2nd condos then that would more than accommodate for the economic loss and would also encourage people not to have so many empty homes on the island which would be better for home affordability and home availability for our residents which we sorely need. Some people have said that these units would not and are not suitable for long term rental and this is just completely false and all the information I have tells me that all of these units could easily be long term rentals especially given many of our residents have been living in less than adequate housing because that’s all of available or they have actually left the island. Please note that no exceptions to the bill should be granted no amendments should be made because that would be discriminatory and would then be unconstitutional as that was the reason why this ordinance failed in South Tahoe CA. We must not have economic discrimination and sort those affected into categories such as resident and nonresident because that would be discriminatory. These units were always meant to be apartments that’s why they were in the apartment zoning and theoretically the exception should never have been allowed in retrospect it seems like a very poor ruling and a poor decision from the past which it’s time to correct and I would encourage us to do that now and pass the bill the way it is. We have been talking about this for a very long time and I don’t think it’s any surprise and I feel bad for those who have invested in these units but it’s not like every investment is guaranteed in this world and clearly this rezoning has been a possibility for a long time. Mahalo, Genesis Young MD