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 strongly support Bill 9 (2025), CD1, and urge the Council to adopt it with amendments that explicitly repeal all legal protections associated with the so-called Minatoya properties. The Minatoya Opinion, issued in 2001 as a legal memo—not legislation—was never intended to serve as permanent zoning law. Yet it was later codified through Ordinances 4167 (2014) and 5126 (2020), allowing transient vacation rentals (TVRs) to persist in the Apartment District (A-1 and A-2 zones) based on construction or usage dates decades ago. This carve-out undermines the County’s housing goals, contradicts the 1989 change to restrict Apartment zoning to long-term residential use, and continues to privilege a class of investors at the expense of working families, local renters, and residents displaced by tourism-driven housing scarcity.
To be truly effective, Bill 9 must sunset all TVR operations in the Apartment District, with no exceptions for Minatoya-era properties. The Apartment District was never intended to serve as an unregulated extension of the Hotel District. The continued operation of transient rentals in these areas fuels speculative investment, drives up housing costs, overwhelms infrastructure, and erodes neighborhood stability. The Council must act decisively by repealing Ordinances 4167 and 5126, voiding all references to the Minatoya Opinion, and restoring the Apartment District to its rightful purpose: long-term residential housing for the people of Maui.
I strongly support the intent and objectives of Bill 9 (2025), CD1 to phase out transient vacation rental (TVR) operations in properties zoned Apartment (A-1 and A-2) across Maui County. However, to ensure this bill is fully effective and enforceable, I respectfully request the Council adopt specific amendments to repeal the Minatoya protections and eliminate all remaining exemptions granted to so-called “Minatoya properties.”
WHY A FULL REPEAL IS NECESSARY
The Minatoya Opinion (2001) was never law—it was an internal legal interpretation issued by Deputy Corporation Counsel to a former mayor, not an act of the Council. Yet, over time, this opinion was codified and reaffirmed through Ordinances 4167 (2014) and 5126 (2020), allowing a select group of apartment-zoned properties to continue operating as de facto hotels under outdated and inconsistent zoning interpretations.
This carve-out:
• Undermines the purpose and authority of the Apartment District, which was amended in 1989 (Ord. 1797) to serve long-term residential housing needs.
• Has contributed to the erosion of available housing for residents, displaced local families, and artificially inflated property values.
• Perpetuates inequality by preserving the financial advantage of a privileged investor class who are exempt from the very rules the rest of us must follow.
• Weakens Maui County’s ability to respond to the housing crisis, climate vulnerability, and over-tourism—especially after the Lāhainā fires.
A SUSTAINABLE PATH FORWARD
There is no defensible reason for transient vacation rentals to continue operating in Apartment Districts. The Hotel District exists for tourism. The Apartment District exists for housing. That distinction must be preserved.
I urge this committee to amend Bill 9 to:
1. Explicitly repeal Ordinances 4167 and 5126 in their entirety.
2. Void all references to the Minatoya Opinion in County law or policy.
3. Sunset all transient vacation rental uses in the Apartment District by July 1, 2028, with no exceptions unless a valid permit under Chapter 19.65 exists.
4. State clearly that the County is not obligated to honor previously codified exemptions that contradict the purpose and language of the current zoning code.
RESTORING BALANCE AND TRUST
This repeal is not about punishment. It is about restoring public trust, reclaiming our residential neighborhoods, and correcting decades of legal and planning drift that have favored speculative interests over community stability.
If the Council fails to repeal these exemptions, Bill 9 will have limited effect, leaving behind a loophole large enough to sink the broader goals of housing security, land use equity, and community resilience.
Let us not continue rewarding legal ambiguity. Let us draw a clear line for the future. The people of Maui deserve no less.
I urge the Committee to strengthen Bill 9 by including the necessary repeal language and ensuring that the Minatoya-based exceptions are lawfully sunset. Only then can we restore balance in our communities, reclaim housing for residents, and begin to resolve the affordability, displacement, and over-tourism crises threatening our island’s future.
A Maui County Council member who owns a condo on the Minatoya List and is facing a vote on Bill 9—which could impact short-term rental (STR) rights—may be under scrutiny over whether they should recuse themselves due to a possible conflict of interest. However, there are legal and ethical arguments that such a member could use not to recuse themselves. Here’s a structured breakdown of that argument:
⸻
1. The Minatoya List Offers a Broad, Categorical Exemption
The Minatoya Opinion (2001) was a legal memo that interpreted Maui County Code to allow short-term rentals in certain condo complexes—by right, without the need for special permits—regardless of the individual owner’s intent or use. The list includes over 100 condo properties that were zoned or historically used for short-term rental prior to the establishment of newer ordinances.
Argument:
Ownership in a condo on the Minatoya List does not automatically equate to a conflict of interest, because the right to rent short-term is tied to the property type, not to the individual owner’s business use. Many owners never operate STRs, and some live in the units full-time.
⸻
2. No Direct Financial Impact Unique to the Council Member
According to Hawaii State Ethics Code (HRS § 84-14), a conflict of interest exists if a legislator takes official action that affects only them or a narrow class of individuals.
Argument:
If the bill impacts hundreds or thousands of condo owners across many complexes—especially those on the Minatoya List—then the impact is not “personal” or “special” to the council member. Their financial interest is not distinguishable from the broader class of affected owners.
⸻
3. Duty to Represent Constituents with Similar Interests
Council members are elected to represent constituents, many of whom may also own Minatoya List properties.
Argument:
Recusal would silence the voice of constituents who share similar concerns. The member is not voting to protect a unique personal interest, but to represent a class of residents with shared rights under current law.
⸻
4. Precedent and Practice
Other council members in past STR-related votes have not recused themselves even when owning property affected by such legislation, especially when the impact is general.
Argument:
As long as the council member discloses their ownership, transparency is maintained, and they are following common legislative practice where owning property in a broadly affected zone does not trigger mandatory recusal.
⸻
5. Legal Advice and Disclosure Satisfy Ethics Requirements
If the council member has disclosed ownership and sought or received clearance from the Board of Ethics or county attorney, that strengthens their position.
Argument:
With legal clearance, there is no violation of ethics code. Voting under these conditions upholds both transparency and duty to legislate.
⸻
Summary Statement the Council Member Could Use:
“While I own a condo in a Minatoya List complex, that ownership places me among a large, general class of property owners similarly affected by this legislation. I have disclosed my ownership publicly, and my vote reflects the interests of my constituents and the broader policy goals of this council, not any personal gain.”
County Council: Curious is there is a conflict of interest if any council members who may own property on the Minatoya list should recuse from voting on the bill?
The UHERO warns that the economic impacts of this legislation are significant, including reduced GDP, diminished tax revenue, and fewer local employment opportunities. Specifically, visitor spending would plunge by nearly $900 million annually, leading to the loss of about 1,900 jobs and a $60 million drop in property tax revenue each year.
It appears that this issue arises every 12-13 years.
The precedence for allowing STR in these apartments has been set for over 40 years.
It was confirmed by by Richard Minatoya of County Counsel on July 30, 2001
********************
"BRIEF ANSWER:
It is our department’s opinion that exemptions to this restriction are: (1) projects with building permits, special management area use permits, or planned development approval lawfully issued and valid on April 20, 1989; or (2) apartment units that were operating as transient vacation rentals on or before March 4, 1991."
********************
If was further acknowledged and codified with Ordinance 4167 Bill No. 75 in 2014
********************
"The purpose of this ordinance is to expressly restate the exceptions set forth in Section 11
and declare the intent of the Council in enacting Ordinance 1797 was originally, and is now, to
exclude the requirement of long-term-residential occupancy from buildings or structures having,
on or before April 20, 1989, lawfully issued and valid building permits, special management area
use permits, or planned development approval."
********************
Now to come and say that the County is taking away that codified and vested right, is the taking of property and in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
I ask that you kill this bill in order to save the County thousands of dollars in legal fees on legislation that to any reasonable person can see is clearly unconstitutional and destined to fall when challenged in the courts.
Corrections to Written Testimony Regarding Lahaina Strong Submission – June 25 HLU Committee Meeting
The written testimony submitted by Lahaina Strong at the HLU Committee meeting on June 25 contains significant inaccuracies. Most notably, it claims that owner-occupancy rates in Minatoya condos have dropped by 40–60% over the past 10 years. This claim is completely false and is based on a misinterpretation of data from the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA).
Misinterpretation of Classification Data
The key error lies in the misunderstanding of Maui County’s real property tax classifications. In 2020, Maui County changed its property tax classification system. Before this change, condominium units were categorized as either:
* Owner-Occupied
* Hotel/Resort
* Apartment
The “Apartment” classification included both long-term rentals and second homes. In fact, the majority of these units in Minatoya properties were used as second homes, not long-term rentals.
In 2020, Ordinance 5160 was passed, eliminating self-classification for condominium properties. As a result, all condo units in complexes where short-term rentals (STRs) were legally permitted were reclassified as TVR/STR (Transient Vacation Rental / Short-Term Rental), unless they qualified for an Owner-Occupied or Long-Term Rental exemption. Therefore, many units previously classified as "Apartment"—and used as second homes—were automatically reclassified as TVR/STR, regardless of whether they were actually used as STRs.
Lahaina Strong's testimony incorrectly treated these previously “Apartment”-classified second homes as “Owner-Occupied” units in 2015, then counted their reclassification in 2025 as a loss of owner-occupancy. This is inaccurate. These units were not owner-occupied in 2015; they were primarily second homes.
Example: Pacific Shores
The testimony uses Pacific Shores as an example, claiming a drop in owner-occupancy from 48% in 2015 to 9% in 2025, citing a loss of 61 units to STRs. However, real property tax records show:
* In 2015, only 25% of units (34 of 136) were classified as Owner-Occupied.
* In 2025, 25% were still in long-term use: 21 units Owner-Occupied, 13 as Long-Term Rentals.
Lahaina Strong appears to have mistakenly interpreted the 58 units classified as “Apartment” in 2015—used primarily as second homes—as owner-occupied, and falsely counted their reclassification as STRs as a loss.
This same pattern of misinterpretation applies across all Minatoya properties cited in Lahaina Strong’s testimony.
Historical Context and Misrepresentation of Residential Use
Another false claim in the testimony is that early DCCA documents prove the properties were intended solely for residential (i.e., long-term) use, excluding STRs. This interpretation is flawed.
Before 1981, neither Maui County nor the State of Hawaii restricted short-term rental use. Therefore, many condo construction documents from before that time did not need to specify rental durations. In 1981, Maui County formally defined "Transient Vacation Rentals" and required that such use be spelled out in condo CC&Rs for new developments or added via unanimous owner approval.
Thus, the absence of explicit STR language in pre-1981 documents does not imply an intention to exclude STR use.
Establishing Original Intent
To understand the intended use of Minatoya condos, the correct approach is to examine:
* The CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
* Original sales and marketing materials
Courts have repeatedly upheld that STR use is a form of residential use—not commercial or hotel use. Therefore, using the term "residential" in governing documents does not preclude STRs.
Conclusion
Lahaina Strong’s testimony is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of property tax classifications, misreads historical documents, and presents incorrect data. In truth:
* Over 75% of Minatoya condo units have historically been used as second homes or for STR purposes.
* Property records dating back to 1986 support this pattern, with thousands of units already used as STRs at that time.
* The claims of a dramatic drop in owner-occupancy are inaccurate and misleading.
We urge the committee to rely on verified property records and accurate interpretation of legal classifications when evaluating the history and usage of these properties.
I own a tourism based business on the west side that has been operating for around 8 years. I did a search of where my customers are staying in my booking system and about 30% of them report that they are staying in a short term rental. My business was devastated by the fire and is barely holding on. Many of the people who stay at vacation rentals are not able to afford hotel stays and if they still choose to come to Maui, they will spend their entire budget on hotels, thus spending less with small businesses.
If passed, Bill 9 will be followed up by protracted and expensive litigation. The county should avoid this and follow models that can be seen in places like Austin, TX and Charlotte, NC when faced with a housing crisis. Instead of banning short term rentals or freezing rents, they increased the amount of affordable housing inventory and in the process created jobs and economic prosperity. There is lots of developable land that can be acquired through purchase or Eminent Domain to build new affordable housing with the amenities that the majority of the Bill 9 properties lack and at the same time avoid the issue of unaffordable HOA fees, which the majority of Bill 9 properties have.
Independent studies on Bill 9 all cite massive economic losses for both the people and the government of Maui. Further, most condo owners in affected units will either sell to richer mainlanders or keep the units for their personal use if they can afford it.
If Bill 9 passes, mine and many other tourism based businesses will surely go under. The economic fallout of this bill will only worsen the hardships we have endured due to the fires and it will make no positive impact on housing. Please do not ratify Bill 9.
Bill 9 affirms that housing is a right, not a speculative asset. It is a forward-thinking measure that will bring Maui closer to a just, livable, and community-centered future. I urge this Committee and the full Council to pass Bill 9 without delay and to continue advancing policies that prioritize the wellbeing of residents over unchecked commercial tourism.
Mahalo for your leadership and courage in facing this critical issue.
The University of Hawaii UHERO report concludes that phasing out these legal STR would cost:
-$900 million in annual tourism revenue lost -
-1,900 lost jobs – this is nightmare for local workers , devastating families
- decrease GDP 4%
-$75 million in annual tax revenue lost
I respectfully urged you to consider how this will kill tourism, eliminate our jobs, and destroy our businesses.
My name is Patricia, and I was born and raised here on Maui. My husband and I have worked hard our whole lives to support our family, and we depend on the jobs that short-term rentals provide. I clean condos that are rented on Airbnb, and my husband takes care of the landscaping for the same property. If you take away short-term rentals in apartment-zoned areas, we will both lose our jobs.
I know there’s a lot of talk about these rentals hurting locals, but for us, they are the reason we can pay our rent, buy food, and take care of our keiki. Without these jobs, I don’t know what we’re going to do. There’s already barely any work for us. We’re not the ones making big money off these rentals—we’re just trying to survive, like so many other local families who depend on tourism.
If these owners can’t rent their places short-term, they won’t need housekeepers like me or landscapers like my husband. They’ll shut down their units, and all of us who work for them will be left struggling. We don’t have the luxury of just “finding something else.” Where are we supposed to go? What jobs will replace the ones you’re taking away from us?
I understand the need for affordable housing, but this isn’t the way to fix the problem. Please don’t make it even harder for local working families like mine. We need these jobs to survive.
1. Maui bans STRs.
2. Locals can’t afford the empty condos.
3. Condos sit vacant, property values drop.
4. Mainlanders buy up cheap condos as 2nd homes, but don’t rent them at all.
5. Thousands of costly lawsuits against Maui.
6. Tourism crashes, local business layoffs.
7. STR-related jobs lost, unemployment rises.
8. Tax revenue plummets (TAT, GET, property taxes).
9. Major budget cuts to essential services.
10. No housing gained, tourism economy crashes, jobs lost.
Bill 9 is a disaster, those housing units are not suitable for local families, phasing them out is only for the benefit of big hotels, at the same time, sinking the economy of Maui, 7000 units disappearing means a lot of tourists will not be coming back. The correct thing to do is helping small business, take back water resource and build housing units that's for families. not the other way round. you are not helping, you are destroying Maui.
I strongly support Bill 9 (2025), CD1, and urge the Council to adopt it with amendments that explicitly repeal all legal protections associated with the so-called Minatoya properties. The Minatoya Opinion, issued in 2001 as a legal memo—not legislation—was never intended to serve as permanent zoning law. Yet it was later codified through Ordinances 4167 (2014) and 5126 (2020), allowing transient vacation rentals (TVRs) to persist in the Apartment District (A-1 and A-2 zones) based on construction or usage dates decades ago. This carve-out undermines the County’s housing goals, contradicts the 1989 change to restrict Apartment zoning to long-term residential use, and continues to privilege a class of investors at the expense of working families, local renters, and residents displaced by tourism-driven housing scarcity.
To be truly effective, Bill 9 must sunset all TVR operations in the Apartment District, with no exceptions for Minatoya-era properties. The Apartment District was never intended to serve as an unregulated extension of the Hotel District. The continued operation of transient rentals in these areas fuels speculative investment, drives up housing costs, overwhelms infrastructure, and erodes neighborhood stability. The Council must act decisively by repealing Ordinances 4167 and 5126, voiding all references to the Minatoya Opinion, and restoring the Apartment District to its rightful purpose: long-term residential housing for the people of Maui.
Chair and Committee Members:
I strongly support the intent and objectives of Bill 9 (2025), CD1 to phase out transient vacation rental (TVR) operations in properties zoned Apartment (A-1 and A-2) across Maui County. However, to ensure this bill is fully effective and enforceable, I respectfully request the Council adopt specific amendments to repeal the Minatoya protections and eliminate all remaining exemptions granted to so-called “Minatoya properties.”
WHY A FULL REPEAL IS NECESSARY
The Minatoya Opinion (2001) was never law—it was an internal legal interpretation issued by Deputy Corporation Counsel to a former mayor, not an act of the Council. Yet, over time, this opinion was codified and reaffirmed through Ordinances 4167 (2014) and 5126 (2020), allowing a select group of apartment-zoned properties to continue operating as de facto hotels under outdated and inconsistent zoning interpretations.
This carve-out:
• Undermines the purpose and authority of the Apartment District, which was amended in 1989 (Ord. 1797) to serve long-term residential housing needs.
• Has contributed to the erosion of available housing for residents, displaced local families, and artificially inflated property values.
• Perpetuates inequality by preserving the financial advantage of a privileged investor class who are exempt from the very rules the rest of us must follow.
• Weakens Maui County’s ability to respond to the housing crisis, climate vulnerability, and over-tourism—especially after the Lāhainā fires.
A SUSTAINABLE PATH FORWARD
There is no defensible reason for transient vacation rentals to continue operating in Apartment Districts. The Hotel District exists for tourism. The Apartment District exists for housing. That distinction must be preserved.
I urge this committee to amend Bill 9 to:
1. Explicitly repeal Ordinances 4167 and 5126 in their entirety.
2. Void all references to the Minatoya Opinion in County law or policy.
3. Sunset all transient vacation rental uses in the Apartment District by July 1, 2028, with no exceptions unless a valid permit under Chapter 19.65 exists.
4. State clearly that the County is not obligated to honor previously codified exemptions that contradict the purpose and language of the current zoning code.
RESTORING BALANCE AND TRUST
This repeal is not about punishment. It is about restoring public trust, reclaiming our residential neighborhoods, and correcting decades of legal and planning drift that have favored speculative interests over community stability.
If the Council fails to repeal these exemptions, Bill 9 will have limited effect, leaving behind a loophole large enough to sink the broader goals of housing security, land use equity, and community resilience.
Let us not continue rewarding legal ambiguity. Let us draw a clear line for the future. The people of Maui deserve no less.
Mahalo for your time and service.
Respectfully,
Calia Chung
Makawao Resident
I urge the Committee to strengthen Bill 9 by including the necessary repeal language and ensuring that the Minatoya-based exceptions are lawfully sunset. Only then can we restore balance in our communities, reclaim housing for residents, and begin to resolve the affordability, displacement, and over-tourism crises threatening our island’s future.
Oppose..email sent to council July 2 3035
A Maui County Council member who owns a condo on the Minatoya List and is facing a vote on Bill 9—which could impact short-term rental (STR) rights—may be under scrutiny over whether they should recuse themselves due to a possible conflict of interest. However, there are legal and ethical arguments that such a member could use not to recuse themselves. Here’s a structured breakdown of that argument:
⸻
1. The Minatoya List Offers a Broad, Categorical Exemption
The Minatoya Opinion (2001) was a legal memo that interpreted Maui County Code to allow short-term rentals in certain condo complexes—by right, without the need for special permits—regardless of the individual owner’s intent or use. The list includes over 100 condo properties that were zoned or historically used for short-term rental prior to the establishment of newer ordinances.
Argument:
Ownership in a condo on the Minatoya List does not automatically equate to a conflict of interest, because the right to rent short-term is tied to the property type, not to the individual owner’s business use. Many owners never operate STRs, and some live in the units full-time.
⸻
2. No Direct Financial Impact Unique to the Council Member
According to Hawaii State Ethics Code (HRS § 84-14), a conflict of interest exists if a legislator takes official action that affects only them or a narrow class of individuals.
Argument:
If the bill impacts hundreds or thousands of condo owners across many complexes—especially those on the Minatoya List—then the impact is not “personal” or “special” to the council member. Their financial interest is not distinguishable from the broader class of affected owners.
⸻
3. Duty to Represent Constituents with Similar Interests
Council members are elected to represent constituents, many of whom may also own Minatoya List properties.
Argument:
Recusal would silence the voice of constituents who share similar concerns. The member is not voting to protect a unique personal interest, but to represent a class of residents with shared rights under current law.
⸻
4. Precedent and Practice
Other council members in past STR-related votes have not recused themselves even when owning property affected by such legislation, especially when the impact is general.
Argument:
As long as the council member discloses their ownership, transparency is maintained, and they are following common legislative practice where owning property in a broadly affected zone does not trigger mandatory recusal.
⸻
5. Legal Advice and Disclosure Satisfy Ethics Requirements
If the council member has disclosed ownership and sought or received clearance from the Board of Ethics or county attorney, that strengthens their position.
Argument:
With legal clearance, there is no violation of ethics code. Voting under these conditions upholds both transparency and duty to legislate.
⸻
Summary Statement the Council Member Could Use:
“While I own a condo in a Minatoya List complex, that ownership places me among a large, general class of property owners similarly affected by this legislation. I have disclosed my ownership publicly, and my vote reflects the interests of my constituents and the broader policy goals of this council, not any personal gain.”
County Council: Curious is there is a conflict of interest if any council members who may own property on the Minatoya list should recuse from voting on the bill?
The UHERO warns that the economic impacts of this legislation are significant, including reduced GDP, diminished tax revenue, and fewer local employment opportunities. Specifically, visitor spending would plunge by nearly $900 million annually, leading to the loss of about 1,900 jobs and a $60 million drop in property tax revenue each year.
It appears that this issue arises every 12-13 years.
The precedence for allowing STR in these apartments has been set for over 40 years.
It was confirmed by by Richard Minatoya of County Counsel on July 30, 2001
********************
"BRIEF ANSWER:
It is our department’s opinion that exemptions to this restriction are: (1) projects with building permits, special management area use permits, or planned development approval lawfully issued and valid on April 20, 1989; or (2) apartment units that were operating as transient vacation rentals on or before March 4, 1991."
********************
If was further acknowledged and codified with Ordinance 4167 Bill No. 75 in 2014
********************
"The purpose of this ordinance is to expressly restate the exceptions set forth in Section 11
and declare the intent of the Council in enacting Ordinance 1797 was originally, and is now, to
exclude the requirement of long-term-residential occupancy from buildings or structures having,
on or before April 20, 1989, lawfully issued and valid building permits, special management area
use permits, or planned development approval."
********************
Now to come and say that the County is taking away that codified and vested right, is the taking of property and in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
I ask that you kill this bill in order to save the County thousands of dollars in legal fees on legislation that to any reasonable person can see is clearly unconstitutional and destined to fall when challenged in the courts.
Corrections to Written Testimony Regarding Lahaina Strong Submission – June 25 HLU Committee Meeting
The written testimony submitted by Lahaina Strong at the HLU Committee meeting on June 25 contains significant inaccuracies. Most notably, it claims that owner-occupancy rates in Minatoya condos have dropped by 40–60% over the past 10 years. This claim is completely false and is based on a misinterpretation of data from the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA).
Misinterpretation of Classification Data
The key error lies in the misunderstanding of Maui County’s real property tax classifications. In 2020, Maui County changed its property tax classification system. Before this change, condominium units were categorized as either:
* Owner-Occupied
* Hotel/Resort
* Apartment
The “Apartment” classification included both long-term rentals and second homes. In fact, the majority of these units in Minatoya properties were used as second homes, not long-term rentals.
In 2020, Ordinance 5160 was passed, eliminating self-classification for condominium properties. As a result, all condo units in complexes where short-term rentals (STRs) were legally permitted were reclassified as TVR/STR (Transient Vacation Rental / Short-Term Rental), unless they qualified for an Owner-Occupied or Long-Term Rental exemption. Therefore, many units previously classified as "Apartment"—and used as second homes—were automatically reclassified as TVR/STR, regardless of whether they were actually used as STRs.
Lahaina Strong's testimony incorrectly treated these previously “Apartment”-classified second homes as “Owner-Occupied” units in 2015, then counted their reclassification in 2025 as a loss of owner-occupancy. This is inaccurate. These units were not owner-occupied in 2015; they were primarily second homes.
Example: Pacific Shores
The testimony uses Pacific Shores as an example, claiming a drop in owner-occupancy from 48% in 2015 to 9% in 2025, citing a loss of 61 units to STRs. However, real property tax records show:
* In 2015, only 25% of units (34 of 136) were classified as Owner-Occupied.
* In 2025, 25% were still in long-term use: 21 units Owner-Occupied, 13 as Long-Term Rentals.
Lahaina Strong appears to have mistakenly interpreted the 58 units classified as “Apartment” in 2015—used primarily as second homes—as owner-occupied, and falsely counted their reclassification as STRs as a loss.
This same pattern of misinterpretation applies across all Minatoya properties cited in Lahaina Strong’s testimony.
Historical Context and Misrepresentation of Residential Use
Another false claim in the testimony is that early DCCA documents prove the properties were intended solely for residential (i.e., long-term) use, excluding STRs. This interpretation is flawed.
Before 1981, neither Maui County nor the State of Hawaii restricted short-term rental use. Therefore, many condo construction documents from before that time did not need to specify rental durations. In 1981, Maui County formally defined "Transient Vacation Rentals" and required that such use be spelled out in condo CC&Rs for new developments or added via unanimous owner approval.
Thus, the absence of explicit STR language in pre-1981 documents does not imply an intention to exclude STR use.
Establishing Original Intent
To understand the intended use of Minatoya condos, the correct approach is to examine:
* The CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
* Original sales and marketing materials
Courts have repeatedly upheld that STR use is a form of residential use—not commercial or hotel use. Therefore, using the term "residential" in governing documents does not preclude STRs.
Conclusion
Lahaina Strong’s testimony is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of property tax classifications, misreads historical documents, and presents incorrect data. In truth:
* Over 75% of Minatoya condo units have historically been used as second homes or for STR purposes.
* Property records dating back to 1986 support this pattern, with thousands of units already used as STRs at that time.
* The claims of a dramatic drop in owner-occupancy are inaccurate and misleading.
We urge the committee to rely on verified property records and accurate interpretation of legal classifications when evaluating the history and usage of these properties.
Listen to Stan Franco
I own a tourism based business on the west side that has been operating for around 8 years. I did a search of where my customers are staying in my booking system and about 30% of them report that they are staying in a short term rental. My business was devastated by the fire and is barely holding on. Many of the people who stay at vacation rentals are not able to afford hotel stays and if they still choose to come to Maui, they will spend their entire budget on hotels, thus spending less with small businesses.
If passed, Bill 9 will be followed up by protracted and expensive litigation. The county should avoid this and follow models that can be seen in places like Austin, TX and Charlotte, NC when faced with a housing crisis. Instead of banning short term rentals or freezing rents, they increased the amount of affordable housing inventory and in the process created jobs and economic prosperity. There is lots of developable land that can be acquired through purchase or Eminent Domain to build new affordable housing with the amenities that the majority of the Bill 9 properties lack and at the same time avoid the issue of unaffordable HOA fees, which the majority of Bill 9 properties have.
Independent studies on Bill 9 all cite massive economic losses for both the people and the government of Maui. Further, most condo owners in affected units will either sell to richer mainlanders or keep the units for their personal use if they can afford it.
If Bill 9 passes, mine and many other tourism based businesses will surely go under. The economic fallout of this bill will only worsen the hardships we have endured due to the fires and it will make no positive impact on housing. Please do not ratify Bill 9.
Bill 9 affirms that housing is a right, not a speculative asset. It is a forward-thinking measure that will bring Maui closer to a just, livable, and community-centered future. I urge this Committee and the full Council to pass Bill 9 without delay and to continue advancing policies that prioritize the wellbeing of residents over unchecked commercial tourism.
Mahalo for your leadership and courage in facing this critical issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Aloha,
The University of Hawaii UHERO report concludes that phasing out these legal STR would cost:
-$900 million in annual tourism revenue lost -
-1,900 lost jobs – this is nightmare for local workers , devastating families
- decrease GDP 4%
-$75 million in annual tax revenue lost
I respectfully urged you to consider how this will kill tourism, eliminate our jobs, and destroy our businesses.
Mahalo
Aloha,
My name is Patricia, and I was born and raised here on Maui. My husband and I have worked hard our whole lives to support our family, and we depend on the jobs that short-term rentals provide. I clean condos that are rented on Airbnb, and my husband takes care of the landscaping for the same property. If you take away short-term rentals in apartment-zoned areas, we will both lose our jobs.
I know there’s a lot of talk about these rentals hurting locals, but for us, they are the reason we can pay our rent, buy food, and take care of our keiki. Without these jobs, I don’t know what we’re going to do. There’s already barely any work for us. We’re not the ones making big money off these rentals—we’re just trying to survive, like so many other local families who depend on tourism.
If these owners can’t rent their places short-term, they won’t need housekeepers like me or landscapers like my husband. They’ll shut down their units, and all of us who work for them will be left struggling. We don’t have the luxury of just “finding something else.” Where are we supposed to go? What jobs will replace the ones you’re taking away from us?
I understand the need for affordable housing, but this isn’t the way to fix the problem. Please don’t make it even harder for local working families like mine. We need these jobs to survive.
Mahalo for listening,
Patricia
This is what’s going to happen:
1. Maui bans STRs.
2. Locals can’t afford the empty condos.
3. Condos sit vacant, property values drop.
4. Mainlanders buy up cheap condos as 2nd homes, but don’t rent them at all.
5. Thousands of costly lawsuits against Maui.
6. Tourism crashes, local business layoffs.
7. STR-related jobs lost, unemployment rises.
8. Tax revenue plummets (TAT, GET, property taxes).
9. Major budget cuts to essential services.
10. No housing gained, tourism economy crashes, jobs lost.
Listen to Stan Franco
Implement smart depopulation of speculative non-resident ownership by regulating ownership, taxation, and use.
Land use permissions are not permanent entitlements. They are conditional grants, subject to change as public needs evolve.
Implement smart depopulation of speculative non-resident ownership by regulating ownership, taxation, and use.
Bill 9 is a disaster, those housing units are not suitable for local families, phasing them out is only for the benefit of big hotels, at the same time, sinking the economy of Maui, 7000 units disappearing means a lot of tourists will not be coming back. The correct thing to do is helping small business, take back water resource and build housing units that's for families. not the other way round. you are not helping, you are destroying Maui.