Tourism is the heart of Maui’s economy. Does it make sense to severely handcuff a large number of businesses and reduce the available employment opportunities in the attempt to create more housing for residents with no jobs? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to earmark a big portion of the taxes that are brought in from rentals to build and purchase more housing that the county subsidies in order to create more affordable places for residents to live?
I am a full-time resident who both lives in Wailea and has a STR at the Palms at Wailea, and I strongly OPPOSE this bill as written as I believe the significant negative economic impact on our most vulnerable residents will far outweigh any benefits that will be provided in the form of affordable housing for these same residents. I share the opinion of other testifiers that very little truly "affordable" housing will result from these conversions, but want to focus my specific testimony on the Wailea area since my relevant experience involves living and having my rental business there.
Point 1 - Wailea was built as a resort area. There are no schools, community centers, public playgrounds, sports fields, chain grocery stores, or other features that sustain local neighborhoods. The main focus is and always has been chasing high-end tourism and deep-pocketed residents, both through the hotels and the short-term rental and long-term residential developments. The Palms at Wailea was built as a short-term rental community, designed with a with a commercial unit in the clubhouse which was intended as a hotel front-desk; this unit has been independently owned and operated by Outrigger Hotels and Resorts since the complex was completed. Its sister property, Wailea Palms, was designed and built as a long-term residential property, which it remains today. These are not historically local neighborhoods that have been subsequently infiltrated by tourists in converted AirBnB units, but rather a place to stash wealthy tourists and residents while they fill the coffers of the Maui County tax collector and the many businesses who rely on tourism dollars.
Point 2 - These are very expensive units to purchase, pay taxes on, and to maintain. Even with the reduction in market values that has resulted from the threat of this bill, the purchase prices are still exorbitant and therefore the units that we have seen change hands at the Palms have not been purchased by local residents but rather by other wealthy individuals. Regarding the monthly maintenance costs, I am the Treasurer of the Palms at Wailea's AOAO and a retired CPA, and in that capacity I prepare the yearly budget and know what it takes to maintain a property in the Wailea resort area. Our property encompasses 23 buildings over 16.7 acres, and we are required by the Wailea Community Association (of which all Wailea owners are mandatory members) to adhere to strict standards as far as the maintenance of all structures, greenery and other amenities. Our budget to do so does not contain any "fat"; the AOAO's goal each year is to collect (in the form of AOAO monthly dues) only as much as we need for ongoing maintenance and for reserves to prepare for capital repairs when needed. I pinch every penny I can but our costs are only increasing each year, particularly for insurance, maintenance, salaries and utilities. Nevertheless, our monthly dues are pushing $2,000/unit/month and climbing. I have heard the argument presented that once these units are "taken back" by local residents, they will just plant some drought-tolerant plants, stop doing all the lawn maintenance, fill in the pool, and stop "making money" off the AOAO fees. This of course will not happen, because 1.) such changes to the property would require a 2/3 vote of all owners, and a majority of owners would not vote for such changes, 2.) such changes are not permitted by the Wailea Community Association, and 3.) there is no "profit" or other excess to take out of the budget.
Point 3 - There seems to be a general assumption that, when a STR is converted to LTR status, one of two things will happen: 1. the owner will rent it out long term (and at an "affordable" rental rate), or 2.) the owner will sell it (an at an "affordable" price). Putting aside the fact that that neither 1 or 2 are unlikely to happen at an "affordable' price for a property in Wailea, there is a third option that does not seem to be discussed much in the binary scenario above: PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO ARE NEITHER GOING TO RENT LONG-TERM NOR SELL THEIR PROPERTY - THEY ARE JUST GOING TO LET IT SIT EMPTY WHEN THEY ARE NOT USING IT. There is an especially high risk of this in a resort area like Wailea, where many owners paid cash for their units and will be willing and able to cover the carrying costs out of pocket, because when they want to use it, they want it open and available rather than rented out long term. I know this seems grossly unfair to people who can't afford even one place, but it is the reality nonetheless. And a unit sitting empty does not do anyone any good, particularly the people who depend upon tourism for their livelihoods.
Look, our hard-working residents desperately need affordable places to live. It is not right that people born here can't afford to keep living here. Something needs to be done. However, the solution needs to be more thought out, more strategic, and done with a scalpel and not a hatchet. STR's in resort areas such as Wailea should remain legal, where they can continue to house tourists away from local communities and generate revenues for our hard-working local businesses. (And if your first response is "well, if you don't want this problem, just get a zoning change", then you should create a clear path and methodology to allow condo communities to pursue such a change, because the path right now is a very unclear and uncertain.)
The removal of the short term rentals will decimate the economy in many ways:
1. Destroy the value of thousands of properties which will drag the entire market down with it.
2. Increase unemployment dramatically in Hawaii (think loss of tourism, all jobs lost for workers in the industry).
3. Those properties will fall in disrepair. But they still will not be affordable to the average resident.
4. With this will come a dramatic loss of tourism which is the biggest industry in Hawaii.
Think the depression of 1929. Is this really what we want for Hawaii?
I am writing in strong support of Bill 9, which aims to restore balance and integrity to Maui’s housing market by phasing out illegal or misused short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) in apartment-zoned areas. As a licensed Realtor and housing advocate, I urge you to pass this bill not only on legal or ethical grounds, but also on economic and valuation principles rooted in real estate best practices.
Maui’s housing market is unlike any other in the United States. We face acute land scarcity, speculative external investment, and a growing disconnect between market activity and local housing need. Left unchecked, investor-driven short-term rentals distort market signals and remove long-term inventory, undermining the economic health and livability of our communities.
2. Accrued Depreciation and Economic Obsolescence in Our Communities
Many STVRs are located in apartment complexes built before 1980—structures that are already approaching the end of their economic life. These older units face compounded accrued depreciation through:
• Physical deterioration (aging plumbing, electrical systems, roofing);
• Functional obsolescence (lack of ADA compliance, energy inefficiency, outdated layouts);
• And most importantly, economic obsolescence, resulting from the surrounding area’s shift in use—from residential to transient-tourism zones.
This transformation from a housing community to a de facto hotel district diminishes long-term value for local residents, despite temporary gains from tourist income.
3. Misaligned Valuation: Cost to Replace vs. Value Now
The Replacement Cost Approach clearly demonstrates that many STVRs—especially those in aged buildings—are overvalued when used as speculative income streams, but would be undervalued in their current depreciated state without their illegal or nonconforming use. This discrepancy distorts assessments, misleads appraisals, and unfairly inflates perceived value based on non-permitted or conditional use rather than legal, sustainable occupancy.
4. Zoning Abuse Causes Economic Obsolescence for Long-Term Residents
Economic obsolescence is not just a theoretical concept—it is being lived every day by families priced out of their own neighborhoods. When STVRs are allowed to persist in apartment zones originally intended for residential use, the public trust is violated and community infrastructure is eroded. Schools, parks, and local businesses suffer from declining stable populations, while police and county services are stretched thin responding to noise complaints and other tourist-related disruptions.
5. Progression Should Benefit Residents, Not Speculators
The principle of progression tells us that properties gain value when surrounded by higher-quality development. However, the opposite is also true: when transient rentals dominate a neighborhood, surrounding properties lose their appeal as primary residences. This reversal drives away long-term tenants and owners, hollowing out Maui’s communities. If we allow STVRs to define apartment zones, we are rewarding speculative interests while suppressing progression for working families.
6. Bill 9 Is a Necessary Correction, Not a Taking
Bill 9 restores the original intent of apartment zoning and corrects a long-standing enforcement failure. It does not constitute a “taking” because it does not remove any legal entitlement—rather, it removes illegitimate or expired uses. The County has every right—and obligation—to ensure zoning laws are applied uniformly and fairly.
⸻
Conclusion
From a real estate valuation perspective, Bill 9 is sound policy. It reasserts public control over zoning, restores the long-term economic viability of our residential zones, and reduces both economic and functional obsolescence in communities across Maui. This bill is an investment in our future stability, in the value of our neighborhoods, and in the rights of residents to live in housing zones without being displaced by transient tourism.
I urge you to pass Bill 9 without delay.
Mahalo for your time and service.
Respectfully,
Renee P Kaiama
5th Maui Generation
Broker/Owner
Maui Real Estate 808
Maui land use laws are holding back low cost development. It’s not the responsibility of short term rental owners to be destroyed by the long term islanders who have not done their job to keep housing costs under control. Again open more land will lower land value and open homes more affordable but government must keep money hungry developers out and keep costs at a minimum.
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
I own a condo at Mahina Surf in Maui County. I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals.
As an owner and regular visitor to Maui, we support the local economy by frequenting restaurants, small businesses, and service providers. During the portions of the year when we are not present, we do offer our unit for short-term rental. Our vacationing guests also support the local economy in the ways I described.
If the legislation to phase out these units passes, it is unlikely that ours would be available for local housing, as we will continue to use it ourselves. The only differences would be negative ones: the property tax basis would be reduced from renal to one of owner/occupant; fewer visitors would be supporting local restaurants and businesses, and fewer service providers would be needed.
I urge you to consider other options to help with Maui’s long term housing needs, which I acknowledge is a problem. I do not believe that the imminent removal of 7,000 units will have the desired effect, and the negative economic impact of doing so will be catastrophic to many small business owners, and to Maui County.
I am writing this letter, not as a STR owner, but as a professional who is highly disturbed by the attempted infringement on property owner's rights being proposed here.
Purchasing real estate always comes with risk. But none of the risks include the government stripping property owners rights to use their property as intended and practiced for 50+ years.
A cornerstone of property ownership is the traditional mortgage. Banks assess the risk of each mortgage they hold. Risks include property condition, property value in relation to debt carried, and borrower's ability to repay. Banks mitigate these risks through strict underwriting guidelines, a formal appraisal of the property and a vast credit and ability to repay research on each borrower.
What banks DON'T need to worry about (until today) is the government threatening to strip away the rights to use property as was always intended, and ultimately devaluing the property exponentially overnight.
Bank of Hawaii, First Hawaiian and CPB hold the vast majority of the mortgages on the Minatoya List. To the tune of hundreds of millions (potentially billions) of dollars. And despite these condos not being Fannie Mae or Feddie Mac approved complexes, these banks lent on them anyway based on the fact that the Minatoya Rule was a codified law and use as STR was both well-established and legal. Because they are not Fannie/Freddie approved, these mortgages are not government-backed and are not sellable on the secondary market. They are held as portfolio (or in-house) mortgages. What does this mean to the layman? These banks will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in asset value overnight should this proposal pass.
Short sales and ultimately foreclosures are sure to quickly follow. And while the activists cheer on Instagram "bring on the foreclosures!" and "here comes the housing crash" these banks are singing a much different tune. As they should be. Bringing on foreclosures equals bringing on economic collapse. Is that what we want?
The mortgage industry in Hawaii will change overnight should this ban be passed. Hawaiian banks will no longer be able to trust that traditional property ownership laws will be honored by state and local governments. These properties will become non-lendable. Hawaiian banks will undoubtedly need a government bailout. And if the banks are smart, they will be leading the charge with a lawsuit against the County for this unconstitutional infringement on property rights.
A housing crash is not an effective government strategy.
We are opposed to the measure to eliminate short term rental use in A1 and A2 districts and urge you to vote the same. No on Bill 9.
I am writing in opposition to Bill 9. I have previously submitted testimony, but want to respond to some of the points in the mayor's report. First, I was happy to see that this time, there actually was a report. It seems as if the bill was originally offered without much planning, research, or thought about the consequences (intended or otherwise). As a long time county employee in two California counties, we would never be able to make such a proposal with actual facts and information to back it up. I think the data was presented in such a way to support the Bill, rather than in an unbiased way. The point that I thought was most biased was when it was reported that since 94% of the owners are non-residents, this money would not be staying on Maui anyway. Wrong. Most of the income from the rentals does stay on Maui in the form of expenses related to the maintenance and upkeep of the unit, including taxes (property, GE and TA-all paid to HI/Maui); HOA fees (insurance, utilities, and common area maintenance/upkeep.. The largest portion of our HOA fees goes to landscaping. All these costs go to Maui companies); Unit upkeep (cleaning @ $250 per time, unit management of 16-20% of rents collected; new furniture appliances, carpeting to keep the unit to a standard that guests expect.) These all stay on island. I would be glad to provide cash flow statements filed with our taxes. As an owner of a single unit, we have also had to pay for these things out of pocket when rentals are down. Of course there is also the mortgage, which is likely to be paid to a local bank. Thankfully, we purchased our condo over 40 years ago, so the mortgage is not longer a concern. My point is, the rental income for most units is indeed staying on Maui. I think it was very unfair to portray it as leaving. I don't know of anyone who is making a profit (other than equity). In fact, if we were to rent out our unit long term, the HOA costs would remain the same; as the grounds and common areas would still have to be kept to the same standards, but we would not be spending as much on the unit furnishings as short term rentals are kept to a higher standard and require replacement of household goods, linens, and furnishings on a regular basis. I spend much more on our rental condo furnishings than on our mainland furnishings where we do not rent our unit.
Many of the comments in support of the Bill say there is not enough water to support the use. I question the methodology of the mayor's report about how much more water is used by short term rentals, but would agree that it makes sense that they use more water (but not to the extent reported). However Maui's own water study reports that there is enough water, but it is the distribution method that is the problem. One that Maui should fix through infrastructure improvements. I have read that 1,500 units in Wailea were recently approved. Seems like projects like this should not be approved if the commission truly believes there is a water shortage.
Another point made was that it would take 100 years or something like that to build the number of units that will become available by abolishing the short term rentals on the Minatoya list. Construction could be considerably sped up with a quicker approval process; building on public land (cheaper), etc. Look how fast the units on Piilani in Kihei went up, and housing currently under construction by the Kihei Safeway. At those rates of construction, 7,000 units could be built in a much shorter period. You cannot base construction of what has happened, rather than what could be done.
We spend about 6 months a year on Maui. Sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. We could not possibly rent out our unit long term and still live on Maui part time (which is our priority). I think not enough attention has been spent on the survey from the real estate association that showed that 90+% of the owners surveyed said that if this bill passes, they will not rent their unit long term, but will save it for family use as a second home. That is exactly what we plan to do, as well as most of the people I have discussed this with. Most of the people at our condo complex, Hale Kamaole, spend months in their units and rent it out short term when not in residence. That was our plan when we purchased. I would guess that owners of multiple units and those who have purchased more recently when prices were sky high may need to sell. Those for sale in our complex have dropped in price significantly, as predicted by the UHERO study, but no interest on the part of local buyers. Passage of this Bill is not at all likely to add to the inventory of affordable housing. The HOA fees alone make them unaffordable. Ours are over $1200 a month, except for 2024 and 2025 when they went to over $4,000 per month to pay for a special assessment for plumbing (a $72,000 assessment for each 2 bedroom unit in our complex). Most of the condos in Kihei of about this age (40-50 years old) can expect to do the same thing at about the same cost.
I heard many of the speakers in support of the Bill say that if the units are not used for short term rentals that the HOA fees will go down. This is impossible. Maybe wishful thinking! Most of the HOA fees go for landscaping, water, electricity and upkeep of an aging building. It is not like you can just decide not to make a repair to save money like you can with your own single family home. The complex must be kept up, the bylaws require it. Insurance must be purchased, and must cover the cost to rebuild. And state law requires a certain percentage of reserve be funded for future repairs. Believe me, no one likes the high HOA fees, but we understand that they are necessary.
In summary, I think the Bill is not the answer to the housing problem on Maui. If it passes, when it becomes clear that it hasn't helped, something else will have to be done. This will delay the provision of a real solution. And that is a travesty. A solution is needed now.
This bill i oppose it does nothing but hurt so many hardworking people here we employ many housekeepers and maintenance pool workers on and on
This home sleeps 8 guests who would never come to visit Maui if they had to stay in a hotel
They average spending $2000 pr guest for each stay on tourist excursions
They rent cars normally 2 they shop and support our biggest business what is it??? Tourism why would you shut it down
It doesn't do anything for affordable housing and country and state would lose all the taxes please vote no
I oppose the bill as it is clear to me that it does not solve the housing crisis and it would be a significant decrease in tax dollars for the local economy. I own a condo at Palms at Wailea I and it is zoned short term and right next to it is Palms at Wailea II that is zoned long-term. There are no affordable units for rent at Palms II as over 90% are owned and used by snowbirds from the mainland and the rest are expensive rentals. Condos that are selling fort 1.5 million are not ever going to be affordable housing when they have HOA dues that are around $1500 per month and if they put $400,000 down payment, their principal and interest payments would be over $8000 a month for a 1 or 2 bedroom unit that has no garage and only one designated parking spot. If this bill passes, there will be a tremendous amount of expenses by the government as the lawsuits are most likely going to be plentiful. Maui has a housing crisis, but this bill will hurt the island financially instead of help. I pay over $20,000 a year in GAT and TAT tax. Maybe they should designate this extra money coming in to building new affordable housing
I oppose Bill 9 which is legally indefensible as drafted. Please amend Bill 9 to exempt the properties specifically mentioned by the Planning Commission and affirmatively rezone these properties.
During the summer 2024 hearings, the Maui County Planning Commission heard about 20 hours of testimony and then unanimously recommended passage of the bill with several recommendations to the Maui County Council, including the following:
“Requested that the Council consider excluding those properties that are community plan designated for hotel use and those properties that are already partially hotel zoned.”
The Planning Commission voted and unanimously approved the comments. See November 22, 2024 Letter from Planning.
On April 30, 2025, Housing and Land Use Chair Tasha Kama sent a letter to the Planning Department asking for identification of the specific properties covered under the Planning Commission’s recommended exclusion from Bill 9. The Planning Department responded on May 22, 2025, identifying the following five properties which includes 1,031 units:
-Wailea Ekahi I
-Waiea Ekahi III
-Papakea
-Hale Kaanapali
-Maui Eldorado
Among the Planning Commission’s purpose is the obligation to “[r]eview other proposed land use ordinances and amendments thereto prepared by the director or the council, and, after public hearings transmit such ordinances with its findings and recommendations thereon to council for consideration and action no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the final public hearing.” See Maui County Charter, Section 8-8.4.
If the County Council ignores the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the Council has effectively rendered the Planning Commission process worthless and provided properties that the Planning Commission recommended for exclusion with additional legal arguments to challenge the legislation. Attempting to phase out short-term rental rights for properties that Maui County has identified for decades as having partial hotel zoning will create unique and strong legal arguments in favor of those property owners. Even a cursory review of testimony shows that the above-mentioned properties are organized, well-represented, and rightfully prepared to pursue legal action based on the County’s own records regarding zoning and community plan designation.
Following the recommendations of a subject matter expert advisory committee such as the Planning Commission is prudent action by the County Council.
I’ve heard non-lawyer proponents of Bill 9 proclaim that the bill must be passed in its entirety to avoid legal challenge. Specifically, the properties that were not excluded would argue that they should have been excluded. Properties included in the purview of Bill 9 can and will make that argument regardless of whether other properties are excluded. Exclusion of some properties does not create any legitimate legal argument for properties that did not receive an exemption. The standard of review of the Council’s legislative action is “arbitrary and capricious” and no court will find that following the recommendation of the Planning Commission is arbitrary or capricious. There is no legal justification for refusing to follow the Planning Commission recommendations. That argument seems to have been cooked up by the proponents that want to maximize inclusion of properties in Bill 9. The County Council has legislative discretion to make these decisions, especially when those decisions align with the recommendations of an advisory committee. Passing Bill 9 as written has more potential to be viewed as arbitrary and capricious because the Council would have disregarded the Planning Commission’s recommendations without any cognizable basis.
The proponents that argue that properties can simply rezone after passage of Bill 9 fail to recognize the substantial impact that such massive rezoning efforts with have on the County. The Planning Commission will have years of backlogged rezoning applications. With the rebuilding of Lahaina, jamming up the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and County Council with rezoning applications is bad policy and a gross waste of County resources. Additionally, this increased workload will likely delay work related to critical permitting activity as the community tries to rebuild.
Community organizers that claim properties can apply for rezoning will most certainly show up, intervene and generally attempt to torpedo any rezoning applications due to clear financial incentives to continue finding battles to fight. Maui County has never rezoned a property to hotel and routinely allows these hearings to become a dog whistle for the most dysfunction parts of the community to present a wish list of demands that are typically irrelevant to any aspect of the rezoning process.
The concept that exempting properties as recommended by the Planning Commission would somehow increase legal risk is preposterous and if any attorney with Corporation Counsel is providing that advice, it’s time to get a second opinion because that’s bad advice. From what I have seen, at least one councilmember who is not a lawyer bullies Corporation Counsel into making legal decisions consistent with the desired outcome. I hope that the rest of the councilmembers are willing to seek actual legal advice and not attempt to paint the target around the arrow which will provide no protection once litigation commences.
Any attorney that is telling Councilmembers that the current version of Bill 9 can withstand legal challenge with little risk to the County is similarly giving bad advice. The history of the Minatoya List, the County’s representation of zoning and community plan designations, and the Mayor’s clear animus based on race and place of residence present a complex dispute that will result in expensive and disruptive litigation. The expense for both sides will be significant. Even if the County prevails, which is unlikely if Bill 9 is passed as written, property owners have clearly stated that they do not intend to long-term rent so all the time and money spent by Maui County will have been for nothing.
Oh, and Member Paltin: Yes, I am a lawyer that practices in the area of real estate, land use, and litigation.
I submit this testimony in strong support of Bill 9, which will phase out short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) in apartment-zoned areas by 2026. This legislation is long overdue and represents one of the few bold actions taken to reclaim housing and community control for the people of Maui.
✅ THE FACTS ARE UNDENIABLE
A 2025 report by the Lahaina Community Land Trust (LCLT) confirmed that in 2024, zero homes were sold within the financial reach of the average Maui resident. The median home price on Maui was approximately $1.3 million, while the typical household could only afford a home valued at $379,000. This data should alarm anyone who claims to care about the long-term viability of our communities.
🏚️ HOUSING CRISIS: NOT NEW, JUST EXPLOITED
The housing crisis on Maui didn’t start with the Lahaina fires. Local families have been priced out for over a decade while state and county policies enabled rampant speculation and commodification of land. The fire simply gave political cover for profiteers, land trusts, and mainland investors to consolidate land, rebrand themselves as “community solutions,” and extract wealth through taxpayer-funded programs and disaster aid.
🕵️♂️ THE MYTH OF “COMMUNITY TRUSTS”
Organizations like the Lahaina Community Land Trust are presenting themselves as saviors while participating in the post-disaster wealth transfer. Their model of limited-equity housing is not true ownership — it is long-term dependency with no pathway to generational wealth. These “trusts” are acquiring land using public funds while local residents are displaced or locked into rental-class housing permanently. It is colonization disguised as compassion.
💸 THE REALTOR ASSOCIATION’S ROLE IN THIS FAILURE
The Realtors Association of Maui (RAM) has consistently prioritized investor ROI over resident wellbeing:
• RAM opposed Bill 9, defending 7,000 illegal STVRs in apartment zones that should be housing families, not tourists.
• They supported speculative construction projects under the false promise that “building more” would fix the problem.
• RAM failed to lobby for enforceable affordability requirements, deed restrictions, or local-first ownership models.
• Their messaging promotes the idea that Maui is just like everywhere else — but Maui is not just another U.S. market. This is occupied land, not a playground for global capital.
As local testimony has noted, RAM agents have openly advertised Maui real estate on billboards in California, encouraging out-of-state buyers to invest here — and then turn around and claim Maui’s housing crisis is just a “national problem.” This is hypocrisy at best, and complicity in systemic displacement at worst.
🏘️ STVRs CAUSED THE DISTORTION. PHASING THEM OUT WILL BEGIN TO CORRECT IT.
The unchecked proliferation of STVRs in apartment zones:
• Removed thousands of units from long-term housing stock.
• Artificially inflated land values and property taxes.
• Contributed to local displacement, homelessness, and multi-generational overcrowding.
Phasing out STVRs is not a punishment — it’s a course correction. It will stabilize the market, increase inventory, and begin to reverse the damage done by years of unchecked speculation.
✊ MAUI IS NOT FOR SALE
This is not America.
This is not just another “hot” real estate market.
This is the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, a place that has suffered over 130 years of occupation, extraction, and forced economic assimilation.
Bill 9 is not just about zoning.
It is a small but essential act of resistance against continued commodification of land, culture, and people.
⸻
I urge the Council to adopt Bill 9 without weakening amendments or delays. Let this be the moment we begin to re-center housing policy around the needs of residents, not investors.
I am born and raised. So mixed I can not give you a break down . Aren’t we all really? I grew upcountry. I have f amily still in Rice Camp, my family came from Puunene. My grandparents were not allowed on the same sidewaIk. They married and raised children in Dream City. One of the first home owners. I left, most of us my age did. We couldn’t become anything substantial at home.So we left. And we stayed gone, for long time. I went school mainland, I married mainland, bought houses mainland….cause we could.
l
am a loyal and very happy employee of the Hogan Ohana. Steve and Eve Hogan have gifted me vehicles, kept a roof over my head. They have always paid me a fair wage, my full medical expenses. They are my hanai Ohana, not just an employer. If they can’t afford to keep me employed. I have to leave. Long story short.This not the remedy to the sickness. We did this! It’s not any Haole fault! We let this happen.
My name is Lehua, I am 45 years old, Native Hawaiian, and I work part-time at Walmart. I live in Pukalani now, but I’ve moved five times in the last 10 years just trying to find something I can afford. Right now I’m in a tiny ohana unit with my two kids and my mom.
I’m writing in strong support of Bill 9.
This bill is about closing the loophole that let people turn apartment-zoned housing into short-term vacation rentals. That zoning was supposed to be for local housing — not for tourist hotels hiding in plain sight. Bill 9 fixes that, and makes sure that land stays for residents. That’s why I support it.
To me, this is about fairness. Working people can’t compete with people coming in from the mainland or overseas who buy up properties and use them to make money off tourists. Meanwhile, we’re barely hanging on. I see people I know — families, kūpuna, even young couples — moving off-island because they just can’t make it here anymore.
I think about the Bible sometimes. The stories of the tribes who were given land and had to take care of it, or else lose it. In the end, they were driven out, scattered, just like us. The land got taken by others, and they had to fight to come back and rebuild.
That’s how it feels to be Hawaiian on Maui today. We’re still here — but barely.
I don’t think it’s right that whole apartment buildings in Lahaina or Kīhei were turned into vacation rentals while locals are living five or six to a house, or sleeping in their cars. That land was zoned to be housing for people who live and work here, and that’s what it should go back to.
Bill 9 doesn’t take anyone’s property away. It just says that apartment zoning should be used the way it was meant to be used: for long-term housing, not short-term profit. And it gives time for people to adjust.
We don’t need more “investment properties.” We need homes for our keiki, our kūpuna, our workers — for people like me who are still trying to make it here. I work hard, but I can’t work enough hours to outbid a mainland investor.
The County’s job is to look out for residents — not protect outside profits. Please, put local people first. We’ve been pushed aside long enough.
I respectfully ask you to pass Bill 9 and start bringing housing back to the people who live here full-time.
Opposing this pila. I work for a property management company in Wailuku and we look after 7 complexes. Bringing these units to long term rental will not bring about affordable housing. These units are very old and very expensive to maintain, HOA for one bedroom alone averages over $1,500, not including utilites, insurance etc etc.
Rather use the property taxes to fund building of better more sustainable units.
Testimony in Strong Support of Bill 9
Housing & Land Use Committee
Submitted by: Gabriella Mata-Wong
Aloha Honorable Mayor Bissen and Council Members,
My name is Gabriella Mata-Wong, and I’m submitting this testimony in strong support of Bill 9.
Let’s be clear, Bill 9 isn’t anti-tourism, it’s pro-resident.
This bill is about restoring balance. We’re not shutting the door on visitors, we’re simply saying that residential-zoned housing should serve residents first. Apartment units, originally built to house families and local workers, have been slowly converted into vacation rentals for tourists. And now we’re seeing the cost, not just in dollars, but in displacement, overcrowding, and broken communities.
I’ve heard the argument that removing STRs from apartment-zoned areas won’t help. But the facts tell another story:
Returning just 6,127 units to the long-term rental market could increase Maui’s housing supply by 13 percent, the equivalent of 10 years of new construction.
Rents and condo prices could drop by 20 to 40 percent, giving local families a fighting chance to stay in the places they grew up.
STRs in residential zones strain infrastructure and use high amounts of water, resources that should be prioritized for the people who live here full time.
Of course we need more affordable housing, but that takes time. These units already exist. We can start making an impact now by restoring housing to those who need it most.
We already have resort areas built for tourism. That’s where STRs should stay. Resort communities are equipped with the infrastructure, zoning, and distance from neighborhoods that make vacation rentals appropriate there.
Bill 9 is a step toward correcting decades of imbalance. It’s a tough step, yes, but a necessary one if we want Maui to remain a home for its people, not just a destination.
I urge you to pass Bill 9, not just for housing, but for the future of our communities.
Mahalo for your time and for listening to the voices of those who call Maui home.
Tourism is the heart of Maui’s economy. Does it make sense to severely handcuff a large number of businesses and reduce the available employment opportunities in the attempt to create more housing for residents with no jobs? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to earmark a big portion of the taxes that are brought in from rentals to build and purchase more housing that the county subsidies in order to create more affordable places for residents to live?
This does not solve the problem for all the reasons stated
Aloha Madam Chair and Committee Members,
I am a full-time resident who both lives in Wailea and has a STR at the Palms at Wailea, and I strongly OPPOSE this bill as written as I believe the significant negative economic impact on our most vulnerable residents will far outweigh any benefits that will be provided in the form of affordable housing for these same residents. I share the opinion of other testifiers that very little truly "affordable" housing will result from these conversions, but want to focus my specific testimony on the Wailea area since my relevant experience involves living and having my rental business there.
Point 1 - Wailea was built as a resort area. There are no schools, community centers, public playgrounds, sports fields, chain grocery stores, or other features that sustain local neighborhoods. The main focus is and always has been chasing high-end tourism and deep-pocketed residents, both through the hotels and the short-term rental and long-term residential developments. The Palms at Wailea was built as a short-term rental community, designed with a with a commercial unit in the clubhouse which was intended as a hotel front-desk; this unit has been independently owned and operated by Outrigger Hotels and Resorts since the complex was completed. Its sister property, Wailea Palms, was designed and built as a long-term residential property, which it remains today. These are not historically local neighborhoods that have been subsequently infiltrated by tourists in converted AirBnB units, but rather a place to stash wealthy tourists and residents while they fill the coffers of the Maui County tax collector and the many businesses who rely on tourism dollars.
Point 2 - These are very expensive units to purchase, pay taxes on, and to maintain. Even with the reduction in market values that has resulted from the threat of this bill, the purchase prices are still exorbitant and therefore the units that we have seen change hands at the Palms have not been purchased by local residents but rather by other wealthy individuals. Regarding the monthly maintenance costs, I am the Treasurer of the Palms at Wailea's AOAO and a retired CPA, and in that capacity I prepare the yearly budget and know what it takes to maintain a property in the Wailea resort area. Our property encompasses 23 buildings over 16.7 acres, and we are required by the Wailea Community Association (of which all Wailea owners are mandatory members) to adhere to strict standards as far as the maintenance of all structures, greenery and other amenities. Our budget to do so does not contain any "fat"; the AOAO's goal each year is to collect (in the form of AOAO monthly dues) only as much as we need for ongoing maintenance and for reserves to prepare for capital repairs when needed. I pinch every penny I can but our costs are only increasing each year, particularly for insurance, maintenance, salaries and utilities. Nevertheless, our monthly dues are pushing $2,000/unit/month and climbing. I have heard the argument presented that once these units are "taken back" by local residents, they will just plant some drought-tolerant plants, stop doing all the lawn maintenance, fill in the pool, and stop "making money" off the AOAO fees. This of course will not happen, because 1.) such changes to the property would require a 2/3 vote of all owners, and a majority of owners would not vote for such changes, 2.) such changes are not permitted by the Wailea Community Association, and 3.) there is no "profit" or other excess to take out of the budget.
Point 3 - There seems to be a general assumption that, when a STR is converted to LTR status, one of two things will happen: 1. the owner will rent it out long term (and at an "affordable" rental rate), or 2.) the owner will sell it (an at an "affordable" price). Putting aside the fact that that neither 1 or 2 are unlikely to happen at an "affordable' price for a property in Wailea, there is a third option that does not seem to be discussed much in the binary scenario above: PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD TO ARE NEITHER GOING TO RENT LONG-TERM NOR SELL THEIR PROPERTY - THEY ARE JUST GOING TO LET IT SIT EMPTY WHEN THEY ARE NOT USING IT. There is an especially high risk of this in a resort area like Wailea, where many owners paid cash for their units and will be willing and able to cover the carrying costs out of pocket, because when they want to use it, they want it open and available rather than rented out long term. I know this seems grossly unfair to people who can't afford even one place, but it is the reality nonetheless. And a unit sitting empty does not do anyone any good, particularly the people who depend upon tourism for their livelihoods.
Look, our hard-working residents desperately need affordable places to live. It is not right that people born here can't afford to keep living here. Something needs to be done. However, the solution needs to be more thought out, more strategic, and done with a scalpel and not a hatchet. STR's in resort areas such as Wailea should remain legal, where they can continue to house tourists away from local communities and generate revenues for our hard-working local businesses. (And if your first response is "well, if you don't want this problem, just get a zoning change", then you should create a clear path and methodology to allow condo communities to pursue such a change, because the path right now is a very unclear and uncertain.)
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne Fradette, Wailea
The removal of the short term rentals will decimate the economy in many ways:
1. Destroy the value of thousands of properties which will drag the entire market down with it.
2. Increase unemployment dramatically in Hawaii (think loss of tourism, all jobs lost for workers in the industry).
3. Those properties will fall in disrepair. But they still will not be affordable to the average resident.
4. With this will come a dramatic loss of tourism which is the biggest industry in Hawaii.
Think the depression of 1929. Is this really what we want for Hawaii?
Bill Nelson
Aloha Chair and Committee Members,
I am writing in strong support of Bill 9, which aims to restore balance and integrity to Maui’s housing market by phasing out illegal or misused short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) in apartment-zoned areas. As a licensed Realtor and housing advocate, I urge you to pass this bill not only on legal or ethical grounds, but also on economic and valuation principles rooted in real estate best practices.
1. Maui’s Unique Housing Market Requires Protective Policy
Maui’s housing market is unlike any other in the United States. We face acute land scarcity, speculative external investment, and a growing disconnect between market activity and local housing need. Left unchecked, investor-driven short-term rentals distort market signals and remove long-term inventory, undermining the economic health and livability of our communities.
2. Accrued Depreciation and Economic Obsolescence in Our Communities
Many STVRs are located in apartment complexes built before 1980—structures that are already approaching the end of their economic life. These older units face compounded accrued depreciation through:
• Physical deterioration (aging plumbing, electrical systems, roofing);
• Functional obsolescence (lack of ADA compliance, energy inefficiency, outdated layouts);
• And most importantly, economic obsolescence, resulting from the surrounding area’s shift in use—from residential to transient-tourism zones.
This transformation from a housing community to a de facto hotel district diminishes long-term value for local residents, despite temporary gains from tourist income.
3. Misaligned Valuation: Cost to Replace vs. Value Now
The Replacement Cost Approach clearly demonstrates that many STVRs—especially those in aged buildings—are overvalued when used as speculative income streams, but would be undervalued in their current depreciated state without their illegal or nonconforming use. This discrepancy distorts assessments, misleads appraisals, and unfairly inflates perceived value based on non-permitted or conditional use rather than legal, sustainable occupancy.
4. Zoning Abuse Causes Economic Obsolescence for Long-Term Residents
Economic obsolescence is not just a theoretical concept—it is being lived every day by families priced out of their own neighborhoods. When STVRs are allowed to persist in apartment zones originally intended for residential use, the public trust is violated and community infrastructure is eroded. Schools, parks, and local businesses suffer from declining stable populations, while police and county services are stretched thin responding to noise complaints and other tourist-related disruptions.
5. Progression Should Benefit Residents, Not Speculators
The principle of progression tells us that properties gain value when surrounded by higher-quality development. However, the opposite is also true: when transient rentals dominate a neighborhood, surrounding properties lose their appeal as primary residences. This reversal drives away long-term tenants and owners, hollowing out Maui’s communities. If we allow STVRs to define apartment zones, we are rewarding speculative interests while suppressing progression for working families.
6. Bill 9 Is a Necessary Correction, Not a Taking
Bill 9 restores the original intent of apartment zoning and corrects a long-standing enforcement failure. It does not constitute a “taking” because it does not remove any legal entitlement—rather, it removes illegitimate or expired uses. The County has every right—and obligation—to ensure zoning laws are applied uniformly and fairly.
⸻
Conclusion
From a real estate valuation perspective, Bill 9 is sound policy. It reasserts public control over zoning, restores the long-term economic viability of our residential zones, and reduces both economic and functional obsolescence in communities across Maui. This bill is an investment in our future stability, in the value of our neighborhoods, and in the rights of residents to live in housing zones without being displaced by transient tourism.
I urge you to pass Bill 9 without delay.
Mahalo for your time and service.
Respectfully,
Renee P Kaiama
5th Maui Generation
Broker/Owner
Maui Real Estate 808
Maui land use laws are holding back low cost development. It’s not the responsibility of short term rental owners to be destroyed by the long term islanders who have not done their job to keep housing costs under control. Again open more land will lower land value and open homes more affordable but government must keep money hungry developers out and keep costs at a minimum.
Listen to Stan Franco
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
I own a condo at Mahina Surf in Maui County. I am writing today to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation to phase out more than 7,000 vacation rentals.
As an owner and regular visitor to Maui, we support the local economy by frequenting restaurants, small businesses, and service providers. During the portions of the year when we are not present, we do offer our unit for short-term rental. Our vacationing guests also support the local economy in the ways I described.
If the legislation to phase out these units passes, it is unlikely that ours would be available for local housing, as we will continue to use it ourselves. The only differences would be negative ones: the property tax basis would be reduced from renal to one of owner/occupant; fewer visitors would be supporting local restaurants and businesses, and fewer service providers would be needed.
I urge you to consider other options to help with Maui’s long term housing needs, which I acknowledge is a problem. I do not believe that the imminent removal of 7,000 units will have the desired effect, and the negative economic impact of doing so will be catastrophic to many small business owners, and to Maui County.
Mahalo for your time, and consideration.
Respectfully,
Mark Revere
I am writing this letter, not as a STR owner, but as a professional who is highly disturbed by the attempted infringement on property owner's rights being proposed here.
Purchasing real estate always comes with risk. But none of the risks include the government stripping property owners rights to use their property as intended and practiced for 50+ years.
A cornerstone of property ownership is the traditional mortgage. Banks assess the risk of each mortgage they hold. Risks include property condition, property value in relation to debt carried, and borrower's ability to repay. Banks mitigate these risks through strict underwriting guidelines, a formal appraisal of the property and a vast credit and ability to repay research on each borrower.
What banks DON'T need to worry about (until today) is the government threatening to strip away the rights to use property as was always intended, and ultimately devaluing the property exponentially overnight.
Bank of Hawaii, First Hawaiian and CPB hold the vast majority of the mortgages on the Minatoya List. To the tune of hundreds of millions (potentially billions) of dollars. And despite these condos not being Fannie Mae or Feddie Mac approved complexes, these banks lent on them anyway based on the fact that the Minatoya Rule was a codified law and use as STR was both well-established and legal. Because they are not Fannie/Freddie approved, these mortgages are not government-backed and are not sellable on the secondary market. They are held as portfolio (or in-house) mortgages. What does this mean to the layman? These banks will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in asset value overnight should this proposal pass.
Short sales and ultimately foreclosures are sure to quickly follow. And while the activists cheer on Instagram "bring on the foreclosures!" and "here comes the housing crash" these banks are singing a much different tune. As they should be. Bringing on foreclosures equals bringing on economic collapse. Is that what we want?
The mortgage industry in Hawaii will change overnight should this ban be passed. Hawaiian banks will no longer be able to trust that traditional property ownership laws will be honored by state and local governments. These properties will become non-lendable. Hawaiian banks will undoubtedly need a government bailout. And if the banks are smart, they will be leading the charge with a lawsuit against the County for this unconstitutional infringement on property rights.
A housing crash is not an effective government strategy.
We are opposed to the measure to eliminate short term rental use in A1 and A2 districts and urge you to vote the same. No on Bill 9.
I am writing in opposition to Bill 9. I have previously submitted testimony, but want to respond to some of the points in the mayor's report. First, I was happy to see that this time, there actually was a report. It seems as if the bill was originally offered without much planning, research, or thought about the consequences (intended or otherwise). As a long time county employee in two California counties, we would never be able to make such a proposal with actual facts and information to back it up. I think the data was presented in such a way to support the Bill, rather than in an unbiased way. The point that I thought was most biased was when it was reported that since 94% of the owners are non-residents, this money would not be staying on Maui anyway. Wrong. Most of the income from the rentals does stay on Maui in the form of expenses related to the maintenance and upkeep of the unit, including taxes (property, GE and TA-all paid to HI/Maui); HOA fees (insurance, utilities, and common area maintenance/upkeep.. The largest portion of our HOA fees goes to landscaping. All these costs go to Maui companies); Unit upkeep (cleaning @ $250 per time, unit management of 16-20% of rents collected; new furniture appliances, carpeting to keep the unit to a standard that guests expect.) These all stay on island. I would be glad to provide cash flow statements filed with our taxes. As an owner of a single unit, we have also had to pay for these things out of pocket when rentals are down. Of course there is also the mortgage, which is likely to be paid to a local bank. Thankfully, we purchased our condo over 40 years ago, so the mortgage is not longer a concern. My point is, the rental income for most units is indeed staying on Maui. I think it was very unfair to portray it as leaving. I don't know of anyone who is making a profit (other than equity). In fact, if we were to rent out our unit long term, the HOA costs would remain the same; as the grounds and common areas would still have to be kept to the same standards, but we would not be spending as much on the unit furnishings as short term rentals are kept to a higher standard and require replacement of household goods, linens, and furnishings on a regular basis. I spend much more on our rental condo furnishings than on our mainland furnishings where we do not rent our unit.
Many of the comments in support of the Bill say there is not enough water to support the use. I question the methodology of the mayor's report about how much more water is used by short term rentals, but would agree that it makes sense that they use more water (but not to the extent reported). However Maui's own water study reports that there is enough water, but it is the distribution method that is the problem. One that Maui should fix through infrastructure improvements. I have read that 1,500 units in Wailea were recently approved. Seems like projects like this should not be approved if the commission truly believes there is a water shortage.
Another point made was that it would take 100 years or something like that to build the number of units that will become available by abolishing the short term rentals on the Minatoya list. Construction could be considerably sped up with a quicker approval process; building on public land (cheaper), etc. Look how fast the units on Piilani in Kihei went up, and housing currently under construction by the Kihei Safeway. At those rates of construction, 7,000 units could be built in a much shorter period. You cannot base construction of what has happened, rather than what could be done.
We spend about 6 months a year on Maui. Sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. We could not possibly rent out our unit long term and still live on Maui part time (which is our priority). I think not enough attention has been spent on the survey from the real estate association that showed that 90+% of the owners surveyed said that if this bill passes, they will not rent their unit long term, but will save it for family use as a second home. That is exactly what we plan to do, as well as most of the people I have discussed this with. Most of the people at our condo complex, Hale Kamaole, spend months in their units and rent it out short term when not in residence. That was our plan when we purchased. I would guess that owners of multiple units and those who have purchased more recently when prices were sky high may need to sell. Those for sale in our complex have dropped in price significantly, as predicted by the UHERO study, but no interest on the part of local buyers. Passage of this Bill is not at all likely to add to the inventory of affordable housing. The HOA fees alone make them unaffordable. Ours are over $1200 a month, except for 2024 and 2025 when they went to over $4,000 per month to pay for a special assessment for plumbing (a $72,000 assessment for each 2 bedroom unit in our complex). Most of the condos in Kihei of about this age (40-50 years old) can expect to do the same thing at about the same cost.
I heard many of the speakers in support of the Bill say that if the units are not used for short term rentals that the HOA fees will go down. This is impossible. Maybe wishful thinking! Most of the HOA fees go for landscaping, water, electricity and upkeep of an aging building. It is not like you can just decide not to make a repair to save money like you can with your own single family home. The complex must be kept up, the bylaws require it. Insurance must be purchased, and must cover the cost to rebuild. And state law requires a certain percentage of reserve be funded for future repairs. Believe me, no one likes the high HOA fees, but we understand that they are necessary.
In summary, I think the Bill is not the answer to the housing problem on Maui. If it passes, when it becomes clear that it hasn't helped, something else will have to be done. This will delay the provision of a real solution. And that is a travesty. A solution is needed now.
Brenda Lane
This bill i oppose it does nothing but hurt so many hardworking people here we employ many housekeepers and maintenance pool workers on and on
This home sleeps 8 guests who would never come to visit Maui if they had to stay in a hotel
They average spending $2000 pr guest for each stay on tourist excursions
They rent cars normally 2 they shop and support our biggest business what is it??? Tourism why would you shut it down
It doesn't do anything for affordable housing and country and state would lose all the taxes please vote no
I oppose the bill as it is clear to me that it does not solve the housing crisis and it would be a significant decrease in tax dollars for the local economy. I own a condo at Palms at Wailea I and it is zoned short term and right next to it is Palms at Wailea II that is zoned long-term. There are no affordable units for rent at Palms II as over 90% are owned and used by snowbirds from the mainland and the rest are expensive rentals. Condos that are selling fort 1.5 million are not ever going to be affordable housing when they have HOA dues that are around $1500 per month and if they put $400,000 down payment, their principal and interest payments would be over $8000 a month for a 1 or 2 bedroom unit that has no garage and only one designated parking spot. If this bill passes, there will be a tremendous amount of expenses by the government as the lawsuits are most likely going to be plentiful. Maui has a housing crisis, but this bill will hurt the island financially instead of help. I pay over $20,000 a year in GAT and TAT tax. Maybe they should designate this extra money coming in to building new affordable housing
I oppose Bill 9 which is legally indefensible as drafted. Please amend Bill 9 to exempt the properties specifically mentioned by the Planning Commission and affirmatively rezone these properties.
During the summer 2024 hearings, the Maui County Planning Commission heard about 20 hours of testimony and then unanimously recommended passage of the bill with several recommendations to the Maui County Council, including the following:
“Requested that the Council consider excluding those properties that are community plan designated for hotel use and those properties that are already partially hotel zoned.”
The Planning Commission voted and unanimously approved the comments. See November 22, 2024 Letter from Planning.
On April 30, 2025, Housing and Land Use Chair Tasha Kama sent a letter to the Planning Department asking for identification of the specific properties covered under the Planning Commission’s recommended exclusion from Bill 9. The Planning Department responded on May 22, 2025, identifying the following five properties which includes 1,031 units:
-Wailea Ekahi I
-Waiea Ekahi III
-Papakea
-Hale Kaanapali
-Maui Eldorado
Among the Planning Commission’s purpose is the obligation to “[r]eview other proposed land use ordinances and amendments thereto prepared by the director or the council, and, after public hearings transmit such ordinances with its findings and recommendations thereon to council for consideration and action no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the final public hearing.” See Maui County Charter, Section 8-8.4.
If the County Council ignores the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the Council has effectively rendered the Planning Commission process worthless and provided properties that the Planning Commission recommended for exclusion with additional legal arguments to challenge the legislation. Attempting to phase out short-term rental rights for properties that Maui County has identified for decades as having partial hotel zoning will create unique and strong legal arguments in favor of those property owners. Even a cursory review of testimony shows that the above-mentioned properties are organized, well-represented, and rightfully prepared to pursue legal action based on the County’s own records regarding zoning and community plan designation.
Following the recommendations of a subject matter expert advisory committee such as the Planning Commission is prudent action by the County Council.
I’ve heard non-lawyer proponents of Bill 9 proclaim that the bill must be passed in its entirety to avoid legal challenge. Specifically, the properties that were not excluded would argue that they should have been excluded. Properties included in the purview of Bill 9 can and will make that argument regardless of whether other properties are excluded. Exclusion of some properties does not create any legitimate legal argument for properties that did not receive an exemption. The standard of review of the Council’s legislative action is “arbitrary and capricious” and no court will find that following the recommendation of the Planning Commission is arbitrary or capricious. There is no legal justification for refusing to follow the Planning Commission recommendations. That argument seems to have been cooked up by the proponents that want to maximize inclusion of properties in Bill 9. The County Council has legislative discretion to make these decisions, especially when those decisions align with the recommendations of an advisory committee. Passing Bill 9 as written has more potential to be viewed as arbitrary and capricious because the Council would have disregarded the Planning Commission’s recommendations without any cognizable basis.
The proponents that argue that properties can simply rezone after passage of Bill 9 fail to recognize the substantial impact that such massive rezoning efforts with have on the County. The Planning Commission will have years of backlogged rezoning applications. With the rebuilding of Lahaina, jamming up the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and County Council with rezoning applications is bad policy and a gross waste of County resources. Additionally, this increased workload will likely delay work related to critical permitting activity as the community tries to rebuild.
Community organizers that claim properties can apply for rezoning will most certainly show up, intervene and generally attempt to torpedo any rezoning applications due to clear financial incentives to continue finding battles to fight. Maui County has never rezoned a property to hotel and routinely allows these hearings to become a dog whistle for the most dysfunction parts of the community to present a wish list of demands that are typically irrelevant to any aspect of the rezoning process.
The concept that exempting properties as recommended by the Planning Commission would somehow increase legal risk is preposterous and if any attorney with Corporation Counsel is providing that advice, it’s time to get a second opinion because that’s bad advice. From what I have seen, at least one councilmember who is not a lawyer bullies Corporation Counsel into making legal decisions consistent with the desired outcome. I hope that the rest of the councilmembers are willing to seek actual legal advice and not attempt to paint the target around the arrow which will provide no protection once litigation commences.
Any attorney that is telling Councilmembers that the current version of Bill 9 can withstand legal challenge with little risk to the County is similarly giving bad advice. The history of the Minatoya List, the County’s representation of zoning and community plan designations, and the Mayor’s clear animus based on race and place of residence present a complex dispute that will result in expensive and disruptive litigation. The expense for both sides will be significant. Even if the County prevails, which is unlikely if Bill 9 is passed as written, property owners have clearly stated that they do not intend to long-term rent so all the time and money spent by Maui County will have been for nothing.
Oh, and Member Paltin: Yes, I am a lawyer that practices in the area of real estate, land use, and litigation.
Aloha Chair and Councilmembers,
I submit this testimony in strong support of Bill 9, which will phase out short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) in apartment-zoned areas by 2026. This legislation is long overdue and represents one of the few bold actions taken to reclaim housing and community control for the people of Maui.
✅ THE FACTS ARE UNDENIABLE
A 2025 report by the Lahaina Community Land Trust (LCLT) confirmed that in 2024, zero homes were sold within the financial reach of the average Maui resident. The median home price on Maui was approximately $1.3 million, while the typical household could only afford a home valued at $379,000. This data should alarm anyone who claims to care about the long-term viability of our communities.
🏚️ HOUSING CRISIS: NOT NEW, JUST EXPLOITED
The housing crisis on Maui didn’t start with the Lahaina fires. Local families have been priced out for over a decade while state and county policies enabled rampant speculation and commodification of land. The fire simply gave political cover for profiteers, land trusts, and mainland investors to consolidate land, rebrand themselves as “community solutions,” and extract wealth through taxpayer-funded programs and disaster aid.
🕵️♂️ THE MYTH OF “COMMUNITY TRUSTS”
Organizations like the Lahaina Community Land Trust are presenting themselves as saviors while participating in the post-disaster wealth transfer. Their model of limited-equity housing is not true ownership — it is long-term dependency with no pathway to generational wealth. These “trusts” are acquiring land using public funds while local residents are displaced or locked into rental-class housing permanently. It is colonization disguised as compassion.
💸 THE REALTOR ASSOCIATION’S ROLE IN THIS FAILURE
The Realtors Association of Maui (RAM) has consistently prioritized investor ROI over resident wellbeing:
• RAM opposed Bill 9, defending 7,000 illegal STVRs in apartment zones that should be housing families, not tourists.
• They supported speculative construction projects under the false promise that “building more” would fix the problem.
• RAM failed to lobby for enforceable affordability requirements, deed restrictions, or local-first ownership models.
• Their messaging promotes the idea that Maui is just like everywhere else — but Maui is not just another U.S. market. This is occupied land, not a playground for global capital.
As local testimony has noted, RAM agents have openly advertised Maui real estate on billboards in California, encouraging out-of-state buyers to invest here — and then turn around and claim Maui’s housing crisis is just a “national problem.” This is hypocrisy at best, and complicity in systemic displacement at worst.
🏘️ STVRs CAUSED THE DISTORTION. PHASING THEM OUT WILL BEGIN TO CORRECT IT.
The unchecked proliferation of STVRs in apartment zones:
• Removed thousands of units from long-term housing stock.
• Artificially inflated land values and property taxes.
• Contributed to local displacement, homelessness, and multi-generational overcrowding.
Phasing out STVRs is not a punishment — it’s a course correction. It will stabilize the market, increase inventory, and begin to reverse the damage done by years of unchecked speculation.
✊ MAUI IS NOT FOR SALE
This is not America.
This is not just another “hot” real estate market.
This is the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, a place that has suffered over 130 years of occupation, extraction, and forced economic assimilation.
Bill 9 is not just about zoning.
It is a small but essential act of resistance against continued commodification of land, culture, and people.
⸻
I urge the Council to adopt Bill 9 without weakening amendments or delays. Let this be the moment we begin to re-center housing policy around the needs of residents, not investors.
Mahalo for your consideration.
Justin Rante
Fed Up
Listen to Stan Franco
Listen to Stan Franco
I am born and raised. So mixed I can not give you a break down . Aren’t we all really? I grew upcountry. I have f amily still in Rice Camp, my family came from Puunene. My grandparents were not allowed on the same sidewaIk. They married and raised children in Dream City. One of the first home owners. I left, most of us my age did. We couldn’t become anything substantial at home.So we left. And we stayed gone, for long time. I went school mainland, I married mainland, bought houses mainland….cause we could.
l
am a loyal and very happy employee of the Hogan Ohana. Steve and Eve Hogan have gifted me vehicles, kept a roof over my head. They have always paid me a fair wage, my full medical expenses. They are my hanai Ohana, not just an employer. If they can’t afford to keep me employed. I have to leave. Long story short.This not the remedy to the sickness. We did this! It’s not any Haole fault! We let this happen.
Testimony in Strong Support of Bill 9
To: Maui County Housing and Land Use Committee
Aloha Chair and Councilmembers,
My name is Lehua, I am 45 years old, Native Hawaiian, and I work part-time at Walmart. I live in Pukalani now, but I’ve moved five times in the last 10 years just trying to find something I can afford. Right now I’m in a tiny ohana unit with my two kids and my mom.
I’m writing in strong support of Bill 9.
This bill is about closing the loophole that let people turn apartment-zoned housing into short-term vacation rentals. That zoning was supposed to be for local housing — not for tourist hotels hiding in plain sight. Bill 9 fixes that, and makes sure that land stays for residents. That’s why I support it.
To me, this is about fairness. Working people can’t compete with people coming in from the mainland or overseas who buy up properties and use them to make money off tourists. Meanwhile, we’re barely hanging on. I see people I know — families, kūpuna, even young couples — moving off-island because they just can’t make it here anymore.
I think about the Bible sometimes. The stories of the tribes who were given land and had to take care of it, or else lose it. In the end, they were driven out, scattered, just like us. The land got taken by others, and they had to fight to come back and rebuild.
That’s how it feels to be Hawaiian on Maui today. We’re still here — but barely.
I don’t think it’s right that whole apartment buildings in Lahaina or Kīhei were turned into vacation rentals while locals are living five or six to a house, or sleeping in their cars. That land was zoned to be housing for people who live and work here, and that’s what it should go back to.
Bill 9 doesn’t take anyone’s property away. It just says that apartment zoning should be used the way it was meant to be used: for long-term housing, not short-term profit. And it gives time for people to adjust.
We don’t need more “investment properties.” We need homes for our keiki, our kūpuna, our workers — for people like me who are still trying to make it here. I work hard, but I can’t work enough hours to outbid a mainland investor.
The County’s job is to look out for residents — not protect outside profits. Please, put local people first. We’ve been pushed aside long enough.
I respectfully ask you to pass Bill 9 and start bringing housing back to the people who live here full-time.
Mahalo for your time.
Sincerely,
Lehua K.
Age 45
Pukalani, Maui
Opposing this pila. I work for a property management company in Wailuku and we look after 7 complexes. Bringing these units to long term rental will not bring about affordable housing. These units are very old and very expensive to maintain, HOA for one bedroom alone averages over $1,500, not including utilites, insurance etc etc.
Rather use the property taxes to fund building of better more sustainable units.
Testimony in Strong Support of Bill 9
Housing & Land Use Committee
Submitted by: Gabriella Mata-Wong
Aloha Honorable Mayor Bissen and Council Members,
My name is Gabriella Mata-Wong, and I’m submitting this testimony in strong support of Bill 9.
Let’s be clear, Bill 9 isn’t anti-tourism, it’s pro-resident.
This bill is about restoring balance. We’re not shutting the door on visitors, we’re simply saying that residential-zoned housing should serve residents first. Apartment units, originally built to house families and local workers, have been slowly converted into vacation rentals for tourists. And now we’re seeing the cost, not just in dollars, but in displacement, overcrowding, and broken communities.
I’ve heard the argument that removing STRs from apartment-zoned areas won’t help. But the facts tell another story:
Returning just 6,127 units to the long-term rental market could increase Maui’s housing supply by 13 percent, the equivalent of 10 years of new construction.
Rents and condo prices could drop by 20 to 40 percent, giving local families a fighting chance to stay in the places they grew up.
STRs in residential zones strain infrastructure and use high amounts of water, resources that should be prioritized for the people who live here full time.
Of course we need more affordable housing, but that takes time. These units already exist. We can start making an impact now by restoring housing to those who need it most.
We already have resort areas built for tourism. That’s where STRs should stay. Resort communities are equipped with the infrastructure, zoning, and distance from neighborhoods that make vacation rentals appropriate there.
Bill 9 is a step toward correcting decades of imbalance. It’s a tough step, yes, but a necessary one if we want Maui to remain a home for its people, not just a destination.
I urge you to pass Bill 9, not just for housing, but for the future of our communities.
Mahalo for your time and for listening to the voices of those who call Maui home.