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 the bill to phase out STRs on Maui because the out migration of locals and Hawaiian residents is detrimental to the economy and the community. People over profit!
I spend 3 to 6 months here in my illegal str, and cash flow it the rest of the year, as much as I love Maui I’m not giving you my condo to house one of your poor Alice residents.
I would like to point out Council regarding a previous testifier from the Ma’alaea Bayans condo that their injection well is in violation of the Clean Water Act by not having any NPDES permit for a functional equivalent to a direct discharge in an area where the reef is described as “total system collapse” by DLNR in 2014:
Here’s a quick analysis of the most recent UIC water quality testing data for the testifier’s condo complex, with an estimate of how many times higher than the associated HAR ocean water quality standard each pollutant shows.
Why no new Type II data since 2001 you may ask? UIC transferred testing to CWB in the mid 00’s and they only test for BOD and TSS since then.
UIC Monitoring Summary – Maʻalaea Banyan (Permit UM-1272)
Sampled: December 12, 2000 – January 4, 2001
AECOS Log #: 13739
Report Date: January 22, 2001
https://tinyurl.com/Maalaea-Banyan-UIC
Reported Results vs. HAR 11-54 Class AA Marine Water Quality Standards:
• Turbidity: 11.4 NTU (standard: ≤1 NTU above natural) — exceedance likely, natural baseline not provided
• Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 22 mg/L (standard: 10 mg/L) — 2.2× over standard
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD₅): 5 mg/L (standard: 2 mg/L, 24-hour average) — 2.5× over standard
• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): 401 mg/L (no marine standard; screening indicator)
• Ammonia-N: 25 µg/L or 0.025 mg/L (proxy for un-ionized NH₃-N, standard: 0.016 mg/L) — 1.6× over standard
• Reported TN: 25.5 mg/L
• HAR Class AA Standard for TN: 0.016 mg/L
• Exceedance:
25.5 ÷ 0.016 = 1,594×
• Total Phosphorus: 5.28 mg/L (standard: 0.004 mg/L) — 1,320× over standard
• Orthophosphate-P: 4.30 mg/L (standard: 0.004 mg/L) — 1,075× over standard
• Oil & Grease: <10 mg/L (standard: 2 mg/L) — <5× over standard
• Fecal Coliform: <20 MPN/100mL (standard: 7 MPN/100mL single grab) — “<3×”
• pH: 6.8 (Class AA expected range: around 8.1 ± 0.2)
• Dissolved Oxygen: 2.8 mg/L (standard: ≥75% saturation, usually ~6–7 mg/L at 25°C) — indicates <50% saturation
⸻
Direct Discharge Screening per County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund
Distance to ocean: Injection wells are approximately 70–100 meters from the shoreline, likely under 240 feet horizontally to coastal waters.
Transit time and dilution: Groundwater likely travels through porous alluvium and fractured basalt. Previous USGS dye-trace studies in the area show that groundwater can reach the nearshore ocean in a matter of days to weeks. Dilution is insufficient to reduce nutrients to ambient marine levels.
Design and volume: The system is a Class V injection well receiving domestic wastewater. In the year 2000, no advanced nutrient removal was reported. The effluent quality suggests a typical secondary treatment profile, not suitable for sensitive coastal discharge.
Chemical similarity: The injected wastewater is chemically equivalent to a direct marine discharge in terms of nutrient and biological load. Given the extremely high nitrate, phosphorus, and BOD values, and the close proximity to the ocean, any resulting nearshore discharge would be functionally indistinguishable from a surface pipe.
Expectations of discharge: The original UIC permit (UM-1272) covered “onsite wastewater only,” but test results show effluent strength far exceeding reuse thresholds. No evidence of enhanced nutrient treatment was reported.
Regulatory regime: No NPDES permit was issued. Reliance solely on the UIC authorization places the discharge under potential Clean Water Act liability if it meets the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge” test under the Supreme Court’s 2020 precedent.
⸻
Conclusion
The most recent Type II UIC effluent testing data that exists from the Maʻalaea Banyan injection wellsshow nutrient pollution exceeding marine water quality standards by 1,000× or more in several categories (total nitrogen, total phosphorus). These concentrations are unlikely to be sufficiently diluted before reaching the ocean, especially given the short travel distance through highly permeable soils.
Therefore, this site meets multiple criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court in County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund for a functional equivalent of a direct discharge.
As such, the Maʻalaea Banyan Class V injection system (Permit UM-1272) may be unlawfully operating without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Given the magnitude of exceedances and risk to reef ecosystems, this site is a strong candidate for immediate regulatory action and enhanced treatment requirements.
So the testifier’s whole identity and narrative about his nice life as a STR operator at Banyans is made possible only by cognitively and legally avoiding compliance with applicable laws.
It is astonishing to me how confident some STR owners are in their narratives when in many cases, it’s all based on a lie or institutional bias, and simply ignoring the law.
Days in violation (from April 23 2020, the date of the County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund decision, through June 24 2025): 1,889 days
Maximum civil penalty allowed under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR §19.4, 2024 inflation adjustment): $64,618 per day per injection well
Maximum potential fine (per injection well):
1,889 days × $64,618/day = $122,063,402
Maximum potential fine for two injection wells:
2 × $122,063,402 = $244,126,804
No one is buying any narrative that STR condo operators in Ma’alaea are law-abiding citizens. Every single one of the facilities is in violation of the Lahaina injection well Supreme Court decision and shares the identical penalty fine liability estimated above for not having the required NPDES permit, except the one facility with three injection wells, which would be 50% greater.
I would like to add to my prior testimony. I, and many of the other str owners, spend 3 to 6 months every year in my home on Maui. These visits are distributed between 2 and 3 trips per year. I do not have any 6 month periods where I could rent to a long term renter for even 6 months. Maybe 3 to 4 months. Many pro testifiers mention that owners "threaten" to leave their condos vacant/open for family and friends to use rather than provide rentals for Hawaiian residents. My question is, how are we supposed to rent it out long term? Are they/you suggesting that we not be allowed to spend time in our own homes? If we can't rent them out short term for the 4 months until we return, and are only allowed to rent for at least 6 months, what do you suggest we do?
During testimony, I’ve noticed a recurring theme from STR owners: many assert that their ownership of at lease one more housing unit than they need is solely the result of hard work and good choices. But the reality is more complex. Not everyone or every demographic has access to the same opportunities. For some historically marginalized or targeted communities, hard work and rule-following have not led to success—often, success is systemically, systematically, actively denied and blocked.
There is a clear demographic pattern among STR owners, and it reflects broader systemic inequities. The “game” has been rigged for centuries and has never been merit-based. Of course many in these privileged groups own second homes.
But if truly exceptional individuals from disadvantaged and targeted demographic had access to a level playing field—let alone the racial and institutional advantages many STR owners have enjoyed for a lifetime—the housing market would look radically different.
The narrative that property ownership is always earned through merit and discipline erases the structural advantages that underpin wealth accumulation in the US and occupied kingdom of Hawaii. It is disingenuous—and frankly, insulting—to defend the “right” to the privileges of excess ownership while ignoring the deep injustices entrained in the very legal codes that exclude other demographics from even basic access to housing.
This conversation is not about demonizing individuals but about whether we will continue to uphold a system where “success” is almost totally pre-determined by factors including race, sexual and gender identity, generational wealth and access and privilege.
Council members must now decide: do you side with those who benefit from that rigged system—or with renters and residents who would never dream of defending it?
As they say, if you’re really in need, ask a poor person for help.
Tamara Paltin is a superhero for calling that one particular testifier out who was acting all entitled like the rest of them, when she was like, um, sir, I checked and your HOA does not allow STRs.
Moments like that give me life, thank you Member Paltin! Your on-the-fly fact-checking got a sorely-needed smile out of Chair Kama and everyone in the audience on both sides.
Aloha my name is Vincent Castaneto and I support Bill Nan the phase out of STR‘s. As a son of Lahaina, I have seen the impact that limited housing has had on me and my family personally. My mom and my sister have moved to Phoenix, Arizona in search of finding affordable housing and I am the only one left of my immediate family here still trying to get by on finding affordable housing. So my family has seen the effects of being priced out of Hawaii. Even though it’s a lofty goal, I’m still trying to make it work here to try to save for down payment to get a house here on Maui. I worked two jobs just to pay rent and survive here on this island and I shouldn’t have to go through that just to make it here. Please support this bill so that local individuals and families can afford to live here and make Hawaii the place that it is. Hawaii is not Hawaii without it’s people. Mahalo.
The only people who say maui is reliant on tourism are the STR owners who have CREATED this housing crisis. Maui is not reliant on tourism and it will never benefit from being exploited by these STR owners. The fact that we even consider testimony from people who do not live on island is baffling. If they really care about our community as they say they do then they will be ok losing an income that is only gained by exploiting kanaka.
I am opposed to phasing out short term vacation rentals because I believe they provide affordable accommodations to people who otherwise would not visit Maui due to the high cost of visitor accommodations in hotels and resorts. More diversity of accommodations allow for more diversity of visitor populations which is good for tourism. Phasing out vacation rentals has a very detrimental impact on the Maui economy. My husband and I have a vacation rental in Wailea but we also purchased 2 long term rentals one in Keihi and 1 in Kahana. Both currently serve families who were victims of the fires in Lahaina and Upcountry. We are proud of that. Our STVR helped us to fund the investment of the long term rentals. We do not make much profit on our long term rentals due to HOA fees and high insurance costs. But we wanted to make housing available to residents who otherwise can't purchase. Until other industry is available, Maui is reliant on tourism for jobs. We have legally operated our vacation rental for 13 year. We paid our fees, our taxes and hire residents to work for us. We are an employer. We provide guests who invest in the economy. We provide long term housing for residents and those who lost their homes. We would like to see balanced land use policies that acknowledge the competing priorities. Emotional responses are expected to this housing situation. However, we need to balance the needs to help any economy remain strong. Maybe create a working group with short term vacation rental owners to help develop better policies that are more balanced and address multiple needs for Maui rather than villianize STVR owners. We have learned that residents of Maui are very specific as to wanting to live very close to their jobs and daily lives. West Side focused residents do not seem to want housing on the south side. We had a rental sit for 6 months before we ultimately located a family from the West Side who would rent our long term rental. We need to better understand the geographic preferences of residents and set policies accordingly. We also need to partner with the STVR owners to learn from their expertise. They can help create better policy because they understand the market. If there was no market, they would not be doing it. We love offering affordable accommodations to both guests and visitors as well as long term rentals. Our STVR better accommodates visitors because it is a one bedroom. Our long term rentals were specifically purchased for families; they are 3 bedrooms. We were very intentional in our investments based on what we saw in the market and the demand for housing on Maui. We hope there could be more study of options before a decision is made to this highly charged issue. Affordable housing on Maui has been an issue for many decades. It is not a new issue. Emotional responses to land use decisions seldom seem to work out as intended. I have been in the affordable housing business for nearly 35 years and worked in local government for all of those years. I understand and sympathize with the Council. This is challenging to resolve. Our hope is to conrinue to help both Maui residents and visitors like we have for the past 13 years. Thank you for your consideration of my comments on this matter.
Maui needs to help the locals more and not cater so heavily to tourist. Yes, people need to make money but if you’re going to do short term rentals you should be required to match it and have a long term rental as well.
Aloha mai and Kumustakayo (Greetings) Chair and Council Members,
I approach with deep humility with a voice from one who is born and raised on Maui and ask you would consider supporting Bill 9.
I am coming to you not only as a resident of Maui but also as a professional mental health therapist and counselor. I have served youth, families, Native Hawaiian and Filipino communities on this island I call home. Many of us here say "home is where our family resides because it's not about a specific location but of people". I stand by that and that is why I stand passionately for this bill. I have seen my extended family moving to the mainland over the years because they are not able to work and live comfortably on Maui due to housing. It is more convenient for them to buy a house in the mainland and only come to Maui to visit for short periods of time. Our family will always remain family but from a physical distance. I want our family unit to stay together. Many families like mines would like to keep the family unit in the same location but we lack affordable housing options because of short term rentals amongst other housing issues.
As a mental health therapist who stepped in to help and support our Lahaina community after the fires, I urge you as a professional. Many came to process the fires and the trauma they experienced but a lot of local residents didn't come to receive mental health support immediately. Many waited months after the fire to focus on their mental health because housing was and still is a big priority which made their mental health not a priority unfortunately. Months and even a year after the fire many of them came with their trauma of loss and as a therapist it was heart breaking hearing story after story about the fire and their dire need and want to return to a physical place they can call home again. I understand the loss of visitor spending we will lose annually but the loss of what has already happened since August 2023 is in no comparison. We must look to the future and take the hit of the loss of money through short term rentals to open up long term rentals to our local residents. Let me make it clear as a mental health therapist that this issue is not only a housing issue but also a community mental health issue. Let us not overlook what the housing crisis is doing to our Maui community because I haven't. By supporting this bill, you are also supporting the mental health of Maui County and our future generations to come. May our families come home and stay home and heal on a land that has healthy, strong, and thriving leaders who will support our wellbeing.
This is an urgent matter and needs to be addressed immediately. Mahalo piha and Agyamanak (full gratitude) for giving us space to speak and be heard. Please stand united with us!
I oppose Bill 9. I believe it will NOT create more affordable housing for local residents. I believe it will negatively affect local businesses and cause many to close permanently. Almost all Maui residents depend directly, or indirectly, on tourism. Taking away tourists from the small shops and restaurants will not be beneficial for the local economy. Tourists who stay in STR's will not start staying at hotels. Most of these tourists will vacation elsewhere creating huge losses for the local economy.
I think everyone agrees that we need more workforce/affordable housing, but going after small condos with 1 parking spot and with high maintenance fees is not the right way. Almost all of these condos will lose value, and thus lost property tax revenue for the county (and at a lower tax rate). These condos will most likely become someone's second home before it becomes a home for someone that lives here. And if we pretend it becomes a home for people who live here, work will be scarce. This bill, if passed, will likely lead to lawsuits which will be a complete waste of taxpayers' money.
This time should have been spent on a viable solution for more housing for our local community.
Aloha
As another concerned resident, my words will eco through all of the other testimonies.Eleven years ago my partner and I came to maui and joined the hospitality community.When we first arrived rents had been steadily moving up for three solid years.
As two people who had lived in difficult housing markets we stepped up to the challenge.We then spent 6.5 years maintaining a beautiful 2 bed two bath house in paia.The owner, who lived on mainland ,sold after we had just got through our first year of pandemic.The brutality in the market was unforgettable.We struggled to find a new spot for twice the price for 6 months.The opportunity that saved us was a space own 8 generation kanaka family.Thier home was possible through hawaiian homes many years ago.It was in this exact time in my maui years that I started relentlessly following my local legislation.I have worked years now in our community.Helping families and educating kids.There is no reason I should not be able to own a home! It is unacceptable that if I lost my current housing;I would be forced to leave.There need to be options to allow our community to exist and continue to support each other.Bill 9 is an essential step towards an semblance of community we all deserve.
As a homeowner at Wailea Ekahi III, I support Patricia Char’s June 18 testimony. Our complex is PD-H (Hotel) zoned, and short-term rentals have operated legally here for decades. Applying Bill 9 to hotel-zoned properties like ours is unfair, inconsistent with zoning intent, and potentially unconstitutional.
The Maui Planning Commission recently recommended excluding properties designated for hotel use or partially hotel-zoned from this legislation. I urge the Council to follow that recommendation and exclude Wailea Ekahi III and similar properties from Bill 9.
I oppose this bill. I do not own a STR, but me and my spouse do own a long term zoned condo. We have been saving for a single family home for many years, and even with the interest rate increases, we were about a year from our goal of transitioning into a single family house with a small yard for our dog and keiki. Our condo has lost value immediately following this bill proposal and is likely to lose more, even though the zoning has always been long term. We are now likely 4 or more years away, not even considering the value is likely to go down further if this passes. We have friends in similar boats to us.
This is a government created problem, and a government created “solution” that is hurting families in ways that seem haphazard. It is not just STR mainland owners being harmed. I worry for all the tourism local businesses and jobs in Kihei. We have really gone through it with the pandemic and the fires and quite a few have closed. I really worry about the broader economic impacts of this bill.
I heard someone speak at a prior meeting who claimed it would take 200 years to build this much housing. That is a self imposed, bureaucracy-derived artificial restriction. That is not justification for government harm. The amount of housing units needed for folks displaced by the fires in the west side is way less than what the county is planning to take, never mind that most of that housing is unsuitable for real families. South Maui’s housing solutions should be more carefully planned and considered than this bill.
I want homes for our community and family members, but I think this execution is entirely wrong. I have watched two hotels be built in south Maui in the last 5 years. It really seems unfair to put this burden on a collection of individuals that I don’t even think the county fully understands who that may include, when something like those developments could have been housing for locals. This is pitting our community against each other, in a similar way that the anti-development versus affordable housing conflict has been difficult for the island to navigate, along with the business realities for construction projects.
Please stop characterizing the people most impacted negatively by this as rich outsiders; the reality is very different from where I stand. Stop building hotels. No new vacation rentals. Build affordable housing in a variety of housing types for locals. Buy back aging buildings meant for STR and hotels threatened by shoreline erosion and allocate equivalent land for local housing. Cut red tape where needed and get rid of old NIMBY zoning policies that may obstruct affordable housing. Help upcountry get water quicker for locals building houses!
Aloha e nā Lālā o ke Kōmike Hoʻohana ʻĀina a me nā Hale,
I offer this testimony with deep gratitude and kuleana to the land, to our kūpuna, and to the families whose roots run generations deep in Maui’s soil.
I rise today in unwavering support of Bill 9—not because it’s easy, but because it is right. Not because it avoids pain, but because it begins to heal one of the greatest wounds inflicted on this island in our lifetimes: the slow, calculated displacement of local families from their own homeland.
We all watched it happen. Once, apartment-zoned neighborhoods were filled with laughter from keiki running down the hallways after school, aunties barbecuing, kūpuna sweeping lanai steps, and families looking out for one another. Now, those same buildings sit hollow in spirit, turned into transient pods for strangers whose only connection to this island is a reservation number. The vast majority of some apartment buildings in Lahaina, Kihei, and Ma‘alaea have become ghost villages in disguise, lit by unfamiliar lights, secured with coded locks, and emptied of aloha.
How did we get here? Slowly, at first—one unit at a time. Then by loophole, then by silence. We were told we needed tourism. We were told we couldn’t afford to upset it. We were told there was no other way.
And yet—here we are. Lahaina burned. Families scattered. Workers living in cars. Nurses commuting from Hana to Kahului. Kūpuna watching their moʻopuna leave for Vegas because they can’t survive here. Are we still going to pretend nothing’s wrong?
Some say this bill is too drastic. Too fast. Too hard. But let’s talk honestly. How long have we waited? How many hundreds of written and spoken testimonies have we heard, crying for change? How many reports, meetings, studies, protests? If anything, this bill is late. But it’s not too late.
We can still choose a new path.
Maui kūpuna understood that the ʻāina was not a commodity. Land was a relationship. Housing was a shared responsibility. Decisions were made with future generations in mind, not quarterly earnings.
The short-term rental economy, as it exists, is an inversion of those values. It profits from scarcity, not abundance. From distance, not belonging. It treats our island as a backdrop—not a home. And while tourism does bring money, it does not bring back displaced children. It does not bring back burnt homes. It does not bring back security for our community.
Opponents have argued that STR conversions won’t work because the units are too small or too expensive. But I say: give locals the choice first. Let them find the creativity and resilience that their ancestors always had. We’ve made homes from lava tubes, tarps on the beach, tents, plantation barracks, carports, backyards, cars, and even chicken coops—because we had to. Don’t tell us we can’t make do with a studio!
Others raise concerns about economic fallout. But look deeper. The AP reported that the total property tax revenue loss might be $60 million per year. That’s less than 4% of our county’s latest budget. Meanwhile, the social cost of not acting—of continued homelessness, trauma, and broken families—is immeasurable.
And let me tell you, the trauma is real! Even if you disagree with elements of the Bill or fear this or that consequence, you as Council Members are morally obliged to do something in the face of all the profound suffering that has been presented to you in testimony. Unless you have a better idea that is immediately actionable, basic decency compels you to support the best idea on the table represented by Bill 9.
Listen to Stan Franco, unless you are willing to stand before the community to make the false claim that you have done more, know more, or have worked harder for the housing insecure, who are largely excluded from these proceedings because of barriers to civic participation in testimony that are inherent to housing insecurity.
Some fear lawsuits, citing property rights and legal exposure. But regulating land use is not new. What’s new is the courage to do it for the people, not just the market. And with the 2027 sunset and proper grandfathering, the county has balanced fairness with necessity.
Culturally, Bill 9 represents a rare turning point. This is our chance to correct decades of extraction. This is our moment to center kānaka values in zoning policy. This is our way of saying, “We choose aloha over Airbnb. We choose ‘ohana over occupancy rates. We choose kuleana over absentee profits.”
Let me be clear: I do not hate visitors. I welcome those who come with respect. But we cannot survive if we continue to displace ourselves to make room for them. Hospitality should not come at the cost of local family dignity and survival.
If you vote yes on Bill 9, you are not just closing a loophole. You are opening a doorway for thousands of residents to return home. You are sending a message to every young person wondering if they’ll ever afford to live here: “Yes, this island is still for you.” You are restoring the sacred balance between land, people, and future.
I ask each of you, Councilmembers—especially those of you born and raised here—to remember the stories of your own families. Think of your grandparents and great-grandparents. Would they have voted to preserve a vacation unit, or to house a teacher? Would they have defended profit margins, or made room for the next generation?
And if there is a Councilmember who can sit through all of this testimony—hours of heartfelt confessions from real people describing their intense trauma and pain, their displacement, their fear, their heartbreak—and still vote no on the best, most immediate policy solution we have on the table, then with the deepest respect, then something misaligned will be exposed n your compass of public service.
Councilmembers, I understand that the nine-member Council currently earns $101,302 each per year, with the Council Chair receiving $106,367 annually, following a 26%–23% raise effective July 1. This level of six-figure compensation puts you far above the stress and uncertainty of housing insecurity—so much so that to truly understand the shame, the fear, the embarrassment, and the terror of being without shelter requires both imagination and uncomfortable, intentional empathy. None of you on this Council wakes up wondering whether you will be evicted, whether your children will stay safe, or whether your family will be swept away in an emergency because there’s no roof over their heads.
That daily reality is the truth for many of your constituents, and their suffering is fully visible in the testimony before you. If that pain doesn’t move you to support the one policy we have now—Bill 9—then I urge you to look again, reconsider, and vote with both your heart and your paycheck aligned toward justice.
At its core, democracy means paying elected leaders not to serve the wealthy, but to resist their influence—especially in times of crisis. You are not neutral observers. You are paid agents of justice, tasked with infiltrating the halls of power on behalf of those who are voiceless, landless, and politically invisible.
In this moment, that means prioritizing those who are unhoused, overburdened, and left behind by the very tourism economy that has enriched so few while displacing so many. Please take this sacred responsibility with the seriousness it demands. The credibility of our incredible local democracy, and the trust of the people who still believe in it, depend on how you show up for them now.
I don’t say any of this to insult, but to awaken. We are not here to defend ideals in a vacuum. We are here because the ground is burning beneath our feet. Please, if you find yourself leaning toward a no vote, I ask you to reconsider—not for politics, but for your soul, for your neighbors, and for the island you love.
History will remember how you voted. And in Hawaiian thought, the decisions we make in this life echo far into the next. So I say to you with all the reverence in my heart:
Vote yes, and be remembered well.
In this world and the afterlife.
Vote yes with the same urgency you would feel if your own family were facing eviction tomorrow.
Vote yes as if someone without a home is literally on their knees before you—pleading not for charity, but for justice, and asking you to use the power you hold to make this right.
Vote yes for the voters who, due to lacking a permanent residence, could not receive a mail-in ballot—but still made the effort to vote for you in person at a designated voting center. Every single Councilmembers can count voters who believed in your leadership despite having no stable place to call home. Honor their trust. They showed up for you—now it’s your turn to show up for them.
Mahalo nui loa for your time, your service, and your heart.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE BILL 9. Bill 9 will not increase the affordable housing supply. It will harm the entire Maui economy and thereby harm those needing affordable housing. Those voting to pass this bill understand that these are not reasonable condos for affordable housing and are doing this out of misplaced anger. The true blame should be on the elected officials and govt departments of the past and present who have either neglected to build or prevented building of the necessary infrastructure including roadways, water, sewer, and utilities. The Mayor and County Council should be focusing on building the infrastructure necessary for the next 40 years so Maui can climb out of this crisis. Other states and counties build housing in less than a year and often in less than 9 months. There is no excuse why Maui didn't press forward and build immediately after the fire. Trying to take someone else's property because you feel entitled to it is wrong and will be proven to be illegal. Unfortunately, it may likely cost Maui tens of millions in legal fees and hundreds of millions in lost tax revenue to learn that lesson. VOTE NO ON BILL 9
All this bill will accomplish is to punish local small business owners who cater to the tourism industry. If you take away these STRs you are taking away the livelihoods of hundreds of Maui small business owners who will no longer be able to cover their own mortgage or rental payments. How are they supposed to “pivot” after losing the businesses they have worked so hard to build?? Bill 9 makes no economic sense at all and will not provide the affordable housing Maui so greatly needs. Listen to the experts, read the studies and reports.
To protect our community, we need to phase out short term rentals in our residential areas. We are experiencing one of the most severe housing crises in the U.S. and can no longer afford to allow our communities to be displaced by STRs, nor should you as our elected officials allow the visitor industry more right to residential housing than kama`aina residents. This is your chance to protect our communities right to housing. The economic benefit of STRs is negligible if workers do not have housing. Maui can only survive and prosper if the people from here are able to stay here. Housing our community should be your number one priority, and a vote to ban STRs will show more than anything your commitment to Maui and our neighbors. Please do not turn your back on us, while we are in our greatest time of need. Please vote to ban STRs in residential areas.
I support the bill to phase out STRs on Maui because the out migration of locals and Hawaiian residents is detrimental to the economy and the community. People over profit!
I spend 3 to 6 months here in my illegal str, and cash flow it the rest of the year, as much as I love Maui I’m not giving you my condo to house one of your poor Alice residents.
I would like to point out Council regarding a previous testifier from the Ma’alaea Bayans condo that their injection well is in violation of the Clean Water Act by not having any NPDES permit for a functional equivalent to a direct discharge in an area where the reef is described as “total system collapse” by DLNR in 2014:
https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dar/files/2014/04/MauiReefDeclines.pdf
Here’s a quick analysis of the most recent UIC water quality testing data for the testifier’s condo complex, with an estimate of how many times higher than the associated HAR ocean water quality standard each pollutant shows.
Why no new Type II data since 2001 you may ask? UIC transferred testing to CWB in the mid 00’s and they only test for BOD and TSS since then.
UIC Monitoring Summary – Maʻalaea Banyan (Permit UM-1272)
Sampled: December 12, 2000 – January 4, 2001
AECOS Log #: 13739
Report Date: January 22, 2001
https://tinyurl.com/Maalaea-Banyan-UIC
Reported Results vs. HAR 11-54 Class AA Marine Water Quality Standards:
• Turbidity: 11.4 NTU (standard: ≤1 NTU above natural) — exceedance likely, natural baseline not provided
• Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 22 mg/L (standard: 10 mg/L) — 2.2× over standard
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD₅): 5 mg/L (standard: 2 mg/L, 24-hour average) — 2.5× over standard
• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): 401 mg/L (no marine standard; screening indicator)
• Ammonia-N: 25 µg/L or 0.025 mg/L (proxy for un-ionized NH₃-N, standard: 0.016 mg/L) — 1.6× over standard
• Reported TN: 25.5 mg/L
• HAR Class AA Standard for TN: 0.016 mg/L
• Exceedance:
25.5 ÷ 0.016 = 1,594×
• Total Phosphorus: 5.28 mg/L (standard: 0.004 mg/L) — 1,320× over standard
• Orthophosphate-P: 4.30 mg/L (standard: 0.004 mg/L) — 1,075× over standard
• Oil & Grease: <10 mg/L (standard: 2 mg/L) — <5× over standard
• Fecal Coliform: <20 MPN/100mL (standard: 7 MPN/100mL single grab) — “<3×”
• pH: 6.8 (Class AA expected range: around 8.1 ± 0.2)
• Dissolved Oxygen: 2.8 mg/L (standard: ≥75% saturation, usually ~6–7 mg/L at 25°C) — indicates <50% saturation
⸻
Direct Discharge Screening per County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund
Distance to ocean: Injection wells are approximately 70–100 meters from the shoreline, likely under 240 feet horizontally to coastal waters.
Transit time and dilution: Groundwater likely travels through porous alluvium and fractured basalt. Previous USGS dye-trace studies in the area show that groundwater can reach the nearshore ocean in a matter of days to weeks. Dilution is insufficient to reduce nutrients to ambient marine levels.
Design and volume: The system is a Class V injection well receiving domestic wastewater. In the year 2000, no advanced nutrient removal was reported. The effluent quality suggests a typical secondary treatment profile, not suitable for sensitive coastal discharge.
Chemical similarity: The injected wastewater is chemically equivalent to a direct marine discharge in terms of nutrient and biological load. Given the extremely high nitrate, phosphorus, and BOD values, and the close proximity to the ocean, any resulting nearshore discharge would be functionally indistinguishable from a surface pipe.
Expectations of discharge: The original UIC permit (UM-1272) covered “onsite wastewater only,” but test results show effluent strength far exceeding reuse thresholds. No evidence of enhanced nutrient treatment was reported.
Regulatory regime: No NPDES permit was issued. Reliance solely on the UIC authorization places the discharge under potential Clean Water Act liability if it meets the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge” test under the Supreme Court’s 2020 precedent.
⸻
Conclusion
The most recent Type II UIC effluent testing data that exists from the Maʻalaea Banyan injection wellsshow nutrient pollution exceeding marine water quality standards by 1,000× or more in several categories (total nitrogen, total phosphorus). These concentrations are unlikely to be sufficiently diluted before reaching the ocean, especially given the short travel distance through highly permeable soils.
Therefore, this site meets multiple criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court in County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund for a functional equivalent of a direct discharge.
As such, the Maʻalaea Banyan Class V injection system (Permit UM-1272) may be unlawfully operating without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Given the magnitude of exceedances and risk to reef ecosystems, this site is a strong candidate for immediate regulatory action and enhanced treatment requirements.
So the testifier’s whole identity and narrative about his nice life as a STR operator at Banyans is made possible only by cognitively and legally avoiding compliance with applicable laws.
It is astonishing to me how confident some STR owners are in their narratives when in many cases, it’s all based on a lie or institutional bias, and simply ignoring the law.
Days in violation (from April 23 2020, the date of the County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund decision, through June 24 2025): 1,889 days
Maximum civil penalty allowed under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR §19.4, 2024 inflation adjustment): $64,618 per day per injection well
Maximum potential fine (per injection well):
1,889 days × $64,618/day = $122,063,402
Maximum potential fine for two injection wells:
2 × $122,063,402 = $244,126,804
No one is buying any narrative that STR condo operators in Ma’alaea are law-abiding citizens. Every single one of the facilities is in violation of the Lahaina injection well Supreme Court decision and shares the identical penalty fine liability estimated above for not having the required NPDES permit, except the one facility with three injection wells, which would be 50% greater.
Just sayin!
I would like to add to my prior testimony. I, and many of the other str owners, spend 3 to 6 months every year in my home on Maui. These visits are distributed between 2 and 3 trips per year. I do not have any 6 month periods where I could rent to a long term renter for even 6 months. Maybe 3 to 4 months. Many pro testifiers mention that owners "threaten" to leave their condos vacant/open for family and friends to use rather than provide rentals for Hawaiian residents. My question is, how are we supposed to rent it out long term? Are they/you suggesting that we not be allowed to spend time in our own homes? If we can't rent them out short term for the 4 months until we return, and are only allowed to rent for at least 6 months, what do you suggest we do?
Brenda Lane
During testimony, I’ve noticed a recurring theme from STR owners: many assert that their ownership of at lease one more housing unit than they need is solely the result of hard work and good choices. But the reality is more complex. Not everyone or every demographic has access to the same opportunities. For some historically marginalized or targeted communities, hard work and rule-following have not led to success—often, success is systemically, systematically, actively denied and blocked.
There is a clear demographic pattern among STR owners, and it reflects broader systemic inequities. The “game” has been rigged for centuries and has never been merit-based. Of course many in these privileged groups own second homes.
But if truly exceptional individuals from disadvantaged and targeted demographic had access to a level playing field—let alone the racial and institutional advantages many STR owners have enjoyed for a lifetime—the housing market would look radically different.
The narrative that property ownership is always earned through merit and discipline erases the structural advantages that underpin wealth accumulation in the US and occupied kingdom of Hawaii. It is disingenuous—and frankly, insulting—to defend the “right” to the privileges of excess ownership while ignoring the deep injustices entrained in the very legal codes that exclude other demographics from even basic access to housing.
This conversation is not about demonizing individuals but about whether we will continue to uphold a system where “success” is almost totally pre-determined by factors including race, sexual and gender identity, generational wealth and access and privilege.
Council members must now decide: do you side with those who benefit from that rigged system—or with renters and residents who would never dream of defending it?
As they say, if you’re really in need, ask a poor person for help.
Tamara Paltin is a superhero for calling that one particular testifier out who was acting all entitled like the rest of them, when she was like, um, sir, I checked and your HOA does not allow STRs.
Moments like that give me life, thank you Member Paltin! Your on-the-fly fact-checking got a sorely-needed smile out of Chair Kama and everyone in the audience on both sides.
Aloha
Aloha my name is Vincent Castaneto and I support Bill Nan the phase out of STR‘s. As a son of Lahaina, I have seen the impact that limited housing has had on me and my family personally. My mom and my sister have moved to Phoenix, Arizona in search of finding affordable housing and I am the only one left of my immediate family here still trying to get by on finding affordable housing. So my family has seen the effects of being priced out of Hawaii. Even though it’s a lofty goal, I’m still trying to make it work here to try to save for down payment to get a house here on Maui. I worked two jobs just to pay rent and survive here on this island and I shouldn’t have to go through that just to make it here. Please support this bill so that local individuals and families can afford to live here and make Hawaii the place that it is. Hawaii is not Hawaii without it’s people. Mahalo.
The only people who say maui is reliant on tourism are the STR owners who have CREATED this housing crisis. Maui is not reliant on tourism and it will never benefit from being exploited by these STR owners. The fact that we even consider testimony from people who do not live on island is baffling. If they really care about our community as they say they do then they will be ok losing an income that is only gained by exploiting kanaka.
I am opposed to phasing out short term vacation rentals because I believe they provide affordable accommodations to people who otherwise would not visit Maui due to the high cost of visitor accommodations in hotels and resorts. More diversity of accommodations allow for more diversity of visitor populations which is good for tourism. Phasing out vacation rentals has a very detrimental impact on the Maui economy. My husband and I have a vacation rental in Wailea but we also purchased 2 long term rentals one in Keihi and 1 in Kahana. Both currently serve families who were victims of the fires in Lahaina and Upcountry. We are proud of that. Our STVR helped us to fund the investment of the long term rentals. We do not make much profit on our long term rentals due to HOA fees and high insurance costs. But we wanted to make housing available to residents who otherwise can't purchase. Until other industry is available, Maui is reliant on tourism for jobs. We have legally operated our vacation rental for 13 year. We paid our fees, our taxes and hire residents to work for us. We are an employer. We provide guests who invest in the economy. We provide long term housing for residents and those who lost their homes. We would like to see balanced land use policies that acknowledge the competing priorities. Emotional responses are expected to this housing situation. However, we need to balance the needs to help any economy remain strong. Maybe create a working group with short term vacation rental owners to help develop better policies that are more balanced and address multiple needs for Maui rather than villianize STVR owners. We have learned that residents of Maui are very specific as to wanting to live very close to their jobs and daily lives. West Side focused residents do not seem to want housing on the south side. We had a rental sit for 6 months before we ultimately located a family from the West Side who would rent our long term rental. We need to better understand the geographic preferences of residents and set policies accordingly. We also need to partner with the STVR owners to learn from their expertise. They can help create better policy because they understand the market. If there was no market, they would not be doing it. We love offering affordable accommodations to both guests and visitors as well as long term rentals. Our STVR better accommodates visitors because it is a one bedroom. Our long term rentals were specifically purchased for families; they are 3 bedrooms. We were very intentional in our investments based on what we saw in the market and the demand for housing on Maui. We hope there could be more study of options before a decision is made to this highly charged issue. Affordable housing on Maui has been an issue for many decades. It is not a new issue. Emotional responses to land use decisions seldom seem to work out as intended. I have been in the affordable housing business for nearly 35 years and worked in local government for all of those years. I understand and sympathize with the Council. This is challenging to resolve. Our hope is to conrinue to help both Maui residents and visitors like we have for the past 13 years. Thank you for your consideration of my comments on this matter.
Maui needs to help the locals more and not cater so heavily to tourist. Yes, people need to make money but if you’re going to do short term rentals you should be required to match it and have a long term rental as well.
We support local renters and buyers.
Aloha mai and Kumustakayo (Greetings) Chair and Council Members,
I approach with deep humility with a voice from one who is born and raised on Maui and ask you would consider supporting Bill 9.
I am coming to you not only as a resident of Maui but also as a professional mental health therapist and counselor. I have served youth, families, Native Hawaiian and Filipino communities on this island I call home. Many of us here say "home is where our family resides because it's not about a specific location but of people". I stand by that and that is why I stand passionately for this bill. I have seen my extended family moving to the mainland over the years because they are not able to work and live comfortably on Maui due to housing. It is more convenient for them to buy a house in the mainland and only come to Maui to visit for short periods of time. Our family will always remain family but from a physical distance. I want our family unit to stay together. Many families like mines would like to keep the family unit in the same location but we lack affordable housing options because of short term rentals amongst other housing issues.
As a mental health therapist who stepped in to help and support our Lahaina community after the fires, I urge you as a professional. Many came to process the fires and the trauma they experienced but a lot of local residents didn't come to receive mental health support immediately. Many waited months after the fire to focus on their mental health because housing was and still is a big priority which made their mental health not a priority unfortunately. Months and even a year after the fire many of them came with their trauma of loss and as a therapist it was heart breaking hearing story after story about the fire and their dire need and want to return to a physical place they can call home again. I understand the loss of visitor spending we will lose annually but the loss of what has already happened since August 2023 is in no comparison. We must look to the future and take the hit of the loss of money through short term rentals to open up long term rentals to our local residents. Let me make it clear as a mental health therapist that this issue is not only a housing issue but also a community mental health issue. Let us not overlook what the housing crisis is doing to our Maui community because I haven't. By supporting this bill, you are also supporting the mental health of Maui County and our future generations to come. May our families come home and stay home and heal on a land that has healthy, strong, and thriving leaders who will support our wellbeing.
This is an urgent matter and needs to be addressed immediately. Mahalo piha and Agyamanak (full gratitude) for giving us space to speak and be heard. Please stand united with us!
I oppose Bill 9. I believe it will NOT create more affordable housing for local residents. I believe it will negatively affect local businesses and cause many to close permanently. Almost all Maui residents depend directly, or indirectly, on tourism. Taking away tourists from the small shops and restaurants will not be beneficial for the local economy. Tourists who stay in STR's will not start staying at hotels. Most of these tourists will vacation elsewhere creating huge losses for the local economy.
I think everyone agrees that we need more workforce/affordable housing, but going after small condos with 1 parking spot and with high maintenance fees is not the right way. Almost all of these condos will lose value, and thus lost property tax revenue for the county (and at a lower tax rate). These condos will most likely become someone's second home before it becomes a home for someone that lives here. And if we pretend it becomes a home for people who live here, work will be scarce. This bill, if passed, will likely lead to lawsuits which will be a complete waste of taxpayers' money.
This time should have been spent on a viable solution for more housing for our local community.
Aloha
As another concerned resident, my words will eco through all of the other testimonies.Eleven years ago my partner and I came to maui and joined the hospitality community.When we first arrived rents had been steadily moving up for three solid years.
As two people who had lived in difficult housing markets we stepped up to the challenge.We then spent 6.5 years maintaining a beautiful 2 bed two bath house in paia.The owner, who lived on mainland ,sold after we had just got through our first year of pandemic.The brutality in the market was unforgettable.We struggled to find a new spot for twice the price for 6 months.The opportunity that saved us was a space own 8 generation kanaka family.Thier home was possible through hawaiian homes many years ago.It was in this exact time in my maui years that I started relentlessly following my local legislation.I have worked years now in our community.Helping families and educating kids.There is no reason I should not be able to own a home! It is unacceptable that if I lost my current housing;I would be forced to leave.There need to be options to allow our community to exist and continue to support each other.Bill 9 is an essential step towards an semblance of community we all deserve.
I oppose Bill 9.
As a homeowner at Wailea Ekahi III, I support Patricia Char’s June 18 testimony. Our complex is PD-H (Hotel) zoned, and short-term rentals have operated legally here for decades. Applying Bill 9 to hotel-zoned properties like ours is unfair, inconsistent with zoning intent, and potentially unconstitutional.
The Maui Planning Commission recently recommended excluding properties designated for hotel use or partially hotel-zoned from this legislation. I urge the Council to follow that recommendation and exclude Wailea Ekahi III and similar properties from Bill 9.
I oppose this bill. I do not own a STR, but me and my spouse do own a long term zoned condo. We have been saving for a single family home for many years, and even with the interest rate increases, we were about a year from our goal of transitioning into a single family house with a small yard for our dog and keiki. Our condo has lost value immediately following this bill proposal and is likely to lose more, even though the zoning has always been long term. We are now likely 4 or more years away, not even considering the value is likely to go down further if this passes. We have friends in similar boats to us.
This is a government created problem, and a government created “solution” that is hurting families in ways that seem haphazard. It is not just STR mainland owners being harmed. I worry for all the tourism local businesses and jobs in Kihei. We have really gone through it with the pandemic and the fires and quite a few have closed. I really worry about the broader economic impacts of this bill.
I heard someone speak at a prior meeting who claimed it would take 200 years to build this much housing. That is a self imposed, bureaucracy-derived artificial restriction. That is not justification for government harm. The amount of housing units needed for folks displaced by the fires in the west side is way less than what the county is planning to take, never mind that most of that housing is unsuitable for real families. South Maui’s housing solutions should be more carefully planned and considered than this bill.
I want homes for our community and family members, but I think this execution is entirely wrong. I have watched two hotels be built in south Maui in the last 5 years. It really seems unfair to put this burden on a collection of individuals that I don’t even think the county fully understands who that may include, when something like those developments could have been housing for locals. This is pitting our community against each other, in a similar way that the anti-development versus affordable housing conflict has been difficult for the island to navigate, along with the business realities for construction projects.
Please stop characterizing the people most impacted negatively by this as rich outsiders; the reality is very different from where I stand. Stop building hotels. No new vacation rentals. Build affordable housing in a variety of housing types for locals. Buy back aging buildings meant for STR and hotels threatened by shoreline erosion and allocate equivalent land for local housing. Cut red tape where needed and get rid of old NIMBY zoning policies that may obstruct affordable housing. Help upcountry get water quicker for locals building houses!
Aloha e nā Lālā o ke Kōmike Hoʻohana ʻĀina a me nā Hale,
I offer this testimony with deep gratitude and kuleana to the land, to our kūpuna, and to the families whose roots run generations deep in Maui’s soil.
I rise today in unwavering support of Bill 9—not because it’s easy, but because it is right. Not because it avoids pain, but because it begins to heal one of the greatest wounds inflicted on this island in our lifetimes: the slow, calculated displacement of local families from their own homeland.
We all watched it happen. Once, apartment-zoned neighborhoods were filled with laughter from keiki running down the hallways after school, aunties barbecuing, kūpuna sweeping lanai steps, and families looking out for one another. Now, those same buildings sit hollow in spirit, turned into transient pods for strangers whose only connection to this island is a reservation number. The vast majority of some apartment buildings in Lahaina, Kihei, and Ma‘alaea have become ghost villages in disguise, lit by unfamiliar lights, secured with coded locks, and emptied of aloha.
How did we get here? Slowly, at first—one unit at a time. Then by loophole, then by silence. We were told we needed tourism. We were told we couldn’t afford to upset it. We were told there was no other way.
And yet—here we are. Lahaina burned. Families scattered. Workers living in cars. Nurses commuting from Hana to Kahului. Kūpuna watching their moʻopuna leave for Vegas because they can’t survive here. Are we still going to pretend nothing’s wrong?
Some say this bill is too drastic. Too fast. Too hard. But let’s talk honestly. How long have we waited? How many hundreds of written and spoken testimonies have we heard, crying for change? How many reports, meetings, studies, protests? If anything, this bill is late. But it’s not too late.
We can still choose a new path.
Maui kūpuna understood that the ʻāina was not a commodity. Land was a relationship. Housing was a shared responsibility. Decisions were made with future generations in mind, not quarterly earnings.
The short-term rental economy, as it exists, is an inversion of those values. It profits from scarcity, not abundance. From distance, not belonging. It treats our island as a backdrop—not a home. And while tourism does bring money, it does not bring back displaced children. It does not bring back burnt homes. It does not bring back security for our community.
Opponents have argued that STR conversions won’t work because the units are too small or too expensive. But I say: give locals the choice first. Let them find the creativity and resilience that their ancestors always had. We’ve made homes from lava tubes, tarps on the beach, tents, plantation barracks, carports, backyards, cars, and even chicken coops—because we had to. Don’t tell us we can’t make do with a studio!
Others raise concerns about economic fallout. But look deeper. The AP reported that the total property tax revenue loss might be $60 million per year. That’s less than 4% of our county’s latest budget. Meanwhile, the social cost of not acting—of continued homelessness, trauma, and broken families—is immeasurable.
And let me tell you, the trauma is real! Even if you disagree with elements of the Bill or fear this or that consequence, you as Council Members are morally obliged to do something in the face of all the profound suffering that has been presented to you in testimony. Unless you have a better idea that is immediately actionable, basic decency compels you to support the best idea on the table represented by Bill 9.
Listen to Stan Franco, unless you are willing to stand before the community to make the false claim that you have done more, know more, or have worked harder for the housing insecure, who are largely excluded from these proceedings because of barriers to civic participation in testimony that are inherent to housing insecurity.
Some fear lawsuits, citing property rights and legal exposure. But regulating land use is not new. What’s new is the courage to do it for the people, not just the market. And with the 2027 sunset and proper grandfathering, the county has balanced fairness with necessity.
Culturally, Bill 9 represents a rare turning point. This is our chance to correct decades of extraction. This is our moment to center kānaka values in zoning policy. This is our way of saying, “We choose aloha over Airbnb. We choose ‘ohana over occupancy rates. We choose kuleana over absentee profits.”
Let me be clear: I do not hate visitors. I welcome those who come with respect. But we cannot survive if we continue to displace ourselves to make room for them. Hospitality should not come at the cost of local family dignity and survival.
If you vote yes on Bill 9, you are not just closing a loophole. You are opening a doorway for thousands of residents to return home. You are sending a message to every young person wondering if they’ll ever afford to live here: “Yes, this island is still for you.” You are restoring the sacred balance between land, people, and future.
I ask each of you, Councilmembers—especially those of you born and raised here—to remember the stories of your own families. Think of your grandparents and great-grandparents. Would they have voted to preserve a vacation unit, or to house a teacher? Would they have defended profit margins, or made room for the next generation?
And if there is a Councilmember who can sit through all of this testimony—hours of heartfelt confessions from real people describing their intense trauma and pain, their displacement, their fear, their heartbreak—and still vote no on the best, most immediate policy solution we have on the table, then with the deepest respect, then something misaligned will be exposed n your compass of public service.
Councilmembers, I understand that the nine-member Council currently earns $101,302 each per year, with the Council Chair receiving $106,367 annually, following a 26%–23% raise effective July 1. This level of six-figure compensation puts you far above the stress and uncertainty of housing insecurity—so much so that to truly understand the shame, the fear, the embarrassment, and the terror of being without shelter requires both imagination and uncomfortable, intentional empathy. None of you on this Council wakes up wondering whether you will be evicted, whether your children will stay safe, or whether your family will be swept away in an emergency because there’s no roof over their heads.
That daily reality is the truth for many of your constituents, and their suffering is fully visible in the testimony before you. If that pain doesn’t move you to support the one policy we have now—Bill 9—then I urge you to look again, reconsider, and vote with both your heart and your paycheck aligned toward justice.
At its core, democracy means paying elected leaders not to serve the wealthy, but to resist their influence—especially in times of crisis. You are not neutral observers. You are paid agents of justice, tasked with infiltrating the halls of power on behalf of those who are voiceless, landless, and politically invisible.
In this moment, that means prioritizing those who are unhoused, overburdened, and left behind by the very tourism economy that has enriched so few while displacing so many. Please take this sacred responsibility with the seriousness it demands. The credibility of our incredible local democracy, and the trust of the people who still believe in it, depend on how you show up for them now.
I don’t say any of this to insult, but to awaken. We are not here to defend ideals in a vacuum. We are here because the ground is burning beneath our feet. Please, if you find yourself leaning toward a no vote, I ask you to reconsider—not for politics, but for your soul, for your neighbors, and for the island you love.
History will remember how you voted. And in Hawaiian thought, the decisions we make in this life echo far into the next. So I say to you with all the reverence in my heart:
Vote yes, and be remembered well.
In this world and the afterlife.
Vote yes with the same urgency you would feel if your own family were facing eviction tomorrow.
Vote yes as if someone without a home is literally on their knees before you—pleading not for charity, but for justice, and asking you to use the power you hold to make this right.
Vote yes for the voters who, due to lacking a permanent residence, could not receive a mail-in ballot—but still made the effort to vote for you in person at a designated voting center. Every single Councilmembers can count voters who believed in your leadership despite having no stable place to call home. Honor their trust. They showed up for you—now it’s your turn to show up for them.
Mahalo nui loa for your time, your service, and your heart.
Aloha
I STRONGLY OPPOSE BILL 9. Bill 9 will not increase the affordable housing supply. It will harm the entire Maui economy and thereby harm those needing affordable housing. Those voting to pass this bill understand that these are not reasonable condos for affordable housing and are doing this out of misplaced anger. The true blame should be on the elected officials and govt departments of the past and present who have either neglected to build or prevented building of the necessary infrastructure including roadways, water, sewer, and utilities. The Mayor and County Council should be focusing on building the infrastructure necessary for the next 40 years so Maui can climb out of this crisis. Other states and counties build housing in less than a year and often in less than 9 months. There is no excuse why Maui didn't press forward and build immediately after the fire. Trying to take someone else's property because you feel entitled to it is wrong and will be proven to be illegal. Unfortunately, it may likely cost Maui tens of millions in legal fees and hundreds of millions in lost tax revenue to learn that lesson. VOTE NO ON BILL 9
All this bill will accomplish is to punish local small business owners who cater to the tourism industry. If you take away these STRs you are taking away the livelihoods of hundreds of Maui small business owners who will no longer be able to cover their own mortgage or rental payments. How are they supposed to “pivot” after losing the businesses they have worked so hard to build?? Bill 9 makes no economic sense at all and will not provide the affordable housing Maui so greatly needs. Listen to the experts, read the studies and reports.
To protect our community, we need to phase out short term rentals in our residential areas. We are experiencing one of the most severe housing crises in the U.S. and can no longer afford to allow our communities to be displaced by STRs, nor should you as our elected officials allow the visitor industry more right to residential housing than kama`aina residents. This is your chance to protect our communities right to housing. The economic benefit of STRs is negligible if workers do not have housing. Maui can only survive and prosper if the people from here are able to stay here. Housing our community should be your number one priority, and a vote to ban STRs will show more than anything your commitment to Maui and our neighbors. Please do not turn your back on us, while we are in our greatest time of need. Please vote to ban STRs in residential areas.
Mahalo nui,
Lauren Nelson
Makawao
Listen to Stan Franco