Aloha,
5 of the 8 Maalaea condominium complexes are included on the E2 list to allow ongoing STRs. This is very appropriate and consistent with their original purpose, appearance on the Minotoya list, and decades of short term rentals. But the other 3 properties, Maalaea Banyans, Kanai a Nalu, and Makani a Kai are almost identical, and in some ways even more appropriate to be on the E2 list compared to those included. Maalaea Banyans units are considerably smaller, and Kanai a Nalu and Makani a Kai are at even higher risk from sea level than some E2 Maalaea Properties. Please allow our whole community to continue as a vibrant and lovely contribution to the Maui community and economy. Thank you for your efforts to fairly and effectively address the serious housing affordability problem,
Thank you for your hard work. I Support TIg FIndings but Oppose Bill 9 - I am confused by the testimony of the few red shirts in chamber saying the condos Bill 9 would try to turn into long term rentals are what the community wants and needs! As the Mayor said - we must first consider the "Heart & Needs of our Community" - Evidently they have not read the Maui Chamber of Commerce testimony - the locations most residents want are not South Maui and are Upcountry and Wailuku. The vast majority of housing needs are in those communities. Obviously the fire in Lahaina has exascerbated the need on the west side but that is where the county has centered its work and already 500 new units have been provided with more in the pipeline. Please do not promote those interested in only dividing community with false facts - The people mostley want HOMES and land. and lots of parking and places for their pets. Mahalo
Hello Councilmembers and thank you for your time and service on this issue. I am an owner at Kapalua Ridge Villas and while I oppose Bill 9 as it appears to be written incompletely, I do appreciate the findings of the TIG and appreciate their efforts and approach to finding an equitable solution to the housing issue. Housing and economics factor into this decision equally and Kapalua is an area that is an expensive place for locals to afford and clearly with some housing being open and still unrented, that statement rings true.
So, I am bewildered to see that the Kapalua Bay Villas are on Exhibit 2 of the TIG, yet both the Ridge and Golf Villas were excluded. They have historically been a collective resort community and therefore should be treated as such. I respectfully request those two to be added to Exhibit 2, should Bill 9 pass with the incorporation of the TIG findings. Mahalo
Aloha, I respectfully request you consider adding the exclusive 10 unit beach front resort, Puunoa Beach Estates to the list of exempted properties.
Each of the individual units are valued at $3-5MM —unattainable for local workforce. A loss of ability to STR would only serve to reduce high paying service jobs. This property was never intended to be local workforce housing.
The gated property has a check in desk, on-site housing for property manager, pool and hot tub, clubhouse with gym and sauna and resort style amenities.
We are shocked to learn this property was not included in Exhibit 2 in the TIG report. We appreciate your time and consideration.
I am a homeowner at Kaanapali Royal and wish to provide feedback on the TIG report.
Foremost, I commend the hard work and thoughtful discussion from the TIG members.
My husband and I purchased a condo in Kaanapali Royal in March 2024 solely for the purpose of short-term vacation rental as an investment property under a 1031 tax exchange. Over the last year and a half, we have seen the nightly rental rate and demand drop by over 50%. We have also experienced a decline in value of our property by over 30% even though expenses such as property taxes and HOA fees have increased. I am concerned that implementation of new zones and transitioning Exhibit 2 properties into them could be time-consuming.
My recommendation is to urge the committee to modify Bill 9 to include exemptions for the Exhibit 2 properties or to make passage contingent upon the passage of the H3-H4 zoning legislation. Without linking these measures, we could risk a further decline in property values which negatively impacts our economy on Maui.
I am strongly against Bill 9 and in turn am against the TIG recommendations. None of the Minatoya properties should lose their right to operated legally as STRs. Period.
Do not bend to the vocal minority and pass a Bill that you know is detrimental the Maui economy and will not result in more affordable housing for Maui residents. Keep the Minatoya STRs in place and approve affordable housing that is purpose-built for Maui families.
Aloha Committee Members:
The absence of Kauhale Makai from Exhibit 2 while its apparent twin in terms of unit configuration and the presence of deeded time-share units caused me to review the original legislation which gave each County only the authority to regulate short-term vacation rentals.
SB 2919 (2024) is the legislation that enabled Hawaii counties to regulate or phase out short-term vacation rentals, but it expressly did not apply to time-shares. Time-shares are specifically regulated by a separate state law, HRS Chapter 514E (Time Sharing Plans), which explicitly only authorizes time-share units to be operated in “resort and hotel zones” and distinguishes them from transient vacation rentals.
So, some questions for the committee:
How could Kauhale Makai’s have 12 or more deeded time shares that are only explicitly authorized by State law HRS 514E if Kauhale Makai was not in fact intended and recognized in compliance with state law as being being within an actual intended “hotel and resort zone”? Is it possible the committee did not realize Kauhale Makai had a dozen or so deeded time-shares within its complex just like those in Maui Sunset, now listed on Exhibit 2?
Of the 225 units of Maui Sunset one-fifth are legally structured as deeded time-share ownership. The remainder of the Maui Sunset complex consists of individually owned full-time condominiums, many of which are operated as traditional or vacation rental units rather than fractional ownership, basically the same as the configuration at Kauhale Makai, now absent from Schedule 2.
Under the obvious applicable legislative facts, how is Kauhale Makai any different from Maui Sunset? Therefore why is Kauhale Makai not included in Exhibit 2 as a potentially exempted hotel zone qualifying property in accord with HRS 514E?
These are questions that I and others are presenting to you here now in this email and also to the Housing and Land Use Committee hoping for answers when it meets to discuss and evaluate the findings of the “TIG” Group and rectify the failure to include Kauhale Makai on Exhibit 2.
Respectfully,
Tim O’Shaughnessy
I write to you to request the full, detailed, methodology for choosing the properties listed in Exhibit 2 of the recent TIG report be made public. As an owner at Luana Kai (not listed), directly next door to Maui Sunset (listed), its exclusion was puzzling to me and other owners when both are presently zoned together in the exact same block on the ocean side of South Kihei Road. To assist your methodological discussions, I would like you to consider the following:
1. The 'timeshare' exemption: information was provided to me that Maui Sunset was chosen over Luana Kai due to the fact that it offers timeshare purchases. Over 95% of Maui Sunset is owned by individual owners, rented out just like Luana Kai. I contacted Maui Sunset as a prospective timeshare purchaser and received no response. For Properties being exempt due to 'timeshares' what have they had to provide to council to prove these are a) still operational b) accurate and c) actually available to the public to purchase? I caution council that if this is not properly considered, a timeshare loophole is going to derail this report and its recommendations by properties that can gather seemingly limited evidence of timeshare existence. The county may also see a surge in timeshares organized to become exempt, which as many people know can be a dangerous financial trap for purchasers with no legal recourse.
2. Shoreline erosion/natural disaster exposure/sea-level rise: As the owner of a condo exposed to the ocean and its inevitable weather, I have known the responsibility will lie upon myself, to restore the property if a hurricane/Tsunami or other weather event damages the building. Insurance will not be able to be relied on in the future especially as the climate changes. Is the county prepared to subsidize restoration projects on these apartment buildings if sold to be resident housing? How will residents with limited means be able to restore their units, the grounds, and the building shell? At Luana Kai during heavy rains or waves we already see water getting closer to the building. Over the next 20 years sea levels are expected to rise by 6 inches. How is the county going to deal with this threat for thousands of units? After the terrible Lahaina fires, I believe Maui should now be aware of the devastation nature can bring, and the resources that are required to make a community whole again.
Thank you for considering to add Luana Kai to the Exhibit list of the TIG report, and releasing the detailed methodology and evidence behind why all other properties were chosen.
My name is Brian Murphy. As an owner, I am writing to ask you to consider re-zoning Kanai A Nalu from Apartment zoning to Hotel (H-4). This property was not included under Exhibit 2 in the recent TIG report. The property’s economics and shoreline vulnerability make it viable only as visitor accommodation, not long-term housing.
First: the monthly fixed costs are already around $1,000 for HOA dues plus $1,000 lease fee, not including taxes, insurance, utilities, and mortgage costs. Ownership makes sense as short-term, hotel-style accommodations, but it likely isn't affordable as residential housing.
Second: the site is in a high-risk coastal zone with shoreline erosion and seawall maintenance needs, exactly the sort of exposure the TIG report flagged for managed retreat and non-residential use.
Third: neighboring oceanfront properties have similar leasehold structures and hazard exposure and are treated as hotel-zoned in the TIG report (Exhibit 2). Consistent treatment is fair and practical.
In summary, Kanai A Nalu simply cannot pencil out as long-term housing. The H-4 hotel zoning is the realistic path that will continue to support tax and tourism revenue. Re-zoning Kanai A Nalu to Hotel (H-4) does not reduce Maui’s supply of long-term housing; it recognizes that this particular site was never viable for it.
In April, 1973, the Maui County Council enacted then numbered Bill 10 which became Ordinance 752 (see Ordinance). This ordinance created the hotel zone in which my property at Wailea Ekahi is currently located (see 1973 map adopted with Ordinance 752). The zoning at the time the entire Wailea Ekahi property was built in the early 1970s permitted transient vacation rentals through all residential units on the property and without any question, explicitly still permits such use of my hotel zone unit.
In 1973, both the County and the developer of Wailea recognized that the then proposed hotels and low rise residences in Wailea Ekahi would be part of a “resort destination area, unique in the world. See Statement of Hannibal Tavares on behalf of Wailea Development Company, dated April 3, 1973, referenced as a document in Ordinance 752 and available in the Maui County Council office.
The TIG proposal to maybe, but not definitely, rezone Wailea Ekahi to permit transient vacation rentals under H2 or H3 zoning is well intentioned but totally ignores the reason the development originally was built. It further ignores the permissions granted to the owners in 1973, and their subsequent purchasers, regarding the use of their property.
Adoption of Bill 9, without the rights that were granted to the Wailea property owners when their units were originally constructed will be a taking. The TIG proposal will not solve the significant problems created by Bill 9, and until it does, it is at best a sleight of hand.
Aloha Chair and Members of the Housing & Land Use Committee,
I am a unit owner at Kanai A Nalu, 250 Hauoli Street, Maalaea (TMK 380140040000). I respectfully request that our property be added to Exhibit 2 of the October 14, 2025 Bill 9 Temporary Investigative Group (TIG) report so that it may be included in the County’s recommended rezoning to the new H-4 Hotel District.
Kanai A Nalu currently appears only in Exhibit 3, despite meeting multiple TIG criteria for properties “appropriate to continue TVR uses.” The report explicitly identifies such properties as those:
“with market values not attainable by most Maui County residents” and
“where any portion of the property is located in the full SLR-XA or would already be impacted by sea-level rise.”
(Bill 9 TIG Chair Report, p. 11)
Our building meets both tests:
Economic feasibility: Unit values and monthly costs (including association dues (approx. $1000) and land-lease obligations (approx. $1000)) make long-term resident occupancy impractical when you add a mortgage. A majority of units are used for lawful short-term rental (TVR) operations under the Minatoya list.
Environmental exposure: State Sea Level Rise Viewer maps show that at the 0.5-foot rise level, several units are impacted, and at 3.2 feet, the entire property lies within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area (SLR-XA). This aligns precisely with the TIG’s environmental criterion for continued visitor use.
Context: Of the nine properties on Hauoli Street, five are already included in Exhibit 2, including buildings east and west of Kanai A Nalu, which share identical zoning, shoreline conditions, and historical use patterns.
Documented shoreline erosion:
• The seawall fronting Kanai A Nalu has been described as “crumbling and being undermined,” with Maʻalaea shoreline erosion rates up to 2 feet per year, higher than the state average (The Maui News, Mar 2020*).
• A 2024 Draft Environmental Assessment describes planned seawall removal and dune restoration to prevent further damage, noting that “the buildings would then be threatened with erosion … property values would probably fall … occupancy would probably decrease” (Maui Now, Dec 24 2024*).
• Historical reports show that beach width in Maʻalaea has decreased by roughly 25% since 1949, and shoreline retreat averages 1–2 feet per year (Maʻalaea Village Association, 2021 presentation*).
These conditions clearly demonstrate chronic erosion, confirming that Kanai A Nalu faces ongoing coastal instability and cannot realistically serve as permanent residential housing.
Given these similarities, excluding Kanai A Nalu appears inconsistent with the TIG’s stated standards. We respectfully ask that the Committee amend Exhibit 2 to include our property or otherwise direct Planning staff to recognize Kanai A Nalu’s eligibility for the proposed H-4 Hotel District.
I fully support Maui County’s efforts to expand housing and the thoughtful intent behind the application process for properties seeking continued visitor use. However, removing TVR status from Kanai A Nalu, where high ownership costs, lease expenses, and coastal erosion make long-term housing unrealistic, creates an inequitable result. This property clearly meets the TIG’s own intent and criteria for Exhibit 2, and should be treated consistently with similar properties already recommended for hotel zoning.
Mahalo for your consideration and for the Committee’s work toward balanced and equitable implementation of Bill 9.
Warm regards,
Justin Mack
Unit 408 Owner, Kanai A Nalu
Thank you, council members, for your work on TIG. Our complex, Maalaea Banyans is not on the exhibit 2 list even though it is in the Sea Level Rise Exposure area, meets all the other criteria, and if anything is even less suitable for families than the other complexes in Maalaea that were included as our units are even smaller and we have only one parking space per unit. Please consider adding Maalaea Banyans to your list on Exhibit 2.
We are in favor of STVR ban as the full-time residents of the Kapalua Ridge Villas. We've had our immediate neighbors vacation rent to those who show no regard to the community. They smoke weed so that our bedroom smells like a dispensary. They play music or talk so loud into wee hours so that we have a hard time sleeping considering we much work early the next morning. It's time to ban STVR.
HAUOLI ST. APTS CORRECTION PLEASE
My property at 190 Hauoli St. was not included in Exhibit 2 of the TIG report.
This property is identical to other Hauoli St. properties that are included in Exhinit 2. It
is the same street, same construction, same age, same STR rentals; and it has
the same Sea Level Rise Exposure (described in 2 recent reports) as the Hauoli St.
properties included in Exhibit 2. Can you please correct this oversight?
Will the Council please include 190 Hauoli St. in Exhibit 2 of the TIG report?
Mahalo,
Ron Hansen, 22 year resident at 190 Hauoli St
My name is Nicola Dourambeis and I am an owner in Kaanapali Royal. I oppose Bill 9 as it fails to provide affordable housing solutions while having grave consequences on small businesses, tourism, jobs, and County funding.
I am writing to provide feedback on the TIG report presented to the Housing and Land Use Committee.
First, I want to thank the TIG for its hard work in examining the impacts of Bill 9—both in terms of its potential to open up affordable housing opportunities for local residents and its broader effects on tourism and the economy.
I commend the innovative proposal to create new H3–H4 zoning categories to distinguish areas intended for residential use from those where short-term rental activity is appropriate. However, I am concerned that implementing these new zones and transitioning the Exhibit 2 properties into them could be burdensome and time-consuming. I also worry that if Bill 9 is passed before companion legislation is in place to operationalize the new zones, there may be prolonged negative effects on property values and tourism activity.
My recommendation is to either modify Bill 9 to include exemptions for the Exhibit 2 properties or make its enactment contingent upon the passage of the H3–H4 zoning legislation. Without a clear contingency linking these two measures, the TIG’s recommendations risk never being fully realized.
Maui County Council once again spreads its cheeks for BigHotel by automatically exempting timeshares from the scope of Bill 9 while arbitrarily claiming other exemptions are impossible. Funny how anything that even has the potential to impact BigHotel profit is DOA and not even a topic for discussion.
Subject: Strong Opposition to Bill 9 – Urging a NO Vote
Dear Council Members and HLU Committee,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 9 and respectfully urge you to vote NO on this proposal.
I am a full-time Hawai‘i resident and a Maui-based business owner who employs local residents outside of the vacation rental industry. I also own a condo at Kauhale Makai, which I use during my time on Maui to manage my business. When I am not physically present, I rent the unit short term to help offset the substantial costs of ownership. This bill directly threatens not only my family's financial well-being, but also the livelihoods of local families who depend on the business I operate on island.
If Bill 9 is enacted, the resulting economic downturn — particularly in areas that rely on tourism and part-time residents — could force me to close my business, putting local jobs at risk. Rather than targeting small property owners and legal vacation rentals, the County should focus on real, sustainable solutions to Maui’s housing crisis.
Stripping property rights from one group of residents to benefit another is not just poor policy — it’s divisive and short-sighted. Instead, I urge the Mayor and the Council to consider using existing resources to acquire available properties and offer them as true affordable housing, subsidized through GET, TAT, or RPT revenues. At the same time, the County should prioritize zoning and development of purpose-built affordable housing that meets local needs without harming existing legal property owners.
Regarding Kauhale Makai and Exhibit 2
As one of our board members has pointed out, Kauhale Makai contains deeded time-share units, which are explicitly governed under HRS Chapter 514E. This law distinguishes time-shares from transient vacation rentals and limits them to hotel and resort zones. Furthermore, SB2919 (2024), which enabled County regulation of short-term rentals, exempted time-shares from such regulation.
This raises key questions:
If Kauhale Makai has deeded time-share units governed by HRS 514E, how can it not be recognized as being within a designated hotel/resort zone?
Why, then, is Kauhale Makai not included in Exhibit 2 as a potentially exempted property — like Maui Sunset, which contains both time-share and individually owned units?
This appears to be a significant oversight. Either the committee did not fully review Kauhale Makai's status or implicitly recognized its hotel zone qualification and excluded it from Exhibit 2 for that reason. In either case, it underscores the lack of consistency and fairness in the bill’s approach.
Finally, I want to highlight the financial reality of ownership. My oceanfront studio at Kauhale Makai costs over $4,000 per month to maintain — and this is for a unit purchased many years ago. This does not meet any reasonable definition of “affordable housing.” To suggest that eliminating legal rentals like mine will somehow solve Maui’s housing problem is not only inaccurate — it’s misleading.
Bill 9 is a deeply flawed measure that will not meet Maui County’s housing needs. It will, however, lead to legal battles, further divide the community, and waste taxpayer resources — while enriching no one but attorneys. I urge you to reject Bill 9 and redirect your focus toward real, viable, and inclusive solutions for our local housing crisis.
I was born and raised on Maui and I own a Minatoya STR and my property is on Exhibit 2 so safe from the phasing out detailed in Bill 9.
We bought our condo after the Minatoya opinion was released because that was a sure sign that the county intended to honor the decades old short term rental rights of the owners of these condos.
I am well aware of the tight housing market and we are lucky to own a house and a rental. We aren't rich but we made sacrifices building equity in real estate. When council and Lahaina Strong and Bissen talk and act like those who own these properties don't matter, or their money doesn't matter or that the sacrifices some of them have made don't matter, or the financial contributions they make to the county or the business they drive to local businesses doesn't matter, they are saying this because of the mistaken (and cruel) assumption that these owners are all rich or the owners are all mainland so what happens to them doesn't matter.
All people matter. All investments matter. And Ms. Paltin. Yes, locals do go to local businesses. But you can't on one hand argue the position that people are experiencing housing insecurity, are spending more than 30% of their income on housing, and a rising percentage on food and other costs of living, AND think that local families (from a small population of just 160,000) even remotely move the needle on local business activity when compared to the millions who likely put more into small businesses in a week than entire local communities do in a month. Last meeting you thought you really stuck the landing on the claim that "locals support local businesses too, don't you agree?"
Yes, they do, but Maui isn't "funded" by locals paying 10x less in property taxes, by locals allegedly facing food insecurity, who are one small financial crisis from moving to the mainland, who are allegedly working so many jobs they can't make it in to council meetings, etc etc, who depend on various means of social assistance just to get by. That population of 160k becomes a very small number of people who have the disposable income you seem to think sees parity with visitor spending habits. Well, they don't, and the visitor spending data combined with the financial inputs provided by short term rental activity dwarf what locals are even capable of doing. So stop with the false equivalencies.
If Bill 9 is a solution, we've seen none of the predictions laid out come to fruition.
If the TIG is a solution, we've seen no promises that anyone could make it happen before the county bleeds out, before many owners bleed out, and before compromised STR owners sell to private equity or other wealthier mainland buyers.
2 years after the fire and you have bigger fish to fry than to eliminate few thousand condos that only provide a net positive to the island.
The TIG emerged in record time.
Do the same with Bill 9 + TIG, but DO NOT expect to see anyone support passing Bill 9 with no promise to enact the TIG recommendations on the front end.
Subject: Strong Opposition to STR Phase-Out – A Devastating Path for Maui
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Renee Lach, and my sister and I are proud owners of a short-term rental (STR) property in Maui County. A home we purchased from our parents, who lovingly maintained it for nearly 20 years. I’m writing to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation that would phase out over 7,000 vacation rentals.
This proposal is not just about property, it’s about people. My family has always approached ownership in Maui with deep respect for the island and its community. There is truly no place on earth more beautiful, and we feel privileged to be stewards of a home here. We’ve hired a local property manager who has been with us for over 15 years, along with her team of housekeepers, landscapers, and maintenance professionals, many of whom have become like family. In our welcome guide, we share personal recommendations that highlight local gems like Duke’s, Bad Ass Coffee, and various island tours and activities. Our guests often tell us that these local touches helped them feel a deeper, more personal connection to Maui. One they simply wouldn’t have found in a hotel!
Many of our guests return year after year, including one tenant who has visited every January for 20 consecutive years, two sisters who began coming with their husbands, now return as widows to honor old memories and create new ones. This is the kind of connection that builds lifelong loyalty to Maui and supports countless small businesses.
But here’s the truth: many of our guests tell us they would not come to Maui at all if short-term rentals weren’t available. Hotels and timeshares don’t offer the space, flexibility, or affordability that families and long-term visitors need. STRs are not a threat to tourism, they are part of its evolution. They support the very foundation of the visitor economy and contribute deeply to the character of the community.
The economic consequences of this legislation are staggering. According to research by the Travel Technology Association and Kloninger & Sims:
If only Mayor Minatoya’s List of STRs are phased out, Maui County would lose:
• $53.3 to $91.8 million in RPT, TAT, and GET tax revenue
• $1.3 billion in economic output
• 7,800 local jobs
If all STRs are removed, the losses jump to:
• $128.3 to $280.9 million in tax revenue
• $2.2 billion in economic output
• 23,000 local jobs
These aren’t just numbers, they represent livelihoods, small businesses, and essential services. STR guests spent $2.2 billion in 2023 in Maui County alone. Across Hawai‘i, that figure reached
$11.3 billion and supported 66,000 jobs. What is the County’s plan to replace this revenue and protect the local economy and jobs?
Owning in Maui is not without its challenges. We’ve weathered steep increases in insurance following the fires (nearly 40%), rising maintenance costs, and special assessments ($30,000 in 2024), all to preserve our property and keep it safe, welcoming, and functional. STR income helps make this possible while keeping local service providers employed. Additionally, we could not rent our condo at an affordable rate, our AOAO is $3000 and our mortgage is an additional $3000.
There are many other options to develop housing, at a much faster and lower cost. Housing this is also sustainable and can provide for zero emissions to protect the island.
This legislation feels rushed and punitive. Instead of shutting down an industry that has demonstrated both economic and community value, I urge the Council to collaborate with responsible owners to find balanced, enforceable solutions. We are not your adversaries, we want to be part of the answer.
Mahalo for your time and consideration. I respectfully ask you to vote against this legislation and work toward a future that honors the needs of residents, visitors, and Maui’s economy alike.
Mahalo, Renee Lach & Denise Walton DBA Sisters Oasis, LLC
Email: Sisteroasis.maui@gmail.com
Mobile: 408-887-1207
Aloha,
5 of the 8 Maalaea condominium complexes are included on the E2 list to allow ongoing STRs. This is very appropriate and consistent with their original purpose, appearance on the Minotoya list, and decades of short term rentals. But the other 3 properties, Maalaea Banyans, Kanai a Nalu, and Makani a Kai are almost identical, and in some ways even more appropriate to be on the E2 list compared to those included. Maalaea Banyans units are considerably smaller, and Kanai a Nalu and Makani a Kai are at even higher risk from sea level than some E2 Maalaea Properties. Please allow our whole community to continue as a vibrant and lovely contribution to the Maui community and economy. Thank you for your efforts to fairly and effectively address the serious housing affordability problem,
Thank you for your hard work. I Support TIg FIndings but Oppose Bill 9 - I am confused by the testimony of the few red shirts in chamber saying the condos Bill 9 would try to turn into long term rentals are what the community wants and needs! As the Mayor said - we must first consider the "Heart & Needs of our Community" - Evidently they have not read the Maui Chamber of Commerce testimony - the locations most residents want are not South Maui and are Upcountry and Wailuku. The vast majority of housing needs are in those communities. Obviously the fire in Lahaina has exascerbated the need on the west side but that is where the county has centered its work and already 500 new units have been provided with more in the pipeline. Please do not promote those interested in only dividing community with false facts - The people mostley want HOMES and land. and lots of parking and places for their pets. Mahalo
Hello Councilmembers and thank you for your time and service on this issue. I am an owner at Kapalua Ridge Villas and while I oppose Bill 9 as it appears to be written incompletely, I do appreciate the findings of the TIG and appreciate their efforts and approach to finding an equitable solution to the housing issue. Housing and economics factor into this decision equally and Kapalua is an area that is an expensive place for locals to afford and clearly with some housing being open and still unrented, that statement rings true.
So, I am bewildered to see that the Kapalua Bay Villas are on Exhibit 2 of the TIG, yet both the Ridge and Golf Villas were excluded. They have historically been a collective resort community and therefore should be treated as such. I respectfully request those two to be added to Exhibit 2, should Bill 9 pass with the incorporation of the TIG findings. Mahalo
Aloha, I respectfully request you consider adding the exclusive 10 unit beach front resort, Puunoa Beach Estates to the list of exempted properties.
Each of the individual units are valued at $3-5MM —unattainable for local workforce. A loss of ability to STR would only serve to reduce high paying service jobs. This property was never intended to be local workforce housing.
The gated property has a check in desk, on-site housing for property manager, pool and hot tub, clubhouse with gym and sauna and resort style amenities.
We are shocked to learn this property was not included in Exhibit 2 in the TIG report. We appreciate your time and consideration.
Mahalo Nui Loa,
I am a homeowner at Kaanapali Royal and wish to provide feedback on the TIG report.
Foremost, I commend the hard work and thoughtful discussion from the TIG members.
My husband and I purchased a condo in Kaanapali Royal in March 2024 solely for the purpose of short-term vacation rental as an investment property under a 1031 tax exchange. Over the last year and a half, we have seen the nightly rental rate and demand drop by over 50%. We have also experienced a decline in value of our property by over 30% even though expenses such as property taxes and HOA fees have increased. I am concerned that implementation of new zones and transitioning Exhibit 2 properties into them could be time-consuming.
My recommendation is to urge the committee to modify Bill 9 to include exemptions for the Exhibit 2 properties or to make passage contingent upon the passage of the H3-H4 zoning legislation. Without linking these measures, we could risk a further decline in property values which negatively impacts our economy on Maui.
I as a born and raised local who runs a small business on island I oppose bill 9 and in turn the TIG recommendations.
I am strongly against Bill 9 and in turn am against the TIG recommendations. None of the Minatoya properties should lose their right to operated legally as STRs. Period.
Do not bend to the vocal minority and pass a Bill that you know is detrimental the Maui economy and will not result in more affordable housing for Maui residents. Keep the Minatoya STRs in place and approve affordable housing that is purpose-built for Maui families.
Aloha Committee Members:
The absence of Kauhale Makai from Exhibit 2 while its apparent twin in terms of unit configuration and the presence of deeded time-share units caused me to review the original legislation which gave each County only the authority to regulate short-term vacation rentals.
SB 2919 (2024) is the legislation that enabled Hawaii counties to regulate or phase out short-term vacation rentals, but it expressly did not apply to time-shares. Time-shares are specifically regulated by a separate state law, HRS Chapter 514E (Time Sharing Plans), which explicitly only authorizes time-share units to be operated in “resort and hotel zones” and distinguishes them from transient vacation rentals.
So, some questions for the committee:
How could Kauhale Makai’s have 12 or more deeded time shares that are only explicitly authorized by State law HRS 514E if Kauhale Makai was not in fact intended and recognized in compliance with state law as being being within an actual intended “hotel and resort zone”? Is it possible the committee did not realize Kauhale Makai had a dozen or so deeded time-shares within its complex just like those in Maui Sunset, now listed on Exhibit 2?
Of the 225 units of Maui Sunset one-fifth are legally structured as deeded time-share ownership. The remainder of the Maui Sunset complex consists of individually owned full-time condominiums, many of which are operated as traditional or vacation rental units rather than fractional ownership, basically the same as the configuration at Kauhale Makai, now absent from Schedule 2.
Under the obvious applicable legislative facts, how is Kauhale Makai any different from Maui Sunset? Therefore why is Kauhale Makai not included in Exhibit 2 as a potentially exempted hotel zone qualifying property in accord with HRS 514E?
These are questions that I and others are presenting to you here now in this email and also to the Housing and Land Use Committee hoping for answers when it meets to discuss and evaluate the findings of the “TIG” Group and rectify the failure to include Kauhale Makai on Exhibit 2.
Respectfully,
Tim O’Shaughnessy
Sent from my iPhone
Aloha Council Members,
I write to you to request the full, detailed, methodology for choosing the properties listed in Exhibit 2 of the recent TIG report be made public. As an owner at Luana Kai (not listed), directly next door to Maui Sunset (listed), its exclusion was puzzling to me and other owners when both are presently zoned together in the exact same block on the ocean side of South Kihei Road. To assist your methodological discussions, I would like you to consider the following:
1. The 'timeshare' exemption: information was provided to me that Maui Sunset was chosen over Luana Kai due to the fact that it offers timeshare purchases. Over 95% of Maui Sunset is owned by individual owners, rented out just like Luana Kai. I contacted Maui Sunset as a prospective timeshare purchaser and received no response. For Properties being exempt due to 'timeshares' what have they had to provide to council to prove these are a) still operational b) accurate and c) actually available to the public to purchase? I caution council that if this is not properly considered, a timeshare loophole is going to derail this report and its recommendations by properties that can gather seemingly limited evidence of timeshare existence. The county may also see a surge in timeshares organized to become exempt, which as many people know can be a dangerous financial trap for purchasers with no legal recourse.
2. Shoreline erosion/natural disaster exposure/sea-level rise: As the owner of a condo exposed to the ocean and its inevitable weather, I have known the responsibility will lie upon myself, to restore the property if a hurricane/Tsunami or other weather event damages the building. Insurance will not be able to be relied on in the future especially as the climate changes. Is the county prepared to subsidize restoration projects on these apartment buildings if sold to be resident housing? How will residents with limited means be able to restore their units, the grounds, and the building shell? At Luana Kai during heavy rains or waves we already see water getting closer to the building. Over the next 20 years sea levels are expected to rise by 6 inches. How is the county going to deal with this threat for thousands of units? After the terrible Lahaina fires, I believe Maui should now be aware of the devastation nature can bring, and the resources that are required to make a community whole again.
Thank you for considering to add Luana Kai to the Exhibit list of the TIG report, and releasing the detailed methodology and evidence behind why all other properties were chosen.
Aloha Members of the Committee,
My name is Brian Murphy. As an owner, I am writing to ask you to consider re-zoning Kanai A Nalu from Apartment zoning to Hotel (H-4). This property was not included under Exhibit 2 in the recent TIG report. The property’s economics and shoreline vulnerability make it viable only as visitor accommodation, not long-term housing.
First: the monthly fixed costs are already around $1,000 for HOA dues plus $1,000 lease fee, not including taxes, insurance, utilities, and mortgage costs. Ownership makes sense as short-term, hotel-style accommodations, but it likely isn't affordable as residential housing.
Second: the site is in a high-risk coastal zone with shoreline erosion and seawall maintenance needs, exactly the sort of exposure the TIG report flagged for managed retreat and non-residential use.
Third: neighboring oceanfront properties have similar leasehold structures and hazard exposure and are treated as hotel-zoned in the TIG report (Exhibit 2). Consistent treatment is fair and practical.
In summary, Kanai A Nalu simply cannot pencil out as long-term housing. The H-4 hotel zoning is the realistic path that will continue to support tax and tourism revenue. Re-zoning Kanai A Nalu to Hotel (H-4) does not reduce Maui’s supply of long-term housing; it recognizes that this particular site was never viable for it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mahalo,
Brian Murphy
In April, 1973, the Maui County Council enacted then numbered Bill 10 which became Ordinance 752 (see Ordinance). This ordinance created the hotel zone in which my property at Wailea Ekahi is currently located (see 1973 map adopted with Ordinance 752). The zoning at the time the entire Wailea Ekahi property was built in the early 1970s permitted transient vacation rentals through all residential units on the property and without any question, explicitly still permits such use of my hotel zone unit.
In 1973, both the County and the developer of Wailea recognized that the then proposed hotels and low rise residences in Wailea Ekahi would be part of a “resort destination area, unique in the world. See Statement of Hannibal Tavares on behalf of Wailea Development Company, dated April 3, 1973, referenced as a document in Ordinance 752 and available in the Maui County Council office.
The TIG proposal to maybe, but not definitely, rezone Wailea Ekahi to permit transient vacation rentals under H2 or H3 zoning is well intentioned but totally ignores the reason the development originally was built. It further ignores the permissions granted to the owners in 1973, and their subsequent purchasers, regarding the use of their property.
Adoption of Bill 9, without the rights that were granted to the Wailea property owners when their units were originally constructed will be a taking. The TIG proposal will not solve the significant problems created by Bill 9, and until it does, it is at best a sleight of hand.
Aloha Chair and Members of the Housing & Land Use Committee,
I am a unit owner at Kanai A Nalu, 250 Hauoli Street, Maalaea (TMK 380140040000). I respectfully request that our property be added to Exhibit 2 of the October 14, 2025 Bill 9 Temporary Investigative Group (TIG) report so that it may be included in the County’s recommended rezoning to the new H-4 Hotel District.
Kanai A Nalu currently appears only in Exhibit 3, despite meeting multiple TIG criteria for properties “appropriate to continue TVR uses.” The report explicitly identifies such properties as those:
“with market values not attainable by most Maui County residents” and
“where any portion of the property is located in the full SLR-XA or would already be impacted by sea-level rise.”
(Bill 9 TIG Chair Report, p. 11)
Our building meets both tests:
Economic feasibility: Unit values and monthly costs (including association dues (approx. $1000) and land-lease obligations (approx. $1000)) make long-term resident occupancy impractical when you add a mortgage. A majority of units are used for lawful short-term rental (TVR) operations under the Minatoya list.
Environmental exposure: State Sea Level Rise Viewer maps show that at the 0.5-foot rise level, several units are impacted, and at 3.2 feet, the entire property lies within the Sea Level Rise Exposure Area (SLR-XA). This aligns precisely with the TIG’s environmental criterion for continued visitor use.
Context: Of the nine properties on Hauoli Street, five are already included in Exhibit 2, including buildings east and west of Kanai A Nalu, which share identical zoning, shoreline conditions, and historical use patterns.
Documented shoreline erosion:
• The seawall fronting Kanai A Nalu has been described as “crumbling and being undermined,” with Maʻalaea shoreline erosion rates up to 2 feet per year, higher than the state average (The Maui News, Mar 2020*).
• A 2024 Draft Environmental Assessment describes planned seawall removal and dune restoration to prevent further damage, noting that “the buildings would then be threatened with erosion … property values would probably fall … occupancy would probably decrease” (Maui Now, Dec 24 2024*).
• Historical reports show that beach width in Maʻalaea has decreased by roughly 25% since 1949, and shoreline retreat averages 1–2 feet per year (Maʻalaea Village Association, 2021 presentation*).
These conditions clearly demonstrate chronic erosion, confirming that Kanai A Nalu faces ongoing coastal instability and cannot realistically serve as permanent residential housing.
Given these similarities, excluding Kanai A Nalu appears inconsistent with the TIG’s stated standards. We respectfully ask that the Committee amend Exhibit 2 to include our property or otherwise direct Planning staff to recognize Kanai A Nalu’s eligibility for the proposed H-4 Hotel District.
I fully support Maui County’s efforts to expand housing and the thoughtful intent behind the application process for properties seeking continued visitor use. However, removing TVR status from Kanai A Nalu, where high ownership costs, lease expenses, and coastal erosion make long-term housing unrealistic, creates an inequitable result. This property clearly meets the TIG’s own intent and criteria for Exhibit 2, and should be treated consistently with similar properties already recommended for hotel zoning.
Mahalo for your consideration and for the Committee’s work toward balanced and equitable implementation of Bill 9.
Warm regards,
Justin Mack
Unit 408 Owner, Kanai A Nalu
Thank you, council members, for your work on TIG. Our complex, Maalaea Banyans is not on the exhibit 2 list even though it is in the Sea Level Rise Exposure area, meets all the other criteria, and if anything is even less suitable for families than the other complexes in Maalaea that were included as our units are even smaller and we have only one parking space per unit. Please consider adding Maalaea Banyans to your list on Exhibit 2.
We are in favor of STVR ban as the full-time residents of the Kapalua Ridge Villas. We've had our immediate neighbors vacation rent to those who show no regard to the community. They smoke weed so that our bedroom smells like a dispensary. They play music or talk so loud into wee hours so that we have a hard time sleeping considering we much work early the next morning. It's time to ban STVR.
HAUOLI ST. APTS CORRECTION PLEASE
My property at 190 Hauoli St. was not included in Exhibit 2 of the TIG report.
This property is identical to other Hauoli St. properties that are included in Exhinit 2. It
is the same street, same construction, same age, same STR rentals; and it has
the same Sea Level Rise Exposure (described in 2 recent reports) as the Hauoli St.
properties included in Exhibit 2. Can you please correct this oversight?
Will the Council please include 190 Hauoli St. in Exhibit 2 of the TIG report?
Mahalo,
Ron Hansen, 22 year resident at 190 Hauoli St
Aloha Chair and Council Members,
My name is Nicola Dourambeis and I am an owner in Kaanapali Royal. I oppose Bill 9 as it fails to provide affordable housing solutions while having grave consequences on small businesses, tourism, jobs, and County funding.
I am writing to provide feedback on the TIG report presented to the Housing and Land Use Committee.
First, I want to thank the TIG for its hard work in examining the impacts of Bill 9—both in terms of its potential to open up affordable housing opportunities for local residents and its broader effects on tourism and the economy.
I commend the innovative proposal to create new H3–H4 zoning categories to distinguish areas intended for residential use from those where short-term rental activity is appropriate. However, I am concerned that implementing these new zones and transitioning the Exhibit 2 properties into them could be burdensome and time-consuming. I also worry that if Bill 9 is passed before companion legislation is in place to operationalize the new zones, there may be prolonged negative effects on property values and tourism activity.
My recommendation is to either modify Bill 9 to include exemptions for the Exhibit 2 properties or make its enactment contingent upon the passage of the H3–H4 zoning legislation. Without a clear contingency linking these two measures, the TIG’s recommendations risk never being fully realized.
Maui County Council once again spreads its cheeks for BigHotel by automatically exempting timeshares from the scope of Bill 9 while arbitrarily claiming other exemptions are impossible. Funny how anything that even has the potential to impact BigHotel profit is DOA and not even a topic for discussion.
Subject: Strong Opposition to Bill 9 – Urging a NO Vote
Dear Council Members and HLU Committee,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 9 and respectfully urge you to vote NO on this proposal.
I am a full-time Hawai‘i resident and a Maui-based business owner who employs local residents outside of the vacation rental industry. I also own a condo at Kauhale Makai, which I use during my time on Maui to manage my business. When I am not physically present, I rent the unit short term to help offset the substantial costs of ownership. This bill directly threatens not only my family's financial well-being, but also the livelihoods of local families who depend on the business I operate on island.
If Bill 9 is enacted, the resulting economic downturn — particularly in areas that rely on tourism and part-time residents — could force me to close my business, putting local jobs at risk. Rather than targeting small property owners and legal vacation rentals, the County should focus on real, sustainable solutions to Maui’s housing crisis.
Stripping property rights from one group of residents to benefit another is not just poor policy — it’s divisive and short-sighted. Instead, I urge the Mayor and the Council to consider using existing resources to acquire available properties and offer them as true affordable housing, subsidized through GET, TAT, or RPT revenues. At the same time, the County should prioritize zoning and development of purpose-built affordable housing that meets local needs without harming existing legal property owners.
Regarding Kauhale Makai and Exhibit 2
As one of our board members has pointed out, Kauhale Makai contains deeded time-share units, which are explicitly governed under HRS Chapter 514E. This law distinguishes time-shares from transient vacation rentals and limits them to hotel and resort zones. Furthermore, SB2919 (2024), which enabled County regulation of short-term rentals, exempted time-shares from such regulation.
This raises key questions:
If Kauhale Makai has deeded time-share units governed by HRS 514E, how can it not be recognized as being within a designated hotel/resort zone?
Why, then, is Kauhale Makai not included in Exhibit 2 as a potentially exempted property — like Maui Sunset, which contains both time-share and individually owned units?
This appears to be a significant oversight. Either the committee did not fully review Kauhale Makai's status or implicitly recognized its hotel zone qualification and excluded it from Exhibit 2 for that reason. In either case, it underscores the lack of consistency and fairness in the bill’s approach.
Finally, I want to highlight the financial reality of ownership. My oceanfront studio at Kauhale Makai costs over $4,000 per month to maintain — and this is for a unit purchased many years ago. This does not meet any reasonable definition of “affordable housing.” To suggest that eliminating legal rentals like mine will somehow solve Maui’s housing problem is not only inaccurate — it’s misleading.
Bill 9 is a deeply flawed measure that will not meet Maui County’s housing needs. It will, however, lead to legal battles, further divide the community, and waste taxpayer resources — while enriching no one but attorneys. I urge you to reject Bill 9 and redirect your focus toward real, viable, and inclusive solutions for our local housing crisis.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
I was born and raised on Maui and I own a Minatoya STR and my property is on Exhibit 2 so safe from the phasing out detailed in Bill 9.
We bought our condo after the Minatoya opinion was released because that was a sure sign that the county intended to honor the decades old short term rental rights of the owners of these condos.
I am well aware of the tight housing market and we are lucky to own a house and a rental. We aren't rich but we made sacrifices building equity in real estate. When council and Lahaina Strong and Bissen talk and act like those who own these properties don't matter, or their money doesn't matter or that the sacrifices some of them have made don't matter, or the financial contributions they make to the county or the business they drive to local businesses doesn't matter, they are saying this because of the mistaken (and cruel) assumption that these owners are all rich or the owners are all mainland so what happens to them doesn't matter.
All people matter. All investments matter. And Ms. Paltin. Yes, locals do go to local businesses. But you can't on one hand argue the position that people are experiencing housing insecurity, are spending more than 30% of their income on housing, and a rising percentage on food and other costs of living, AND think that local families (from a small population of just 160,000) even remotely move the needle on local business activity when compared to the millions who likely put more into small businesses in a week than entire local communities do in a month. Last meeting you thought you really stuck the landing on the claim that "locals support local businesses too, don't you agree?"
Yes, they do, but Maui isn't "funded" by locals paying 10x less in property taxes, by locals allegedly facing food insecurity, who are one small financial crisis from moving to the mainland, who are allegedly working so many jobs they can't make it in to council meetings, etc etc, who depend on various means of social assistance just to get by. That population of 160k becomes a very small number of people who have the disposable income you seem to think sees parity with visitor spending habits. Well, they don't, and the visitor spending data combined with the financial inputs provided by short term rental activity dwarf what locals are even capable of doing. So stop with the false equivalencies.
If Bill 9 is a solution, we've seen none of the predictions laid out come to fruition.
If the TIG is a solution, we've seen no promises that anyone could make it happen before the county bleeds out, before many owners bleed out, and before compromised STR owners sell to private equity or other wealthier mainland buyers.
2 years after the fire and you have bigger fish to fry than to eliminate few thousand condos that only provide a net positive to the island.
The TIG emerged in record time.
Do the same with Bill 9 + TIG, but DO NOT expect to see anyone support passing Bill 9 with no promise to enact the TIG recommendations on the front end.
Subject: Strong Opposition to STR Phase-Out – A Devastating Path for Maui
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members,
My name is Renee Lach, and my sister and I are proud owners of a short-term rental (STR) property in Maui County. A home we purchased from our parents, who lovingly maintained it for nearly 20 years. I’m writing to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the proposed legislation that would phase out over 7,000 vacation rentals.
This proposal is not just about property, it’s about people. My family has always approached ownership in Maui with deep respect for the island and its community. There is truly no place on earth more beautiful, and we feel privileged to be stewards of a home here. We’ve hired a local property manager who has been with us for over 15 years, along with her team of housekeepers, landscapers, and maintenance professionals, many of whom have become like family. In our welcome guide, we share personal recommendations that highlight local gems like Duke’s, Bad Ass Coffee, and various island tours and activities. Our guests often tell us that these local touches helped them feel a deeper, more personal connection to Maui. One they simply wouldn’t have found in a hotel!
Many of our guests return year after year, including one tenant who has visited every January for 20 consecutive years, two sisters who began coming with their husbands, now return as widows to honor old memories and create new ones. This is the kind of connection that builds lifelong loyalty to Maui and supports countless small businesses.
But here’s the truth: many of our guests tell us they would not come to Maui at all if short-term rentals weren’t available. Hotels and timeshares don’t offer the space, flexibility, or affordability that families and long-term visitors need. STRs are not a threat to tourism, they are part of its evolution. They support the very foundation of the visitor economy and contribute deeply to the character of the community.
The economic consequences of this legislation are staggering. According to research by the Travel Technology Association and Kloninger & Sims:
If only Mayor Minatoya’s List of STRs are phased out, Maui County would lose:
• $53.3 to $91.8 million in RPT, TAT, and GET tax revenue
• $1.3 billion in economic output
• 7,800 local jobs
If all STRs are removed, the losses jump to:
• $128.3 to $280.9 million in tax revenue
• $2.2 billion in economic output
• 23,000 local jobs
These aren’t just numbers, they represent livelihoods, small businesses, and essential services. STR guests spent $2.2 billion in 2023 in Maui County alone. Across Hawai‘i, that figure reached
$11.3 billion and supported 66,000 jobs. What is the County’s plan to replace this revenue and protect the local economy and jobs?
Owning in Maui is not without its challenges. We’ve weathered steep increases in insurance following the fires (nearly 40%), rising maintenance costs, and special assessments ($30,000 in 2024), all to preserve our property and keep it safe, welcoming, and functional. STR income helps make this possible while keeping local service providers employed. Additionally, we could not rent our condo at an affordable rate, our AOAO is $3000 and our mortgage is an additional $3000.
There are many other options to develop housing, at a much faster and lower cost. Housing this is also sustainable and can provide for zero emissions to protect the island.
This legislation feels rushed and punitive. Instead of shutting down an industry that has demonstrated both economic and community value, I urge the Council to collaborate with responsible owners to find balanced, enforceable solutions. We are not your adversaries, we want to be part of the answer.
Mahalo for your time and consideration. I respectfully ask you to vote against this legislation and work toward a future that honors the needs of residents, visitors, and Maui’s economy alike.
Mahalo, Renee Lach & Denise Walton DBA Sisters Oasis, LLC
Email: Sisteroasis.maui@gmail.com
Mobile: 408-887-1207