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 support Bill 9.
To analyze how an investor views a short-term vacation rental (STVR) purchase on Maui—and how this differs from the perspective of the federal and state governments—especially in the context of Bill 9, we need to look at the financial motives, tax strategies, and legal treatment of such properties. Here’s a breakdown:
⸻
🏝️ 1. How an Investor Views a STVR Purchase on Maui
📈 Profit Motive
• Rental Income: STVRs on Maui generate high nightly rates due to tourism demand. Investors often buy these properties specifically to monetize short-term rental income.
• Cash Flow: Many investors target properties that can “pay for themselves,” meaning rental income covers mortgage, property taxes, HOA, and maintenance.
• Appreciation: Maui real estate tends to appreciate over time. This speculative upside adds another layer of profit expectation.
🏠 Limited or No Personal Use
• The property is not a primary residence. Investors may use it a few weeks a year (often within the IRS personal use limit of 14 days or 10% of total days rented).
• Most of the year, the home is unoccupied or occupied by paying tourists.
• It’s common for investors to live off-island or even out-of-state.
💰 Tax Write-Offs and Benefits
• Depreciation: Investors can depreciate the structure value (not land) over 27.5 years.
• Operating Expenses: Cleaning, repairs, utilities, HOA fees, property management, mortgage interest, and insurance can be written off.
• Bonus Depreciation (if applicable): Some may use accelerated depreciation strategies via cost segregation to front-load write-offs.
• Travel Deduction: Investors can write off travel to check on the property if it qualifies as a business purpose.
• 1031 Exchange: Investors can defer capital gains tax by selling one property and buying another “like-kind” rental property.
⸻
🏛️ 2. How Federal and State Governments View the Property
🇺🇸 Federal Government (IRS Perspective)
• Not a Primary Residence: STVRs owned for income purposes are treated as investment or business properties, not personal homes.
• Schedule E Filing: Rental income and expenses go on IRS Schedule E. If the investor materially participates, it may be treated as an active business.
• Capital Gains Tax: Upon sale, investors pay capital gains (15–20% federal, possibly 3.8% NIIT).
• Limited Personal Use: If the owner uses the property for more than 14 days or 10% of the days it’s rented, they lose some deductions.
🌺 State of Hawaiʻi Perspective
• General Excise Tax (GET) and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT): These are required for all short-term rentals. The state views the property as a commercial revenue generator.
• Real Property Tax Classification: Maui County assigns higher tax rates to STVRs or non-owner-occupied properties (often classified as Hotel/Resort or Short-Term Rental tier).
• No Residency Benefit: Since the investor doesn’t live there, they get no property tax exemptions (like the homeowner exemption).
• Use Restriction Scrutiny: The state and county are now scrutinizing zoning compliance, permit status, and community impact, especially under Bill 9.
⸻
🧾 3. Relation to Bill 9 (Maui County Legislation)
Bill 9 aims to reform the use of apartment-zoned properties and close loopholes that allow STVRs to operate in zones not intended for transient accommodations.
How Bill 9 Threatens the Investor Model:
• Zoning Reclassification: Investor-held STVRs in apartment zones may lose the right to operate if not properly permitted.
• Loss of Revenue Stream: If the unit can no longer be used as an STVR, monthly revenue drops sharply, potentially making the mortgage unsustainable.
• Reduced Tax Deductions: A property that can no longer be rented short-term may lose business-use classification, especially if left vacant.
• Forced Sale or Long-Term Rental: Investors may be compelled to convert the property to long-term rental (with lower yield) or sell (triggering capital gains).
• Loss of 1031 Strategy: If the use is invalidated, it may jeopardize eligibility for tax-deferred exchanges.
⸻
🔍 Key Contrast: Investor vs. Public/Government Interest
Category Investor View Government (Public Interest) View
Primary Use Profit via short-term rental Housing for residents
Tax Strategy Maximize deductions & defer gains Ensure fair taxation & compliance
Occupancy Mostly tourists, rarely the owner Prefers local families or long-term tenants
Zoning Purpose Exploitable loophole Intended for residential or workforce housing
Community Impact Externality risk is secondary Overcrowding, displacement, and gentrification are primary concerns
⸻
🧠 Strategic Takeaway
Bill 9 targets a structural conflict: speculative investor use of local housing stock versus the community’s need for secure, affordable housing.
• Investors optimize for ROI, tax arbitrage, and minimal local integration.
• The County seeks to uphold zoning integrity, ensure housing availability, and curb externalities caused by STVR proliferation.
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning. Below I have listed some of the reasons I believe Papakea Oceanfront Resort should be excluded from Bill 9:
* Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
* Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
* Papakea has never been workforce housing, so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
* The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking.
* Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
* Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities.
* Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
* In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer’s investment-backed expectations.
Here are some of Papakea’s Contributions to the Community:
* Papakea’s resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; many started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
* Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Here are just some of the individual Owner Contributions to the Community:
* Owners support/hire many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
* Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
* Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
* Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic and cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on the opposition of Bill 9.
Aloha, my name is Kim and I wish to oppose Bill 9. I work in a small company that provides housekeeping services to a number of complexes along West Maui. We are compensated much better than if we were to work for hotels and are given a good living wage in a place where you need two jobs just to get by. These units we look after are old, so the maintenance cost is already much higher than a usual rent. Taking these units to long term rent will not solve the housing crisis, if anything it will make it worse since it will also devastate the island's driving economy.
Written Testimony in Strong Support of Bill 9
To: Maui County Council – Housing and Land Use Committee
From: Justin Rante
Subject: Support for Bill 9 – Restoring Residential Zoning Integrity and Addressing the Housing Crisis
Aloha Chair and Committee Members,
I am writing in **strong support of Bill 9**, which seeks to phase out transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts across Maui County. While I understand that this legislation will impact a minority of property owners, including a small number of local families, I urge the Council to stay the course and prioritize the **public interest over private enrichment**, especially in the face of an ongoing housing emergency.
1. The Vast Majority of TVRs Are Not Locally Owned
According to the UHERO study, only **6% of the owners of units on the Minatoya list are Maui residents**. That means **94% are non-residents**, many of whom have benefited from decades of speculation, tax advantages, and community impacts without being subject to the burdens felt by our local families. While it’s important to acknowledge the challenges faced by the 6%, **public policy must prioritize the housing needs of the 160,000+ people who call Maui home full-time**, not a small subset of commercial property owners.
2. Maui Is Facing a True Housing Emergency
Governor Green’s emergency proclamations, while controversial, made clear that **TVRs are a key disruptor in our housing system**. When apartment-zoned properties—intended for long-term local housing—are used as de facto hotels, the County loses not only housing, but also the opportunity to support working families, kūpuna, and future generations. **This bill is a direct and necessary correction** to the misuse of land intended for residents, not tourists.
3. Other Communities Have Taken Similar Action—With Positive Results
Jurisdictions across the globe have implemented restrictions or outright bans on vacation rentals in residential and apartment-zoned areas:
* **Honolulu (Bill 41)** scaled back TVRs to resort zones only.
* **Santa Barbara and Sedona** implemented strict enforcement on STRs to protect community housing.
* **Barcelona** rolled back vacation rental licenses in non-tourist zones to combat housing scarcity.
The outcome has been consistent: **greater long-term housing availability, lower rents, and more stability for local residents**. If other communities can act to protect their residents, so can Maui.
4. No One Is Being “Forced to Sell”—But All Must Adapt
Some owners claim they will be forced to sell if they cannot continue operating a TVR. But owning income-producing property does not guarantee permanent protection from zoning changes. **Land use laws evolve to reflect the needs of the people**. If a commercial business model is no longer legally permissible in a residential area, the appropriate response is to adapt—not demand special treatment or exemption.
Moreover, concerns that out-of-state investors may rezone or redevelop these properties are valid—but this is not a reason to delay this bill. It’s a reason to **pass companion legislation closing rezoning loopholes, enforcing vacancy taxes, and strengthening long-term use protections**. Bill 9 is the first necessary step.
5. TVRs Contribute to Displacement and Generational Inequality
Operating a TVR—even legally—still contributes to **structural harm**. Every unit used as a short-term rental is one less home for a teacher, a nurse, or a multi-generational ʻohana trying to stay in their ancestral home. If we fail to act, we **enable the continued commodification of our land**, pricing out locals and undermining the future of our island community.
6. Local Families Must Not Be Shielded from Public Obligation
I deeply respect local families who have held on to property for generations. But cultural identity or historical ownership should not be used to justify policies that harm the greater good. The question is not whether these families followed the law in the past—the question is whether **continuing TVR operations in apartment zones helps or hurts Maui’s future**. The answer is clear: it hurts.
7. The County Has a Duty Under the Public Trust Doctrine
Maui County has a legal and moral duty to steward its land for the benefit of current and future residents. Protecting residential-zoned lands from commercial exploitation is not just sound planning—it’s **an obligation under the public trust**. We cannot afford to let zoning continue to serve tourism while residents live in cars, on couches, or in unsafe conditions.
Vote YES on Bill 9
Bill 9 represents a **bold, necessary, and long-overdue effort to correct a systemic misuse of our residential and apartment-zoned lands**. This bill will not solve all of Maui’s housing problems—but it is a critical first step toward rebalancing our economy, restoring community integrity, and protecting the right of local people to remain on their land.
The time for compromise has passed. The time for excuses has expired. The future of Maui is in your hands. **Please vote YES on Bill 9**, and support legislation that truly serves the people of Maui—not those who profit from our displacement.
As a Kihei resident I strongly strongly oppose the short-term rental bill.
I own a unit at the Millowai condominiums located in Maalaea. This condominium is on the Minatoya list. When it was built it was meant to be used as a vacation rental. This property is listed as a condo-hotel for property tax purposes. Not for residential use!!!
My property is not designed for long-term residential use.
It would be very hard to rent it or even buy it.
Please read these reasons!!!!.
1) If a local resident wanted to buy my unit, they can't get a get a loan. It must be a cash only transaction. How many residents have $600,000 available? The building is on a land lease hold and has only 12 years left on the lease. Therefore, no banks will finance a loan. You can't even get a home equity loan on it!!!!
2) There are way too many rules to live in this condominium and be happy. Due to a HOA rules.
3) No smoking anywhere on the property including outside or anywhere on the property.
4) No visitors after 10 PM
5) No pets of any kind allowed
6) No surfboard, standup boards, kayaks, canoes storage allowed anywhere on the property
7) No moped storage anywhere on the property
8) Only one car parking spot
9) My unit has less than 500 ft.²
10) No children allowed in the pool only with an adult
11) No swimming after 9 PM
12) Very strict quiet rules
13) Only one small closet for each unit inside the unit
14) Apartments are not handicap accessible
15) No bicycle storage parking available
16) No large plants on the lanai
17) 95% of the building is one bedroom and with a very small living room.
18) It's way too expensive to rent there.
My unit, a one-bedroom condominium has very large HOA fees $2,500 a month. My insurance is $3000 a year, my property taxes are high $4000 a year because I don't live in it. Plus, I have Utilities such as electricity, Cable bills etc. In order for me to make all my payments and break even I would have to charge $4000 rent. This is an ocean view condominium. Across the United States any property that has an ocean view on the beach is usually out of reach for local residences that have common jobs such as nursing, police officers, contractors, waiters etc. Those type of places in location- location in real estate and are never affordable to common citizens in any city unless you're rich. What local would ever want to spend that kind of money and live in those types of restrictive conditions.
If this bill goes through. I won't be able to rent my property to a local, too expensive. For me it's too small, too expensive, and too restricted for me to live in it. I would have to sell it. No local is going to buy it. Some wealthy mainlander will buy it as a vacation property. They will come here once a year. Not contributing to our local economy as tourists do. There will be no need for daily maid service, no need for painters, no need to buy new furniture, broken dishes, new towels, the list goes on. No 18% tourist fees to Maui. So much will be lost.
I honestly believe that the entire building will suffer due to lack of improvements because the new owners won't be living there. They don't want to invest any more money keeping up the property. When they're barely there. There is no need to keep it up nice for tourists to rent it
This short-term rental conversion is truly a mistake. And it's not well thought out and will hurt the county of Maui.
However, I am for converting homes in residential areas. They are not meant for vacationers. That situation could help our housing crisis.
It must be carefully examined which properties should be converted to long-term use. Again, not all these properties will be able to be used as long-term residences.
Please make some wise choices!!
Please pass Bill 9 so Maui can finally move forward as a community.
Market forces will adjust. Demand will rebalance. The real estate market will adapt to new zoning and operating realities — that’s how markets work.
But continuing to overprice properties just to make up for lost short-term rental income or lack of equity isn’t sustainable. That strategy doesn’t work — not for owners, not for buyers, and definitely not for the community.
It’s time we stop holding Maui hostage to speculation. Let’s return housing to its rightful purpose: homes for people who live here.
Written Testimony in Opposition to Bill 9
Submitted by: Yuejiao Liu
Aloha Council Members,
My name is Yuejiao Liu, and I am writing in strong opposition to Bill 9.
I immigrated from China and moved to Maui several years ago to work as a Speech Language Pathologist in the public school system. I was proud to serve local children and contribute to the community in a meaningful way. However, as many residents know firsthand, it is incredibly difficult to survive in Hawaiʻi on just one income—especially while trying to build a future and raise a family.
Short-term rental allowed my family to supplement our income in a respectful, responsible way. We lived on-site and hosted visitors ourselves. We did the cleaning in the beginning and later hired local cleaners and a local manager as the operation grew. Every guest we hosted received personalized recommendations for local restaurants, small shops, activities, and services. We know their spending directly supported local businesses across the island.
Short-term rental was not a path to wealth for us—it was a way to afford basic stability in one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The income we earned helped us cover property taxes, HOA fees, insurance, and other rising costs of homeownership in Maui.
Eventually, we moved to Oʻahu to start a family and pursue further career opportunities. But we have remained deeply connected to Maui and continue to operate our property in a way that brings value to the community and employs local workers.
Bill 9 threatens to take away this legal use of our property and severely disrupt the lives of countless local families like ours—families who are not large investors, but working professionals trying to make ends meet. We are not the cause of Maui’s housing crisis. We are part of the solution—creating jobs, supporting businesses, and using the very limited income we generate to stay afloat.
Please consider the real human impact of this bill. It will not solve the housing crisis. It will hurt families who are already trying their best to live responsibly and sustainably in Hawaiʻi.
Thank you for your time and for allowing me to share my story.
Thank you for your time and for allowing public input on this important matter. My name is Todd Lynam, and I’m writing in strong opposition to Bill 9.
My wife and I moved to Maui in 2017 after living in a dangerous neighborhood near Seattle. Our next-door neighbor’s house was shot up, and my wife had to testify in a separate drive-by shooting. We couldn’t afford a home near Seattle, but Maui gave us a chance at a better life.
My wife is a Speech Language Pathologist, and Maui was/is in dire need of her skills. She is also an immigrant from China, and we both felt very welcomed here. Maui is a true melting pot of people from all over the world. For the first time, my wife could comfortably use her Chinese name in daily life. We also deeply respect and appreciate Hawaiian culture. My wife joined a Hula Hālau, and we both paddled for Hawaiian Canoe Club.
In 2017, we were proud to become first-time homeowners by purchasing a condo at Pacific Shores with our life savings. This condo sat on the market for over a year at $375,000. If these units are truly in such high demand, it’s hard to reconcile that no one wanted this one when interest rates were far lower.
Like many locals, we took on a second job by short-term renting a bedroom. We eventually purchased a second unit in the same complex. In the beginning, we did all the cleaning ourselves. Over time, we hired local cleaners, repairmen, and an on-island contact. We pay substantial property taxes, General Excise Tax (GET), Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT), and the Maui County TAT (MCTAT). Our guests frequently ask for local recommendations, and we’re proud that their visits support local businesses across the island.
Today, we live on Oʻahu, where my wife earned her third master’s degree at the University of Hawaiʻi in behavioral analysis and now works with autistic children. One of our Maui units is currently being used by FEMA to house an elderly couple with a pet.
With the rising cost of property taxes, insurance, and special assessments, we’re around break even. But we remain committed to Maui and undeterred by this bill.
Bill 9 appears designed to force owners like us to either sell or convert our units to long-term rentals. But most of us aren’t investors. I served on the board at Pacific Shores, and the owners I interacted with were local or families who love Maui and subsidize their time here through a small-margin rental business. Many of these owners would simply convert their units into private second homes if forced out of short-term renting. STR owners have been a resilient and committed group, having survived COVID and helped in the aftermath of the fires.
I also want to push back on the idea that short-term rentals are the main barrier to housing. Maui County already has multiple initiatives underway to increase housing supply. For example, Bill 103 would allow up to four units per lot in many areas, effectively increasing residential density. The County is also working to streamline permits, which currently take nearly 400 days for multifamily housing. Artificial intelligence is being explored to help speed up that process. Additionally, new infrastructure like the Waiale Road extension is expected to unlock over 1,000 new homes, including hundreds of affordable units, in areas like Waikapū Country Town. From what I understand, this project also includes expanded water infrastructure.
While some say Maui lacks the water to support new homes, Haleakalā holds enormous groundwater reserves. The challenge is infrastructure and delivery and not scarcity. Oʻahu has solved this through well-planned investment and coordination. Maui can and should do the same.
I also want to speak to the legality of Bill 9. We have no intention of selling, and based on legal consultations, I believe Bill 9, or any version of it, has virtually no chance of surviving a legal challenge.
On Oʻahu, in AOAO of Waikīkī Banyan v. City & County of Honolulu (2019), the court granted a stay of enforcement when the city attempted to eliminate long-standing short-term rentals. The plaintiffs argued economic reliance and consistent zoning use and these arguments apply even more strongly here on Maui.
In Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City & County of Honolulu (2022), the court issued a permanent injunction, ruling that Honolulu’s 90-day rental rule violated property owners’ vested rights. That lawsuit explicitly raised Takings Clause claims under both the U.S. and Hawaiʻi constitutions.
Maui’s case is even stronger. The Minatoya List is codified into law. Vague terms like “legacy use” or “workforce intent” do not override the legal protections granted by existing zoning.
So I ask the Council this: In light of the legal precedents on Oʻahu and the proactive housing solutions already in motion, why go down the road of Bill 9? There are realistic solutions and progress being made and Bill 9 won't survive a legal challenge.
Aloha Chair Lee, Vice Chair Sugimura, Presiding Officer Pro Tempore Kama and Council Members,
My name is Kimberly Lee, and my husband and I own a one-bedroom condo in Kihei that we short-term rent. I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 legally permitted short-term rentals as a solution to Maui’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. While I understand and deeply sympathize with the gravity of the current housing challenges, I respectfully urge the Council to consider the broader impact this measure would have on responsible, long-term owners like myself—and the community we support.
My family has proudly owned a short-term rental property on Maui for over 22 years. During that time, we have not only contributed significantly to the island’s economy but have also become part of the extended Maui family. Through our rental, we have consistently supported local businesses including Shirley's Island Cleaning, Dream Clean Maui, Bello Property Management, and AA Oceanfront, along with many independent contractors, repair professionals, and service providers. Our guests also patronize local favorites such as Foodland, Sansei Sushi, Maui Tacos, Coconuts, Jawz Tacos, Sugar Shack, Kalama Village Shops, Maui Gardens, Boss Frogs, Snorkel Bobs, ABC Stores and Severeign Diving, among many others.
Since 2011 alone, we have paid $10,040 in General Excise Taxes and $26,978 in Transient Accommodations Taxes. These figures do not reflect the full extent of our contributions, as our ownership and tax payments began in 2003. Our property was purchased in good faith, with the full understanding that it was zoned and designated as a “condotel.” The Bank of Hawaii took a chance on us when few would, believing in our vision of one day retiring to Maui. That dream is just a few years away.
We were also there in Maui’s time of need. Following the devastation in Lahaina, we housed a fire victim at no charge, donated to local charities, and sent financial support directly to friends who were impacted. Our commitment to the community goes beyond economic interest—it is personal and heartfelt.
Taking away our ability to operate our legally permitted short-term rental at this point would be not only financially devastating but deeply disheartening. We strongly support efforts to address the housing crisis, but we believe there are more balanced, inclusive approaches that do not penalize long-time owners who have abided by every regulation and given back to the community for decades.
Please do not take away the opportunity for us to fulfill our dream of retiring to Maui. We are asking for partnership, not division. Let’s work together to craft thoughtful, effective solutions that respect Maui’s people, economy, and those of us who have treated the island with the care and love it deserves.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
With heartfelt sincerity,
Kimberly Lee
Maui Vista Resort Owner Since 2003
I spent multiple hours listening to testimony on both sides of Bill 9 last Monday. It is mind blowing how much misinformation is being communicated about people who own STVR's and how much owners actually make in any given month. My husband and I are from modest means and have worked 50-60 hours a week most of our adult life and were able to save up to put a down payment on a 1-bedroom unit in June 2021 so we would have a place to stay when we visited as the hotels are not a fiscally viable option. We short term rent it when we are not there to pay for the astronomical costs associated with owning an STVR in Maui. At that time, we were told by the realtor that these were legal for short term rentals as we would not be able to afford the costs otherwise. Not all of the people who own STVR's are rich millionaires from the Mainland, many of us are middle class working people or a local(Our People) living in Maui who are trying to make ends meet with the additional income. While there are varying viewpoints put forth on both sides, there were a couple of follow-up questions that the none of the City Council Members asked. I don't think only asking those who oppose the bill how many STVR's they own or did they know when they purchased the unit if it was legal to rent and who their realtor is germane in making a decision on the bill. What is important is asking viable questions to those who support the bill because they think this is a solution for affordable housing. First, several of the people supporting the bill noted that they would like to live in one of the STVR's. The question the City Council Members should ask is "What would you be able to afford for an average monthly rent? The majority of these units cost $5k+ every month for an owner to break even on costs. As an example of our monthly costs: mortgage $1,750, HOA $2,100, Hawaii Electric $300 (average), Property Taxes $1,000 = $5,150. Can locals afford to pay $5,150 or more for a one-bedroom condominium each month? The reality is that we are not making up to $15,000 per month as one speaker noted each month, we are lucky to break even most months. One of the speakers noted that HOA's would go down if they were long-term, but that is simply not true. The largest expense of the HOA's is insurance which is going up exponentially every month not down? The other large costs associated with these units are infrastructure and repairs which continue to go up. The Papakea Resort is in the middle of an Interior Renovation to replace all of their pipes to the tune of $34M which is coming due to owners in August 2026. This will increase the HOA costs for a one-bedroom $600 per month to more than $2,300. In addition, has anyone considered what this will do to the local banks that hold mortgages on these properties if the bill passes and owners can not pay their mortgagers? The majority of the units are financed through Bank of Hawaii. Has anyone thought about what this will do to the local banks when those owners are unable to pay or if the HOA's foreclose on the units because the owners can no longer afford them if they can not short term lease? If you look online, there are over 1k units for sale with some on the market more than a year at up to 40% from the previous period last year due to this bill. This could cause a financial collapse of the local bank on the island. Since this was not part of the scope of the UHERO report, it was not accounted for. The City Council needs to step up and realize that the only way to fix this long standing issue is to build affordable housing, which should have happened before the fires. Approving this bill will drain any $$ from the counties budget in legal fees, not to mention a class action lawsuit in loss revenue and price decreases for the units. Make the right decision and oppose this bill so you do not bankrupt the County of Maui.
My name is Justin born and bred in Maui (Pukalani). I wish to oppose this bill, this is an obvious scheme by the mayor who is the most incompetent in looking after locals here regarding our livelihood. This bill will destroy our business (we provide various maintenance services to a lot of complexes) and just enrich the corrupt leaders of Lahaina Strong, the hotels and the mayor and his associates who themselves own huge parcels of land. How can someone who has an average salary afford to rent over $2000 a month for a one bedroom?? Incredible lack of foresight from these so-called leaders! You people just got a raise too!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
My husband and I are residents of Kihei. I work for a non-profit and my husband is a handyman for vacation rentals. We saved our money and worked extra hours and were able to put a down payment on a vacation rental unit in 2023 so we still owe a sizable amount.
We are naturally very concerned about the possibility of having the highest and best use of our condo taken without just compensation. If this happens, we may not be able to pay our mortgage, and my husband would almost certainly lose his job in the vacation industry. Our local cleaners , the reservationists, handymen, admins, and bookkeepers at the rental agencies would lose their jobs, Kihei restaurants and some of our local excursions would close (remember 2020?) and there would be trickledown effects such as non-profits and other local business receiving diminished revenues and facing layoffs. We faced so much of this in 2020, but in that year, there was a light at the end of the tunnel and we had the federal government help us get through the layoff periods and business closures which were brought on by the pandemic.
In this new situation, the federal government will not be there to help us keep the restaurants afloat and pay the workers to be able to stay on island.
Currently, vacation rental cleaners are able to make a good living because renters move out of units as often as every three days in many units. The cleaners clean several units and stay very busy. These cleanings are 100% paid for by the renters because these cleaning fees are added to the cost of their rental agreement as a separate line item, as well as the GE, TA, and MCTA taxes. If these cleaners are forced to give up their lucrative cleaning businesses and get a job with a hotel, they may not be able to afford their rent/ mortgage and may be forced to leave the island. This is just one of the unintended consequences of losing the vacation rental business.
The stated goal of this legislation is to create workforce housing. However, it is unlikely that anything more than a small fraction of the 7000 condos would end up owned or rented by locals. There are currently many residential condos for sale in Kihei with prices under $600,000 that are not getting purchased by locals. I contend that the main beneficiaries of this legislation would be off-island residents who would buy these condos as second homes at diminished prices to the detriment of almost everybody.
I urge you to protect the Maui Kama’aina and oppose this proposed legislation.
I am Kawika "Kev" Alama and I moved from Maui to california in 2011. People need to stop thinking that this bill will a) free up housing for people that is affordable and b) is a move to help "native" Hawaiians.There are more natives east of me than west of me and a big chunk of the people who are on Maui and can't afford to stay there aren't native. not hawaiian not even local. They are people who basically swapped spots with me over the years. Native moves away and haole goes to be canoe instructor or yogi. People love to claim that so many of the STR owners aren't from Maui. But they don't look at the main groups of people they are "fishing for housing" for. It's all a bunch of transplants who are mad that their little speculative journey didnt' go so well because they weren't able to pull the ladder up fast enough behind them.
I left Maui for school not by being "priced out". I live in a different kind of paradise now, own two businesses, have a house and far more than would have been possible on Maui. I oppose bill 9 because unlike what all these supporters say, these condos aren't being phased out "for native hawaiians" most are for people the supporters would probably criticize for being broke, who "speculated" on a move that didn't pan out, who went to live somewhere that they probably shouldn't have. I have friends and family back on Maui who work in tourism and they see this as a promise for housing that guarantees no such thing. A lot of wishful thinking on that side and not a lot of facts. Actually the economic reports give them the facts but they choose to ignore 2 of them then make up some far fetched story about how amazing the 3rd was, even though it was as dismal a prediction for what the phase out would bring.
I oppose bill 9 because it just doesn't seem to add up. I watch instagram and facebook and just see all the hate and racism directed toward STR owners. "dumb white people" they get called, "gotta fight against the white way". then I see all the exact places for sale that the phase out is supposed to make more of and they aren't being bought. like people said in live testimony they support affordable housing and i don't see how this makes any housing that's more affordable.
2 bed 1 bath 1,500sqft 2.5acre lot
2239 Upper Kanaio Rd, Kula, HI 96790
$317 per square foot makes it $475k
Been on the market already for a MONTH. How are we even having a conversation about places that are $1000+ per square foot?
I oppose bill 9 because it just doesn't do what it claims it will do. no way.
O wau Mariano a e ku'e au keia pila hewa! Ke noho nei no kou ohana ma Lahaina. A'ole pono i ke ho'aihue ana no kekahi hale. He lumi li'li' loa'a makou i ke kahi komohana, ke ho'oka'a ana makou i na auhau nui, ke ho'ouna ana makou i na kupono palapala! Mai lawe aku i ka mea e pa'u i ka hana no makou!
Wish to submit opposition to this bill. My brother and I run a small business (food truck) which is supported by the guests in these STRs. I would say 90% of them stay in these legal STRs, very very few are from the hotels. This bill will not only devastate the our small enterprise as well but the whole economy of the county.
I support Bill 9.
To analyze how an investor views a short-term vacation rental (STVR) purchase on Maui—and how this differs from the perspective of the federal and state governments—especially in the context of Bill 9, we need to look at the financial motives, tax strategies, and legal treatment of such properties. Here’s a breakdown:
⸻
🏝️ 1. How an Investor Views a STVR Purchase on Maui
📈 Profit Motive
• Rental Income: STVRs on Maui generate high nightly rates due to tourism demand. Investors often buy these properties specifically to monetize short-term rental income.
• Cash Flow: Many investors target properties that can “pay for themselves,” meaning rental income covers mortgage, property taxes, HOA, and maintenance.
• Appreciation: Maui real estate tends to appreciate over time. This speculative upside adds another layer of profit expectation.
🏠 Limited or No Personal Use
• The property is not a primary residence. Investors may use it a few weeks a year (often within the IRS personal use limit of 14 days or 10% of total days rented).
• Most of the year, the home is unoccupied or occupied by paying tourists.
• It’s common for investors to live off-island or even out-of-state.
💰 Tax Write-Offs and Benefits
• Depreciation: Investors can depreciate the structure value (not land) over 27.5 years.
• Operating Expenses: Cleaning, repairs, utilities, HOA fees, property management, mortgage interest, and insurance can be written off.
• Bonus Depreciation (if applicable): Some may use accelerated depreciation strategies via cost segregation to front-load write-offs.
• Travel Deduction: Investors can write off travel to check on the property if it qualifies as a business purpose.
• 1031 Exchange: Investors can defer capital gains tax by selling one property and buying another “like-kind” rental property.
⸻
🏛️ 2. How Federal and State Governments View the Property
🇺🇸 Federal Government (IRS Perspective)
• Not a Primary Residence: STVRs owned for income purposes are treated as investment or business properties, not personal homes.
• Schedule E Filing: Rental income and expenses go on IRS Schedule E. If the investor materially participates, it may be treated as an active business.
• Capital Gains Tax: Upon sale, investors pay capital gains (15–20% federal, possibly 3.8% NIIT).
• Limited Personal Use: If the owner uses the property for more than 14 days or 10% of the days it’s rented, they lose some deductions.
🌺 State of Hawaiʻi Perspective
• General Excise Tax (GET) and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT): These are required for all short-term rentals. The state views the property as a commercial revenue generator.
• Real Property Tax Classification: Maui County assigns higher tax rates to STVRs or non-owner-occupied properties (often classified as Hotel/Resort or Short-Term Rental tier).
• No Residency Benefit: Since the investor doesn’t live there, they get no property tax exemptions (like the homeowner exemption).
• Use Restriction Scrutiny: The state and county are now scrutinizing zoning compliance, permit status, and community impact, especially under Bill 9.
⸻
🧾 3. Relation to Bill 9 (Maui County Legislation)
Bill 9 aims to reform the use of apartment-zoned properties and close loopholes that allow STVRs to operate in zones not intended for transient accommodations.
How Bill 9 Threatens the Investor Model:
• Zoning Reclassification: Investor-held STVRs in apartment zones may lose the right to operate if not properly permitted.
• Loss of Revenue Stream: If the unit can no longer be used as an STVR, monthly revenue drops sharply, potentially making the mortgage unsustainable.
• Reduced Tax Deductions: A property that can no longer be rented short-term may lose business-use classification, especially if left vacant.
• Forced Sale or Long-Term Rental: Investors may be compelled to convert the property to long-term rental (with lower yield) or sell (triggering capital gains).
• Loss of 1031 Strategy: If the use is invalidated, it may jeopardize eligibility for tax-deferred exchanges.
⸻
🔍 Key Contrast: Investor vs. Public/Government Interest
Category Investor View Government (Public Interest) View
Primary Use Profit via short-term rental Housing for residents
Tax Strategy Maximize deductions & defer gains Ensure fair taxation & compliance
Occupancy Mostly tourists, rarely the owner Prefers local families or long-term tenants
Zoning Purpose Exploitable loophole Intended for residential or workforce housing
Community Impact Externality risk is secondary Overcrowding, displacement, and gentrification are primary concerns
⸻
🧠 Strategic Takeaway
Bill 9 targets a structural conflict: speculative investor use of local housing stock versus the community’s need for secure, affordable housing.
• Investors optimize for ROI, tax arbitrage, and minimal local integration.
• The County seeks to uphold zoning integrity, ensure housing availability, and curb externalities caused by STVR proliferation.
Please approve bill 9
John Bonilla
Dear Chair Kama, Vice Chair Uʻu-Hodgins and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee:
I oppose Bill 9 as drafted and propose that the Council amend Bill 9 to exclude Papakea Oceanfront Resort which the County has historically identified as having A2-H2 zoning. Below I have listed some of the reasons I believe Papakea Oceanfront Resort should be excluded from Bill 9:
* Papakea was initially marketed and sold as a legal vacation rental property before any zoning restrictions limited transient vacation rentals in apartment zoned properties.
* Papakea owners have been operating legal vacation rentals for almost fifty years.
* Papakea has never been workforce housing, so Papakea is not an example of a property that converted from workforce housing to transient vacation rental use.
* The majority of units at Papakea are under 600 square feet and the property has limited parking.
* Papakea is not in a residential neighborhood and is located alongside a long stretch of hotel-zoned properties and directly adjacent to multiple commercially-zoned properties.
* Unlike apartment buildings designed for long-term residential use, Papakea has a front desk, an activity concierge, shared activity space, and numerous other common resort amenities.
* Owners purchased condos at Papakea with the reasonable expectation that short-term rentals were legal based on ordinances as far back as 1989, and as recent as 2022.
* In reliance on the Maui County ordinances and published documents, Hawaii state law, and constitutional protections, owners invested in costly renovations, furnishings, and long-term financial commitments such as mortgages that make any phase out of short-term rental right offensive of each buyer’s investment-backed expectations.
Here are some of Papakea’s Contributions to the Community:
* Papakea’s resort operations provide full-time, benefited, employment for 35 local resident employees; some have worked at the property for over 17 years; many started in entry-level positions and worked into supervisory roles.
* Papakea supports a wide variety of local trade professionals including pest control, HVAC, painting, plumbing, electrical, general contracting, masonry, tile and flooring, fitness instructors, entertainers, and tree trimming.
Here are just some of the individual Owner Contributions to the Community:
* Owners support/hire many small businesses owned and operated by local residents from the Maui community rely on Papakea short-term rentals including housekeepers, handymen, on-island agents, and contractors. These service providers set their own rates, work hours, select their own clients, work conditions and standard operating procedures. Shutting down short-term rentals at Papakea means telling local entrepreneurs that worked hard to build a small business that they need to just go get a job somewhere else to make less money, have less flexibility, and be subject to oppressive corporate policies.
* Papakea STRs support the State of Hawaii and County of Maui through payment of property taxes (many at the short-term rental rate), Transient Accommodations Tax, General Excise Tax, and Maui County Transient Accommodations Tax.
* Papakea guests support many small businesses on the island including restaurants, food trucks, tour operators, activities, state parks, the national park, and shops.
* Papakea owners and guests regularly participate in community activities including volunteering at beach cleanups, Maui Humane Society, the hospital, and many other local organizations, and contribute to local philanthropic and cultural efforts.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on the opposition of Bill 9.
3543 Lower Honoapiilani Road, Apartment K206
Aloha, my name is Kim and I wish to oppose Bill 9. I work in a small company that provides housekeeping services to a number of complexes along West Maui. We are compensated much better than if we were to work for hotels and are given a good living wage in a place where you need two jobs just to get by. These units we look after are old, so the maintenance cost is already much higher than a usual rent. Taking these units to long term rent will not solve the housing crisis, if anything it will make it worse since it will also devastate the island's driving economy.
Written Testimony in Strong Support of Bill 9
To: Maui County Council – Housing and Land Use Committee
From: Justin Rante
Subject: Support for Bill 9 – Restoring Residential Zoning Integrity and Addressing the Housing Crisis
Aloha Chair and Committee Members,
I am writing in **strong support of Bill 9**, which seeks to phase out transient vacation rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts across Maui County. While I understand that this legislation will impact a minority of property owners, including a small number of local families, I urge the Council to stay the course and prioritize the **public interest over private enrichment**, especially in the face of an ongoing housing emergency.
1. The Vast Majority of TVRs Are Not Locally Owned
According to the UHERO study, only **6% of the owners of units on the Minatoya list are Maui residents**. That means **94% are non-residents**, many of whom have benefited from decades of speculation, tax advantages, and community impacts without being subject to the burdens felt by our local families. While it’s important to acknowledge the challenges faced by the 6%, **public policy must prioritize the housing needs of the 160,000+ people who call Maui home full-time**, not a small subset of commercial property owners.
2. Maui Is Facing a True Housing Emergency
Governor Green’s emergency proclamations, while controversial, made clear that **TVRs are a key disruptor in our housing system**. When apartment-zoned properties—intended for long-term local housing—are used as de facto hotels, the County loses not only housing, but also the opportunity to support working families, kūpuna, and future generations. **This bill is a direct and necessary correction** to the misuse of land intended for residents, not tourists.
3. Other Communities Have Taken Similar Action—With Positive Results
Jurisdictions across the globe have implemented restrictions or outright bans on vacation rentals in residential and apartment-zoned areas:
* **Honolulu (Bill 41)** scaled back TVRs to resort zones only.
* **Santa Barbara and Sedona** implemented strict enforcement on STRs to protect community housing.
* **Barcelona** rolled back vacation rental licenses in non-tourist zones to combat housing scarcity.
The outcome has been consistent: **greater long-term housing availability, lower rents, and more stability for local residents**. If other communities can act to protect their residents, so can Maui.
4. No One Is Being “Forced to Sell”—But All Must Adapt
Some owners claim they will be forced to sell if they cannot continue operating a TVR. But owning income-producing property does not guarantee permanent protection from zoning changes. **Land use laws evolve to reflect the needs of the people**. If a commercial business model is no longer legally permissible in a residential area, the appropriate response is to adapt—not demand special treatment or exemption.
Moreover, concerns that out-of-state investors may rezone or redevelop these properties are valid—but this is not a reason to delay this bill. It’s a reason to **pass companion legislation closing rezoning loopholes, enforcing vacancy taxes, and strengthening long-term use protections**. Bill 9 is the first necessary step.
5. TVRs Contribute to Displacement and Generational Inequality
Operating a TVR—even legally—still contributes to **structural harm**. Every unit used as a short-term rental is one less home for a teacher, a nurse, or a multi-generational ʻohana trying to stay in their ancestral home. If we fail to act, we **enable the continued commodification of our land**, pricing out locals and undermining the future of our island community.
6. Local Families Must Not Be Shielded from Public Obligation
I deeply respect local families who have held on to property for generations. But cultural identity or historical ownership should not be used to justify policies that harm the greater good. The question is not whether these families followed the law in the past—the question is whether **continuing TVR operations in apartment zones helps or hurts Maui’s future**. The answer is clear: it hurts.
7. The County Has a Duty Under the Public Trust Doctrine
Maui County has a legal and moral duty to steward its land for the benefit of current and future residents. Protecting residential-zoned lands from commercial exploitation is not just sound planning—it’s **an obligation under the public trust**. We cannot afford to let zoning continue to serve tourism while residents live in cars, on couches, or in unsafe conditions.
Vote YES on Bill 9
Bill 9 represents a **bold, necessary, and long-overdue effort to correct a systemic misuse of our residential and apartment-zoned lands**. This bill will not solve all of Maui’s housing problems—but it is a critical first step toward rebalancing our economy, restoring community integrity, and protecting the right of local people to remain on their land.
The time for compromise has passed. The time for excuses has expired. The future of Maui is in your hands. **Please vote YES on Bill 9**, and support legislation that truly serves the people of Maui—not those who profit from our displacement.
Mahalo for your leadership and courage.
Respectfully,
Justin Rante
As a Kihei resident I strongly strongly oppose the short-term rental bill.
I own a unit at the Millowai condominiums located in Maalaea. This condominium is on the Minatoya list. When it was built it was meant to be used as a vacation rental. This property is listed as a condo-hotel for property tax purposes. Not for residential use!!!
My property is not designed for long-term residential use.
It would be very hard to rent it or even buy it.
Please read these reasons!!!!.
1) If a local resident wanted to buy my unit, they can't get a get a loan. It must be a cash only transaction. How many residents have $600,000 available? The building is on a land lease hold and has only 12 years left on the lease. Therefore, no banks will finance a loan. You can't even get a home equity loan on it!!!!
2) There are way too many rules to live in this condominium and be happy. Due to a HOA rules.
3) No smoking anywhere on the property including outside or anywhere on the property.
4) No visitors after 10 PM
5) No pets of any kind allowed
6) No surfboard, standup boards, kayaks, canoes storage allowed anywhere on the property
7) No moped storage anywhere on the property
8) Only one car parking spot
9) My unit has less than 500 ft.²
10) No children allowed in the pool only with an adult
11) No swimming after 9 PM
12) Very strict quiet rules
13) Only one small closet for each unit inside the unit
14) Apartments are not handicap accessible
15) No bicycle storage parking available
16) No large plants on the lanai
17) 95% of the building is one bedroom and with a very small living room.
18) It's way too expensive to rent there.
My unit, a one-bedroom condominium has very large HOA fees $2,500 a month. My insurance is $3000 a year, my property taxes are high $4000 a year because I don't live in it. Plus, I have Utilities such as electricity, Cable bills etc. In order for me to make all my payments and break even I would have to charge $4000 rent. This is an ocean view condominium. Across the United States any property that has an ocean view on the beach is usually out of reach for local residences that have common jobs such as nursing, police officers, contractors, waiters etc. Those type of places in location- location in real estate and are never affordable to common citizens in any city unless you're rich. What local would ever want to spend that kind of money and live in those types of restrictive conditions.
If this bill goes through. I won't be able to rent my property to a local, too expensive. For me it's too small, too expensive, and too restricted for me to live in it. I would have to sell it. No local is going to buy it. Some wealthy mainlander will buy it as a vacation property. They will come here once a year. Not contributing to our local economy as tourists do. There will be no need for daily maid service, no need for painters, no need to buy new furniture, broken dishes, new towels, the list goes on. No 18% tourist fees to Maui. So much will be lost.
I honestly believe that the entire building will suffer due to lack of improvements because the new owners won't be living there. They don't want to invest any more money keeping up the property. When they're barely there. There is no need to keep it up nice for tourists to rent it
This short-term rental conversion is truly a mistake. And it's not well thought out and will hurt the county of Maui.
However, I am for converting homes in residential areas. They are not meant for vacationers. That situation could help our housing crisis.
It must be carefully examined which properties should be converted to long-term use. Again, not all these properties will be able to be used as long-term residences.
Please make some wise choices!!
Rick Viebahn
Kihei, HI
Please pass Bill 9 so Maui can finally move forward as a community.
Market forces will adjust. Demand will rebalance. The real estate market will adapt to new zoning and operating realities — that’s how markets work.
But continuing to overprice properties just to make up for lost short-term rental income or lack of equity isn’t sustainable. That strategy doesn’t work — not for owners, not for buyers, and definitely not for the community.
It’s time we stop holding Maui hostage to speculation. Let’s return housing to its rightful purpose: homes for people who live here.
John Ballestra
Written Testimony in Opposition to Bill 9
Submitted by: Yuejiao Liu
Aloha Council Members,
My name is Yuejiao Liu, and I am writing in strong opposition to Bill 9.
I immigrated from China and moved to Maui several years ago to work as a Speech Language Pathologist in the public school system. I was proud to serve local children and contribute to the community in a meaningful way. However, as many residents know firsthand, it is incredibly difficult to survive in Hawaiʻi on just one income—especially while trying to build a future and raise a family.
Short-term rental allowed my family to supplement our income in a respectful, responsible way. We lived on-site and hosted visitors ourselves. We did the cleaning in the beginning and later hired local cleaners and a local manager as the operation grew. Every guest we hosted received personalized recommendations for local restaurants, small shops, activities, and services. We know their spending directly supported local businesses across the island.
Short-term rental was not a path to wealth for us—it was a way to afford basic stability in one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The income we earned helped us cover property taxes, HOA fees, insurance, and other rising costs of homeownership in Maui.
Eventually, we moved to Oʻahu to start a family and pursue further career opportunities. But we have remained deeply connected to Maui and continue to operate our property in a way that brings value to the community and employs local workers.
Bill 9 threatens to take away this legal use of our property and severely disrupt the lives of countless local families like ours—families who are not large investors, but working professionals trying to make ends meet. We are not the cause of Maui’s housing crisis. We are part of the solution—creating jobs, supporting businesses, and using the very limited income we generate to stay afloat.
Please consider the real human impact of this bill. It will not solve the housing crisis. It will hurt families who are already trying their best to live responsibly and sustainably in Hawaiʻi.
Thank you for your time and for allowing me to share my story.
Sincerely,
Yuejiao Liu
Aloha Council Members,
Thank you for your time and for allowing public input on this important matter. My name is Todd Lynam, and I’m writing in strong opposition to Bill 9.
My wife and I moved to Maui in 2017 after living in a dangerous neighborhood near Seattle. Our next-door neighbor’s house was shot up, and my wife had to testify in a separate drive-by shooting. We couldn’t afford a home near Seattle, but Maui gave us a chance at a better life.
My wife is a Speech Language Pathologist, and Maui was/is in dire need of her skills. She is also an immigrant from China, and we both felt very welcomed here. Maui is a true melting pot of people from all over the world. For the first time, my wife could comfortably use her Chinese name in daily life. We also deeply respect and appreciate Hawaiian culture. My wife joined a Hula Hālau, and we both paddled for Hawaiian Canoe Club.
In 2017, we were proud to become first-time homeowners by purchasing a condo at Pacific Shores with our life savings. This condo sat on the market for over a year at $375,000. If these units are truly in such high demand, it’s hard to reconcile that no one wanted this one when interest rates were far lower.
Like many locals, we took on a second job by short-term renting a bedroom. We eventually purchased a second unit in the same complex. In the beginning, we did all the cleaning ourselves. Over time, we hired local cleaners, repairmen, and an on-island contact. We pay substantial property taxes, General Excise Tax (GET), Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT), and the Maui County TAT (MCTAT). Our guests frequently ask for local recommendations, and we’re proud that their visits support local businesses across the island.
Today, we live on Oʻahu, where my wife earned her third master’s degree at the University of Hawaiʻi in behavioral analysis and now works with autistic children. One of our Maui units is currently being used by FEMA to house an elderly couple with a pet.
With the rising cost of property taxes, insurance, and special assessments, we’re around break even. But we remain committed to Maui and undeterred by this bill.
Bill 9 appears designed to force owners like us to either sell or convert our units to long-term rentals. But most of us aren’t investors. I served on the board at Pacific Shores, and the owners I interacted with were local or families who love Maui and subsidize their time here through a small-margin rental business. Many of these owners would simply convert their units into private second homes if forced out of short-term renting. STR owners have been a resilient and committed group, having survived COVID and helped in the aftermath of the fires.
I also want to push back on the idea that short-term rentals are the main barrier to housing. Maui County already has multiple initiatives underway to increase housing supply. For example, Bill 103 would allow up to four units per lot in many areas, effectively increasing residential density. The County is also working to streamline permits, which currently take nearly 400 days for multifamily housing. Artificial intelligence is being explored to help speed up that process. Additionally, new infrastructure like the Waiale Road extension is expected to unlock over 1,000 new homes, including hundreds of affordable units, in areas like Waikapū Country Town. From what I understand, this project also includes expanded water infrastructure.
While some say Maui lacks the water to support new homes, Haleakalā holds enormous groundwater reserves. The challenge is infrastructure and delivery and not scarcity. Oʻahu has solved this through well-planned investment and coordination. Maui can and should do the same.
I also want to speak to the legality of Bill 9. We have no intention of selling, and based on legal consultations, I believe Bill 9, or any version of it, has virtually no chance of surviving a legal challenge.
On Oʻahu, in AOAO of Waikīkī Banyan v. City & County of Honolulu (2019), the court granted a stay of enforcement when the city attempted to eliminate long-standing short-term rentals. The plaintiffs argued economic reliance and consistent zoning use and these arguments apply even more strongly here on Maui.
In Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City & County of Honolulu (2022), the court issued a permanent injunction, ruling that Honolulu’s 90-day rental rule violated property owners’ vested rights. That lawsuit explicitly raised Takings Clause claims under both the U.S. and Hawaiʻi constitutions.
Maui’s case is even stronger. The Minatoya List is codified into law. Vague terms like “legacy use” or “workforce intent” do not override the legal protections granted by existing zoning.
So I ask the Council this: In light of the legal precedents on Oʻahu and the proactive housing solutions already in motion, why go down the road of Bill 9? There are realistic solutions and progress being made and Bill 9 won't survive a legal challenge.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Todd Lynam
Aloha Chair Lee, Vice Chair Sugimura, Presiding Officer Pro Tempore Kama and Council Members,
My name is Kimberly Lee, and my husband and I own a one-bedroom condo in Kihei that we short-term rent. I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 legally permitted short-term rentals as a solution to Maui’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. While I understand and deeply sympathize with the gravity of the current housing challenges, I respectfully urge the Council to consider the broader impact this measure would have on responsible, long-term owners like myself—and the community we support.
My family has proudly owned a short-term rental property on Maui for over 22 years. During that time, we have not only contributed significantly to the island’s economy but have also become part of the extended Maui family. Through our rental, we have consistently supported local businesses including Shirley's Island Cleaning, Dream Clean Maui, Bello Property Management, and AA Oceanfront, along with many independent contractors, repair professionals, and service providers. Our guests also patronize local favorites such as Foodland, Sansei Sushi, Maui Tacos, Coconuts, Jawz Tacos, Sugar Shack, Kalama Village Shops, Maui Gardens, Boss Frogs, Snorkel Bobs, ABC Stores and Severeign Diving, among many others.
Since 2011 alone, we have paid $10,040 in General Excise Taxes and $26,978 in Transient Accommodations Taxes. These figures do not reflect the full extent of our contributions, as our ownership and tax payments began in 2003. Our property was purchased in good faith, with the full understanding that it was zoned and designated as a “condotel.” The Bank of Hawaii took a chance on us when few would, believing in our vision of one day retiring to Maui. That dream is just a few years away.
We were also there in Maui’s time of need. Following the devastation in Lahaina, we housed a fire victim at no charge, donated to local charities, and sent financial support directly to friends who were impacted. Our commitment to the community goes beyond economic interest—it is personal and heartfelt.
Taking away our ability to operate our legally permitted short-term rental at this point would be not only financially devastating but deeply disheartening. We strongly support efforts to address the housing crisis, but we believe there are more balanced, inclusive approaches that do not penalize long-time owners who have abided by every regulation and given back to the community for decades.
Please do not take away the opportunity for us to fulfill our dream of retiring to Maui. We are asking for partnership, not division. Let’s work together to craft thoughtful, effective solutions that respect Maui’s people, economy, and those of us who have treated the island with the care and love it deserves.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
With heartfelt sincerity,
Kimberly Lee
Maui Vista Resort Owner Since 2003
I spent multiple hours listening to testimony on both sides of Bill 9 last Monday. It is mind blowing how much misinformation is being communicated about people who own STVR's and how much owners actually make in any given month. My husband and I are from modest means and have worked 50-60 hours a week most of our adult life and were able to save up to put a down payment on a 1-bedroom unit in June 2021 so we would have a place to stay when we visited as the hotels are not a fiscally viable option. We short term rent it when we are not there to pay for the astronomical costs associated with owning an STVR in Maui. At that time, we were told by the realtor that these were legal for short term rentals as we would not be able to afford the costs otherwise. Not all of the people who own STVR's are rich millionaires from the Mainland, many of us are middle class working people or a local(Our People) living in Maui who are trying to make ends meet with the additional income. While there are varying viewpoints put forth on both sides, there were a couple of follow-up questions that the none of the City Council Members asked. I don't think only asking those who oppose the bill how many STVR's they own or did they know when they purchased the unit if it was legal to rent and who their realtor is germane in making a decision on the bill. What is important is asking viable questions to those who support the bill because they think this is a solution for affordable housing. First, several of the people supporting the bill noted that they would like to live in one of the STVR's. The question the City Council Members should ask is "What would you be able to afford for an average monthly rent? The majority of these units cost $5k+ every month for an owner to break even on costs. As an example of our monthly costs: mortgage $1,750, HOA $2,100, Hawaii Electric $300 (average), Property Taxes $1,000 = $5,150. Can locals afford to pay $5,150 or more for a one-bedroom condominium each month? The reality is that we are not making up to $15,000 per month as one speaker noted each month, we are lucky to break even most months. One of the speakers noted that HOA's would go down if they were long-term, but that is simply not true. The largest expense of the HOA's is insurance which is going up exponentially every month not down? The other large costs associated with these units are infrastructure and repairs which continue to go up. The Papakea Resort is in the middle of an Interior Renovation to replace all of their pipes to the tune of $34M which is coming due to owners in August 2026. This will increase the HOA costs for a one-bedroom $600 per month to more than $2,300. In addition, has anyone considered what this will do to the local banks that hold mortgages on these properties if the bill passes and owners can not pay their mortgagers? The majority of the units are financed through Bank of Hawaii. Has anyone thought about what this will do to the local banks when those owners are unable to pay or if the HOA's foreclose on the units because the owners can no longer afford them if they can not short term lease? If you look online, there are over 1k units for sale with some on the market more than a year at up to 40% from the previous period last year due to this bill. This could cause a financial collapse of the local bank on the island. Since this was not part of the scope of the UHERO report, it was not accounted for. The City Council needs to step up and realize that the only way to fix this long standing issue is to build affordable housing, which should have happened before the fires. Approving this bill will drain any $$ from the counties budget in legal fees, not to mention a class action lawsuit in loss revenue and price decreases for the units. Make the right decision and oppose this bill so you do not bankrupt the County of Maui.
My name is Justin born and bred in Maui (Pukalani). I wish to oppose this bill, this is an obvious scheme by the mayor who is the most incompetent in looking after locals here regarding our livelihood. This bill will destroy our business (we provide various maintenance services to a lot of complexes) and just enrich the corrupt leaders of Lahaina Strong, the hotels and the mayor and his associates who themselves own huge parcels of land. How can someone who has an average salary afford to rent over $2000 a month for a one bedroom?? Incredible lack of foresight from these so-called leaders! You people just got a raise too!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
As an owner of a condo that was built with vacation rental in mind, it is obvious that these are not suitable for long term living. Our one bedroom condo is 585 sq ft with very little cupboard space and no storage so how does anyone live full time in a space like this. Along with the lack of space is the huge cost of the HOA that is $1300 per month. This is probably equivalent to a mortgage payment . This is not affordable and unrealistic to think that these units are even suitable for full time occupancy. Restore common sense please.!
My husband and I are residents of Kihei. I work for a non-profit and my husband is a handyman for vacation rentals. We saved our money and worked extra hours and were able to put a down payment on a vacation rental unit in 2023 so we still owe a sizable amount.
We are naturally very concerned about the possibility of having the highest and best use of our condo taken without just compensation. If this happens, we may not be able to pay our mortgage, and my husband would almost certainly lose his job in the vacation industry. Our local cleaners , the reservationists, handymen, admins, and bookkeepers at the rental agencies would lose their jobs, Kihei restaurants and some of our local excursions would close (remember 2020?) and there would be trickledown effects such as non-profits and other local business receiving diminished revenues and facing layoffs. We faced so much of this in 2020, but in that year, there was a light at the end of the tunnel and we had the federal government help us get through the layoff periods and business closures which were brought on by the pandemic.
In this new situation, the federal government will not be there to help us keep the restaurants afloat and pay the workers to be able to stay on island.
Currently, vacation rental cleaners are able to make a good living because renters move out of units as often as every three days in many units. The cleaners clean several units and stay very busy. These cleanings are 100% paid for by the renters because these cleaning fees are added to the cost of their rental agreement as a separate line item, as well as the GE, TA, and MCTA taxes. If these cleaners are forced to give up their lucrative cleaning businesses and get a job with a hotel, they may not be able to afford their rent/ mortgage and may be forced to leave the island. This is just one of the unintended consequences of losing the vacation rental business.
The stated goal of this legislation is to create workforce housing. However, it is unlikely that anything more than a small fraction of the 7000 condos would end up owned or rented by locals. There are currently many residential condos for sale in Kihei with prices under $600,000 that are not getting purchased by locals. I contend that the main beneficiaries of this legislation would be off-island residents who would buy these condos as second homes at diminished prices to the detriment of almost everybody.
I urge you to protect the Maui Kama’aina and oppose this proposed legislation.
Judy
I am Kawika "Kev" Alama and I moved from Maui to california in 2011. People need to stop thinking that this bill will a) free up housing for people that is affordable and b) is a move to help "native" Hawaiians.There are more natives east of me than west of me and a big chunk of the people who are on Maui and can't afford to stay there aren't native. not hawaiian not even local. They are people who basically swapped spots with me over the years. Native moves away and haole goes to be canoe instructor or yogi. People love to claim that so many of the STR owners aren't from Maui. But they don't look at the main groups of people they are "fishing for housing" for. It's all a bunch of transplants who are mad that their little speculative journey didnt' go so well because they weren't able to pull the ladder up fast enough behind them.
I left Maui for school not by being "priced out". I live in a different kind of paradise now, own two businesses, have a house and far more than would have been possible on Maui. I oppose bill 9 because unlike what all these supporters say, these condos aren't being phased out "for native hawaiians" most are for people the supporters would probably criticize for being broke, who "speculated" on a move that didn't pan out, who went to live somewhere that they probably shouldn't have. I have friends and family back on Maui who work in tourism and they see this as a promise for housing that guarantees no such thing. A lot of wishful thinking on that side and not a lot of facts. Actually the economic reports give them the facts but they choose to ignore 2 of them then make up some far fetched story about how amazing the 3rd was, even though it was as dismal a prediction for what the phase out would bring.
I oppose the bill and so should council.
Kev
Mahalo for receiving my testimony.
I oppose bill 9 because it just doesn't seem to add up. I watch instagram and facebook and just see all the hate and racism directed toward STR owners. "dumb white people" they get called, "gotta fight against the white way". then I see all the exact places for sale that the phase out is supposed to make more of and they aren't being bought. like people said in live testimony they support affordable housing and i don't see how this makes any housing that's more affordable.
2 bed 1 bath 1,500sqft 2.5acre lot
2239 Upper Kanaio Rd, Kula, HI 96790
$317 per square foot makes it $475k
Been on the market already for a MONTH. How are we even having a conversation about places that are $1000+ per square foot?
I oppose bill 9 because it just doesn't do what it claims it will do. no way.
Diana Ramos
O wau Mariano a e ku'e au keia pila hewa! Ke noho nei no kou ohana ma Lahaina. A'ole pono i ke ho'aihue ana no kekahi hale. He lumi li'li' loa'a makou i ke kahi komohana, ke ho'oka'a ana makou i na auhau nui, ke ho'ouna ana makou i na kupono palapala! Mai lawe aku i ka mea e pa'u i ka hana no makou!
Wish to submit opposition to this bill. My brother and I run a small business (food truck) which is supported by the guests in these STRs. I would say 90% of them stay in these legal STRs, very very few are from the hotels. This bill will not only devastate the our small enterprise as well but the whole economy of the county.