Mayor & County " all A-1 & A-2 were built for work force housing".. OOPSY time shares were built in A-1/2 zones.. so they're exempt (?) Now we're going to pick and chose who is exempt and not? Wrong to me that shows they're guilty of misleading the public for support.. so wrong
Position Statement on TIG Recommendations for
Maalaea Banyans
Date: October 20, 2025
To: Maui County Council - Housing & Land Use Committee (HLU)
1. Background
The Temporary Investigative Group (TIG) recently released recommendations regarding properties on the
Minatoya List.
My complex, Maalaea Banyans, was recommended against continuation of short-term rental (STR) rights, while
the neighboring Island Sands complex (approximately 100 feet away) was recommended for STR continuation.
TIG suggested that complexes with market values considered 'affordable' should be transitioned into long-term
housing for Maui residents.
2. Affordability Analysis: A Realistic Look
Typical unit value: approximately $800,000 for a one-bedroom oceanfront condo at Maalaea Banyans.
HOA dues: approximately $705/month (plus property taxes, insurance, and maintenance).
Estimated total monthly housing cost (mortgage + HOA + taxes + insurance): ~ $5,000/month at current interest
rates.
Income needed to avoid cost burden: at least ~$190,000/year household income (near 140% of Maui's Area
Median Income (AMI) for a 4-person household).
For households at 80–100% AMI, such units are effectively unattainable; even households at 120% AMI would
be heavily stretched.
3. Mismatch With Local Needs
• One-bedroom, single-parking-stall condos do not meet the needs of many working families who typically
require 2–3 bedrooms and multiple parking spaces.
• Oceanfront locations carry higher HOA, insurance, and maintenance costs—pushing units further out of reach
for workforce households.
• Layouts and operating costs do not align with common local household structures (families with children,
multi-generational living, essential workers).
4. Policy Implication
The assumption that removing STR rights from complexes like Maalaea Banyans will free units for long-term
residents is not supported by the numbers.
Eliminating STR status removes significant property tax and TAT revenue streams without creating practical
workforce housing.
Neighboring complexes of near-identical age, zoning, and design (e.g., Island Sands) were granted STR
continuation, raising concerns about consistency and fairness.
5. Recommendations
• Re-examine the inclusion of Maalaea Banyans in the TIG's phase-out group, given its similarity to complexes
that were allowed to retain STR status.
• Apply explicit affordability analysis tied to 80–120% AMI when making policy decisions to ensure targeted
outcomes are realistic.
• Protect tax revenues and fairness by recognizing that certain oceanfront condo complexes are not practical
sources of workforce housing and should remain in the STR pool.
Follow the Money – Impact of Banning Oceanfront STRs
LOSERS BELOW
Current Owners Property values drop 20–40% with loss of rental income.
County & State Tens of millions lost annually in property tax, County TAT (3%), State
TAT (10.25%), and GET (4%).
Tourism Industry Reduced visitor capacity means less spending in local shops,
restaurants, and activities.
WINNERS BELOW
Wealthier Local Elites Doctors, lawyers, business owners can acquire discounted
oceanfront property.
Nonprofits & Trusts Housing nonprofits and land trusts gain assets at lower cost.
Mainland Cash Buyers Wealthy second-home buyers (California, Canada, Asia) benefit from
lower prices.
Developers & Builders STR reductions create pressure for new hotel and housing
developments, boosting contracts.
Who Loses:
Who Gains:
Bottom Line:
This is less about creating true workforce housing and more about reshaping who owns Maui’s shoreline. Average
families are unlikely to benefit directly. The real winners are well-funded buyers, nonprofits, and developers who can
absorb discounted oceanfront property. Meanwhile, the County loses both tax revenue and credibility if decisions
appear arbitrary and unfair.
Final Word:
It certainly appears that Maui County Council is negligent in moving forward with a plan that is mathematically doomed
and will not provide the benefits it claims. This resembles the poor planning that preceded the Lahaina fire — in fire
suppression, water delivery, and evacuation routes — and mirrors housing policies between 2006 and 2014 that nearly
eliminated affordable housing and created today’s crisis. Now, Council members propose to crash the real estate
market, not to make homes affordable for locals, but to shift oceanfront property ownership to wealthy elites, creating
winners and losers exactly as shown above.
✅ My read
The Council/TIG knows full well that most Maui families will not move into $800k oceanfront one-bedrooms. But:
• It plays well politically (take back the shoreline from tourists).
• It pushes out investor buyers and reshuffles who owns that real estate.
• It lets them claim they’re tackling housing, even if the practical benefit to local families is minimal.
So in plain terms: the policy is less about actually housing the workforce, and more about political optics, symbolism, and shifting ownership of high-value oceanfront property.
Someone provided in-person testimony a while back, emphasizing the importance of trust - trust in your government, trust in your elected officials, and on this Bill 9/TIG issue, I don't see why any owner should or would trust some of the members of this council with a decision as important as Bill 9, and now the TIG report.
For one, owners of Minatoya condos have not only been explicitly regarded as collateral damage of Bill 9, they have been largely scapegoated by certain council members, by some of the public, by some of the social media "stars', and by Lahaina Strong, a de facto arm of the "Ohana" council members as The Only Reason for housing inventory falling short of population demands, or housing costs exceeding population affordability.
- All Investments Come With Risk: These owners purchased these properties with confidence based on nearly a half a century of lawful practice as well short term rental rights having been written into the Maui County Code.
- Did Your Realtor Inform You About the Minatoya List?: It wouldn't have mattered if they did or did not inform them about a property being "on the Minatoya List" because 19.12.020 of the Maui County Code guaranteed and protected the short-term rental rights of the owners of these properties.
- CM Paltin may have been instrumental in creating the TIG report, but she and Rawlins-Fernandez have in the last several years, made multiple (failed) attempts at phasing out these properties.
- Rawlins-Fernandez is on record for arguing AGAINST development of new housing because more housing means more people. But at the same time, she laments the loss of locals to the mainland (seemingly unable to connect the dots between housing availability and ability to remain here). So rather than get behind affordable housing projects, she hides behind water, resources and her penchant for xenophobic dog whistles against mainlanders. This diatribe can be found online under the title "Lahaina Strong Does not want Affordable Housing".
- Kate Blystone is the Mitch McConnell of Maui County. Mitch was known in Washington as the Grim Reaper. Blystone - an APPOINTEE - has the ability to "Mitch McConnell anything that moves out of council. She can drag her heels, delay, obfuscate...do any number of things to serve the wishes and whims of her appointer, and not enact measures that the elected officials who represent actual constituents want her to do.
I'll wrap up by saying something everyone on council already knows. These condos have not brought harm to Maui or the local population. The mayor's office / council have been happy to profit from their business activity. With hundreds of condos on the market at 30-50% discounts, we all see that the Mayor's "affordab....I mean attainable" argument was impotent because 15 months of condo inventory are sitting longer and longer, with no meaningful number(s) of local buyers scooping up what the shills at UHERO claimed were EXACTLY what locals wanted (but that the Maui Chamber of Commerce's polling showed was in fact an asset class of exceptionally low desire and low demand), it's clear that this entire endeavor is a bust. SB2919 allowed Bissen to bring in Bill 9. UHERO created a slideshow littered with lies and false promises. Bill 9 has chilled the market. "Downward pressure" has effectively been put onto the market and no locals are doing what Bissen, UHERO, and others promised would happen. Real people with real jobs, real families and real financial obligations have had equity erased simply because they "aren't from here". And now the TIG looks to remove 2/3 of these properties from the crosshairs they've been in for 2 years.
All for what? So Paltin and her gang of obstructionists can pretend they've pulled a 180 from what has effectively defined their political careers for the last half decade? For a bill that will remove property rights from Maui County's cash cows under some vague, undefined, unarticulated, and likely false promise of restoring 2/3 of them "on the back end"?
Pauleeeeze.
If you don't trust your government, if you have no faith in the institutions, then you have nothing. That's what Trump has done, and that's what this "Ohana" group on council has done.
Nobody trusts this council to do the right thing. Everyone fears you are still the dog being wagged by the Lahaina Strong tail. Lahaina Strong is a diminished and unimportant group of try-hards and wannabe's, forcefully injecting themselves into everything from a local makeke to the Board of Water.
Look at the island now. This is the island Lahaina Strong has built - and the enablers have been Bissen, UHERO, Paltin, Johnson, Sinenci, and of course, KRF. What I predict happening is that this current council will have another 13 months of analysis paralysis and this issue will be on the laps of who we vote in next year.
Time to have a spine. Time to have some integrity.
You're going to get sued to the moon and back if you pass Bill 9.
You're going to get sued to the moon and back if you adopt the TIG recommendations after passing Bill 9.
You're going to get sued to the moon and back if you attach amendments before passing Bill 9.
Why not do the right thing and give all of these properties WHAT THEY'VE ENJOYED FOR HALF A CENTURY (and what the county has enjoyed financially) and that's blanket rezoning, as Cook said, "with the swipe of a pen".
Bissen has put you in a lose-lose-lose situation.
He has lost the support of his constituents. He has no veto power over your decisions.
Do the right thing without fear or favor.
Good morning Council members.
My name is Terri Zager, and I am an owner at the Maalaea Banyans.
I am here because your Temporary Investigative Group has recommended that Maalaea Banyans lose its
short-term rental rights, while the complex right next door — Island Sands, just one hundred feet away — is allowed to keep them.
Same street. Same zoning. Same age. Nearly identical buildings. Yet two completely different outcomes. That
looks arbitrary, selective, and unfair.
You’ve said this is about freeing up affordable housing for Maui families. But does my 550-square-foot condo,
with one parking space and zero storage, really meet your workforce housing criteria?
Does my $5,000-a-month cost — mortgage, HOA dues, taxes, and insurance — meet your definition of
affordable? PLEASE ANSWER
That is not workforce housing. Teachers, firefighters, nurses — the very families you say you want to help —
cannot buy or rent these units. Taking away STR rights here will not put local families in these condos.
What it will do is cut off a major source of County revenue. By your own tax classifications, shifting thousands of
units like this out of STR status could cost Maui County tens of millions of dollars every year in lost property
tax and TAT revenue. You will lose revenue without creating usable housing.
So I ask you directly:
- What price point did you decide was affordable? PLEASE ANSWER
- What income level are you actually targeting? PLEASE ANSWER
- And why are two neighboring properties, virtually identical, treated so differently? PLEASE ANSWER
Our community deserves clear standards, transparency, and equal treatment under the law. Anything less opens this County to challenges of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
If your true goal is housing for local families, then focus on properties that actually meet those needs —
multi-bedroom homes, inland neighborhoods, places where residents can truly live and thrive. Do not take away
STR rights from oceanfront one-bedroom condos that will never be and never was meant to be workforce housing.
This body has a choice: act fairly and transparently, or adopt a policy that is unfair, legally questionable, and
financially harmful to Maui County.
I urge you to answer my questions, not dismiss without comment and to make the best choices for Maui residents for the long term solutions we all seek. We are truly all in this together!
Thank you
I am confused about how you guys came up with what condos would be on the new list that you are calling list 2, which are the condos that would be able to remain vacation rentals.
I am specifically asking about how you came up with letting the Maui Vista be on list 2, but then, Pacific shores condo, which is next door to the Maui Vista and also shares a fence with the Maui Coast Hotel is not on the list 2.
How did you guys come up with leaving Pacific Shores OFF the list when it is sandwiched between an actual hotel and the Maui Vista which is on list 2?
The Maui Coast was able to expand last year and now shares a fence with Pacific Shores. Why would Pacific Shores then not be considered to be rezoned as its fence is on hotel-zoned property?
Also, Pacific Shores condo is not ideal for long-term rentals for these reasons:
*Maui Coast has nightly music that is heard at pacific shores so the noise is not ideal for residents
* The parking at Pacific Shores is very limited, so if a family has more than 1 car they will have to park on the street somewhere a block or 2 down the road as there is no parking in front of the complex
*Most of the parking spots are VERY TIGHT, so people are constantly getting blocked in and unable to get into their cars, which a vacation person can deal with but a local that needs to get to work is going to have a problem with that issue.
*Many people can’t park in their assigned parking spot at times because others who have larger cars have made it impossible to fit in a person’s assigned parking spot so we are always having problems with people parking in other owners assigned parking spots because they could not get into their own spot. This is a CONSTANT PROBLEM at Pacific Shores. I foresee many fights happening with this parking problem at Pacific shores if local families start living there and they get blocked in for work or can’t park in their spot after work or if they park in someone else’s spot. Etc.
* I have asked the board at Pacific Shores if we could widen the very narrow parking spots and they say they can’t do that because it would cause the location of deeded parking spots to move etc. so it is not something that can be fixed. So you really need to consider this big problem if you are looking at Pacific Shores as a place for local residents to live
* Also, my unit is a 2b2b unit BUT ONLY ONE BEDROOM HAS A CLOSET. I am not sure if all the units are built WITH A BEDROOM WITH NO CLOSET, but you might want to check that out. How is a family supposed to live in a place with only 1 bedroom having a closet? Where does the person in the other room hang their clothes? It is OK for a vacation rental because they just bring a suitcase of clothes and can make it work, but it DOES NOT WORK FOR SOMEONE LIVING THERE.
I would just really like to know the answer to how Pacific Shores is not on that list 2 when next door to us, the Maui Vista is on the list and then the Maui Coast Hotel next door to us is a hotel property and then next to the Maui Coast is the Wyndham timeshare and then the ABC store. So we are not next to any residential or apartments.
Please clarify this for me.
Please consider adding Pacific Shores to list 2 for all these reasons. I hope Bill 9 does not go through at all because it won’t help anyone at all, but if it does, I hope you add Pacific Shores to the list.
I have owned a condo at Kanai a Nalu on Hauloi Street in Maalaea for over 30 years.
I just read the TIG committee report concerning the "Montoya properties". I definitely understand the need for affordable housing on Maui and wish that the problem had been addressed in an organized manner over the past years. I think the TIG recommendations concerning moving many properties from A-1 and A-2 to new land use designations of H-3 and H-4 were well thought out and make sense. I was surprised, however, that Kanai a Nalu was not included in "Exhibit 2". It may have been an oversight. Kanai a Nalu definitely meets the two main criteria outlined on page 10 of the TIG report.
1) "Properties with market values (carrying costs) not attainable by most Maui residents."
Because we are leashold our "resale value" is lower than our neighbors because we have to pay the land lease and so would
the new homeowner.
We are a leasehold property so not only do we pay $1,100 HOA cost but also $1004 in monthly land lease due to increase by
$250 in June. Electricity runs $250 to $350 per month. Property tax is $1,000/month (mine is over $12,000/yr) our building and
has hundreds of thousands in expenses coming up in the next few years - not to mention $1,700,000 in expected cost for ocean
rise/storm damage mitigation. These costs don't include thousands that a new owner would pay per month in mortgage
expense.
2) "Properties where any portion of the property is located in the full SLR-XA or would already be impacted by sea-level rise"
All of the Maalaea condos (especially Kanai a Nalu) according to the State of Hawaii Sea Level Rise exposure website are
in the most critical classification and, according to the TIG report, "would not produce long-term housing options for residents
and would therefore be appropriate to continue TVR use." Kanai a Nalu is in fact already severely affected by sea level rise.
We have lost much of the property abutting the ocean less than 20 feet from the condo building and are currently working with
the County on a very expensive mitigation plan. Properties on both side of Kanai a Nalu were included on "Exhibit 2" and our
oceanfront situation as bad or worse than theirs and more expensive to mitigate.
Again, I strongly believe that Kanai a Nalu should be include on the list of properties suggested to be moved to the new property designation.
Mahalo,
Mike Watson
I oppose the adoption of Bill 9 and the TIG's report. On Hauoli Street, 5 buildings were put on 'Exhibit 2', but 3 were not, including the Ma'alaea Banyans. All 8 buildings are very similar (small apartments, most around 600 square feet, 1 parking stall, no storage facilities, one bedroom, one bath, and all buildings at least 40 years old and experiencing lots of special assessements due to age). Further, all 8 buildings are affected by shoreline encroachment, which was supposed to have been a reason for not considering them appropriate for housing for locals.
We own a 2-bedroom unit in Maui Sands. This property was developed in 1966 as a Contel, investor /owners who hired a management company to run it like a resort with common reservations systems and hotel management. It was built for vacation rentals. The adjacent property, Maui Sands Seaside (formerly known as Maui Sands 2) was developed by the same development company in 1969 and jointly managed. Some decades later, both properties were converted to condominiums. And much later, Maui Sands Seaside departed from the common management to become independent. The same zoning should apply to both properties and we respectfully request that Maui Sands (sometimes referred to as Maui Sands 1) be included in your list.
I am writing as a homeowner at Maui Sands I to submit testimony regarding the current draft of the TIG recommendations for Bill 9. I respectfully request that the Committee re-evaluate the scope of Exhibit 2, as it currently includes the neighboring Maui Sands II complex for exclusion but omits Maui Sands I.
As a resident and property owner at Maui Sands I, I can attest that our complex shares the same location, environmental conditions, and development constraints as Maui Sands II. We are adjacent properties and are equally impacted by shoreline erosion, rising insurance costs, and the high cost of maintaining aging infrastructure in this area.
However, what further complicates the situation for Maui Sands I owners is the leasehold nature of the property. Each unit is subject to a monthly land lease fee. On top of that there are HOA fees. The purchase of the property would require cash as the current length of the land lease limits financing. Combining that with the level of overhead it makes it financially impossible to offer the unit as a long-term rental at a price point that is reasonable. Now include the cash required to purchase the unit makes it unsustainable for local families to purchase.
Long-term rental viability is one of the key goals of Bill 9, but leasehold properties like Maui Sands I are fundamentally different from other housing types. The additional financial burden placed on these units makes it unrealistic to expect that they could meaningfully contribute to long-term affordable rental inventory, especially when these costs are passed on to tenants.
Given this context, I urge the Committee to consider including Maui Sands I in the Exhibit 2 list of excluded properties, just as Maui Sands II has been. Excluding Maui Sands I would recognize the shared realities of our properties and help avoid unintended consequences that could disproportionately burden our already struggling homeowner community.
Mahalo for your time, attention, and your commitment to thoughtful policymaking.
I don’t own a STR but I’m concerned about the economic harm during this fragile time where we are not even 3 years after the fires. Many of us have not even been able to even start the healing process because of all the government dysfunction. I am speaking up because don’t appreciate the maneuvering and gaslighting by our elected officials or the waste of tax dollars that is going into this ridiculous process that helps nobody. We have so many real needs as we try to recover and Bill 9 doesn’t provide a reasonable likelihood of satisfying any.
The TIG report reeks of Paltin scheming. A feeble attempt to dangle a fake safety line in front of STR owners to create false hope and try to reduce resistance to passage of Bill 9 “clean.” Trust us (and don’t sue us) we will rezone properties once we pass the bill clean.
Perhaps property owners should ask Paltin to pinky swear and confirm she doesn’t have any fingers crossed behind her back like she did to a prominent local attorney during prior proceedings. This is a classic Paltin plan to make fake promises to get what she wants in the moment, only to double cross later. She has no intent of rezoning any properties. The plan didn’t work, Tamara. Nobody believes that you or anyone in the Planning Department or Planning Commission are capable of proceeding in good faith. Your games are exhausting and you’re doing a disservice to all of us with your grandstanding and pandering that produces no tangible results.
Mere development of new H3 and H4 zoning designations will spiral the drain for years with disingenuous discussion and alleged Planning Department staffing shortages that they claim prevent them from doing their jobs. If those new designations ever come into fruition, the rezoning process will become a full employment act for Lahaina Strong with virtually unlimited opportunities for tantrums, propaganda, and toxic behavior which will all be on the clock and compensated. Remind me to check back on the rezoning efforts in 10 years to see how many meetings have been had to explore a study to consider a process to develop a strategy to weigh the options.
Passage of a “clean” bill allows the Planning Department and Council to wield delay as a powerful weapon while the clock runs out on the amortization period. Owners will see this from a mile away and will sue our county rather than trust in a charlatan.
Why would we take away property rights from property owners where rentals should continue only to spend years and substantial county resources giving those rights back? That is government waste at its finest.
If the TIG was anything but window dressing, there would be draft bills prepared and ready for discussion. Instead, this 10/22 meeting has no action items and no proposed legislation. Nothing more than an attempt to backfill and create the perception of actual diligence. Fortunately, for those that insist upon accountability from elected officials, these actions have timestamps and you can’t re-write the timeline. Remember, the HLU already voted on Bill 9 BEFORE doing any diligence. The opposite of making an informed decision.
Again, wasting everyone’s time. Get it together please and stop wasting time and OUR TAX DOLLARS on Bill 9. Everyone is sick of all of you.
Support for Maui County Bill 9 and the Hawaii Land Use Committee investigation : Prioritizing Residents and Resources
Maui County's Bill 9, which proposes phasing out Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts, is a crucial step toward addressing the island's
severe housing crisis
long-term strain on its limited natural resources.
This measure correctly prioritizes the needs of local residents over the profits of transient accommodation operators, offering a necessary realignment of the county's housing priorities.
Housing Affordability and the Path to Homeownership
Locals won't be able to afford to buy a condo:
The argument that those paying high rents can not afford to buy a condo is flawed if a renter is currently paying $3,000+ a month for a rental unit that money would be better spent building equity.
The scarcity created by TVRs drives rental prices up:
There is a scarcity of rental units making rentals in Maui extremely expensive. Returning some of the inventory of long-term rentals, even at current high prices, gives residents a stable, non-transient option.
Single Parking Spaces or Condo fees restrict local ownership.
The argument that a small family or single person would not live in or rent a condo with a single parking space is ridiculous. Many families thrive with just a single parking space especially in dense walkable and on bus route areas such as those that exist in Kihei and Lahaina. Additionally the idea that a local person would not be able to afford a condo and the fees is insulting - according to the US Census Bureau the median household income in Maui County is above $95000 I would argue local residents CAN afford condo ownership.
Environmental Limits Over "Build, Build, Build"
Build Build Build
The impulse to simply "build, build, build" to solve the housing crisis is fundamentally flawed given Maui's fragile environment and limited water resources. Also building wealthy communities such as Wailea 670 do not solve our housing crisis and in fact tap our limited resources. WE should really question the motives of any Council Member who supports overdevelopment.
Water and Infrastructure:
The reality of water restrictions across parts of the county—including Stage 2 water shortage in Upcountry and West Maui as of the current time—underscores this constraint. Massive new development places an unsustainable burden on existing infrastructure, aquifers, and watersheds. Reclaiming existing apartment units from transient use is the most environmentally responsible way to increase long-term housing supply, as it requires zero new infrastructure development for water, sewage, and roads. There has been no plans to expand our sewer infrastructure or roadways - despite our ecosystem being impacted by partially treated sewage in injection wells -
Reassessing the Transient Visitor Economy
But they keep our economy running:
Do they really? I am a business owner and I see very little business from the tourists who stay in condos - the majority of my business is from resort and hotel visitors. The perception that tourists in TVRs contribute significantly more to the local economy than other visitors is questionable. Yes they pay the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) BUT they often cook more meals at home and opt out of local tours and activities when compared to hotel guests. They are essentially guests in a residential community, not hotel patrons. The economic benefits they do bring are often realized by out-of-state owners and corporate management companies, minimizing the trickle-down effect to local businesses and residents. Prioritizing long-term residents ensures a more stable, equitable economic base rooted in local jobs and community support.
Regulatory Clarity and Discouraging Exploitation
Bill 9 aims to create clarity by phasing out TVRs in apartment districts. The proposal suggests that owners will still be able to apply for a Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) permit if their property is in an appropriate zoning district, such as resort or hotel zones, or by pursuing a re-zoning. This measure doesn't eliminate the industry; it simply enforces the original intent of apartment zoning—housing residents—and centralizes TVR operations where they are zoned to be.
Most importantly, this bill will discourage corporate and exploitative ownership. When a property is taken out of the long-term rental pool for short-term gains, it contributes to the displacement of the local workforce. By creating a path for long-term residential use, Bill 9 makes apartment-zoned properties a less attractive target for large-scale, absentee corporate investors seeking exploitive and speculative, high-yield tourism income.
The Need for Progressive Taxation
Maui County's property tax system, while recently adjusted, is one of the lowest in the country, this incentivizes exploitative investment. While the county is using a tiered system, the tax rates on non-owner-occupied and TVR properties still need to be higher in order to deter speculative investment.
For instance, the Tier 3 Non-Owner Occupied tax rate (for property over $3,000,000) is $17.00 per $1,000 of net taxable assessed valuation (for the 2025/2026 tax year). While this rate is higher than many other classifications, more aggressive taxation is required. If an individual or corporation can afford a multi-million dollar second property, they must contribute proportionally more to the local infrastructure and services they utilize. A higher tax on second and corporate-owned properties would generate the essential revenue needed for affordable housing projects, infrastructure improvements, and water conservation efforts, thereby forcing exploitative investment to pay its true cost to the community.
Maui County is delivering a master class in how to unnecessarily complicate a matter while assuring no actual results. Despite substantial findings and evidence that Bill 9 will not actually create affordable housing options for local residents, the County is dedicating substantial resources to try to make Bill 9 work. True leadership recognizes when a path has been fully explored and will not lead to the desired result. Continuing on with a knowingly erroneous path can only be the result of hubris. What happened when Icarus insisted that he could fly closer to the sun? The Council must recognize that Lahaina Strong is not a voice of reason and is willing to lead Maui into peril as part of its myopic and maniacal desire to “win” Bill 9.
The TIG recommendations involve substantial resource expenditure by Maui County over the next 10-15 years (about how long it will likely take the County to get through creation of new zoning designations and rezoning of over fifty properties). The TIG did not prepare any proposed legislation regarding creation of the new zoning designations, and instead punted this task to the Planning Department with no deadline or accountability. The Planning Department has demonstrated a childish resistance to any self-reflection regarding its own inefficiencies and the lack of a clear path for rezoning. Director Blystone’s claim that the rezoning process is already as efficient as possible would be hilarious if it were not indicative of serious character flaws. A director that claims there is no way to improve a process is effectively claiming they have achieved perfection. There is no place for such arrogance in County leadership.
The County will still face litigation from those property owners that are not rezoned. So, the County will be fighting litigation while dedicating substantial resources to explore new zoning and rezoning legislation. All with no assurance that any housing will be created for local residents.
Instead of continuing to charge forward with a plan that involves increasingly complex, divisive and disruptive administrative burden and cost, with no assured outcome, this is a good time for the Council to take a step back and attempt to simply its strategy.
The TIG process has identified nearly fifty properties that MAY be appropriate for long-term housing solutions. Instead of spending taxpayer dollars fighting litigation, dedicating the Planning Department and Planning Commission to years of rezoning work, and jamming up the Council calendar with rezoning related-legislation, the Council should pursue strategies that assure that dollars spent (or revenue not received) result in actual long-term housing options for local residents.
Perhaps the most significant piece of disinformation perpetuated by Mayor Bissen’s administration and Lahaina Strong is the Bill 9 will “convert” short-term rentals to long-term rentals. This rhetoric is very intentional because it glosses over the most significant flaw with the theory that Bill 9 will create housing. Bill 9 creates nothing. Bill 9 converts nothing. Bill 9 simply takes away property rights. Mayor Bissen’s administration then hopes that property owners will convert to long-term rental. The hope of conversion to long-term rental has been undermined repeatedly by owners confirming that they will not rent long-term for many reasons. Accepting the known economic and labor impacts of Bill 9 while ignoring the voices of property owners stating that they will not rent long-term is arbitrary and capricious.
Instead of continuing down the Bill 9 path which is a waste of time with serious consequences, the TIG has provided the Council with intelligence to pursue more reliable strategies to create housing. Specifically, the TIG report helps the Council develop strategies for actual conversion of properties with lower carrying costs from short-term to long-term rental. Creation of financial incentives for owners to rent long term could bridge the gap between attainable rental rates and owner costs. The property tax waiver is a good start but the County needs to go further to incentivize conversion of condos to long-term rental. Rental subsidies will not work for all properties but Mayor Bissen’s administration previously declared that any conversion from short-term to long-term rental would be a success. Thus, even a few property owners opting in to a long-term rental incentive program would be a success according Mayor Bissen’s definition of success with none of the consequences of Bill 9.
The County should continue its efforts to purchase lower cost condos. Notably, the County has previously purchased at least one condo at Kahana Manor, a hotel-zoned property. The fact that the County was able to purchase a hotel-zoned property to use for local resident housing shows that County purchase is a reliable way to ensure conversion to long-term rental.
The Lahaina Community Land Trust has received millions of dollars from Maui County. The land trust could have been purchasing low priced condos as part of its multifaceted strategy to create housing options, but has not.
It’s impossible to ignore the size of the homes under construction in Lahaina which are many times larger than previous structures which housed local residents. Why is Mayor Bissen manically focused on conversion of Minatoya condos to long-term rentals when the structures being rebuilt right now were undisputedly the homes of local residents before the fires? Where is the legislative effort to force/incentivize those property owners to house local residents in the monster homes that are nearing completion in Lahaina?
Finally, the County must begin planning conversion of temporary housing sites where infrastructure was installed to permanent housing options.
Please oppose Bill 9 and start working on something that will actually benefit the community.
From: Justin Mack <justinmack@me.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 9:37 PM
To: HLU Committee <HLU.Committee@mauicounty.us>; County Clerk <County.Clerk@mauicounty.us>
Cc: planning@mauicounty.gov <planning@mauicounty.gov>; zoningdivision@mauicounty.gov <zoningdivision@mauicounty.gov>; Alice L. Lee <Alice.Lee@mauicounty.us>; Yukilei Sugimura <Yukilei.Sugimura@mauicounty.us>; Tasha A. Kama <Tasha.Kama@mauicounty.us>; Thomas M. Cook <Thomas.Cook@mauicounty.us>; Gabe Johnson <Gabe.Johnson@mauicounty.us>; Tamara A. Paltin <Tamara.Paltin@mauicounty.us>; Keani N. Rawlins <Keani.Rawlins@mauicounty.us>; Shane M. Sinenci <Shane.Sinenci@mauicounty.us>; Nohe M. Uu-Hodgins <Nohe.Uu-Hodgins@mauicounty.us>
Subject: Request to Add Kanai A Nalu (250 Hauoli St, TMK 380140040000) to Exhibit 2 – Bill 9 TIG Recommendations
You don't often get email from justinmack@me.com. Learn why this is important
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 and land-lease obligations) make long-term resident occupancy impractical. Nearly all 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.
o 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
justinmack@me.com
My wife and I have lived on Maui since 2002 and worked very hard to establish roots and raise two teenagers and would someday like to retire on Maui. As part of our retirement plan we purchased a 2 bedroom condominium in Haleakala Shores in South Kihei to use as a vacation rental to supplement our income during retirement. The monthly mortgage is $5,853.11 and the monthly association dues are $1,421.00. Two bedroom condominiums at Southpointe, which allows pets, currently rent for around $2,800 per month and have monthly association dues of approximately $650 per month. If bill 9 is passes, we would no longer be able to use our unit as a vacation rental. With the current mortgage and association dues I don’t see how this unit could ever be an affordable long-term rental. If we are no longer allowed to use it as a vacation rental, we will suffer severe economic losses and possibly foreclosure. Please consider the hard working long time residents who have invested in Maui with hopes of someday retiring here when considering your options for bill 9.
My family has been an owner of a property in West Maui since it was built in 1965. The complex is on the Minatoya list. Maui Sands 1, as it is called was not added to the Exhibit 2 list. Our sister Property Maui Sands II (also called Seaside) however is on the Exhibit 2 list. We are all on the same leased land that has 11 years left. Our land lease payment is $1400/mo while my current HOA fee is $1600/mo. We are 1 and 2 bedroom units with 1 parking space. Any new buyer of any of our units will have to pay cash as no lending institution will loan any money unless at least 20 years are left on the lease. Unfortunately, my fixed costs with my unit is 60k/yr. without a mortgage. That includes Land, HOA, 3 insurances, (Flood, Hurricane, Fire), and taxes. This amount makes it completely impossible to rent it out to a long term tenant. Please consider adding Maui Sands I to the possible re-zoning list.
Our property is in Kihei Garden Estates. Parking spots average one per condo, not suitable for Long term renters. The HOA fees are high due to garden type grounds.
I am opposed to Bill 9. Eliminating short term rentals is not the answer to the housing problem Those who are for the bill argue that the people should be considered first. Unfortunately it is the people who will suffer the most when the economy s devastated.
I appreciate that the TIG committee was trying to find a compromise. But there should be no compromise on bad legislation. Bill 9 hurts Maui's economy, jobs and tax revenue. It hurts locals who own Minatoya condos, trying to partake in our biggest industry, tourism. The TIG's recommendations do nothing to lessen the county's legal exposure. From the beginning, Corp Counsel advised all or nothing. You should listen to them, and spend the money on developing local housing instead of legal bills. Bill 9 is a wolf in sheep's clothing: pretending to be about housing, but really just anti-visitor, anti-haole. No one on the Council should be comfortable with that hidden agenda. It's sickening. The Council deserves recognition for creating nearly 3,000 new affordable homes for locals, which will be ready before Bill 9's effective date of Jan. 1, 2031. It is a tremendous achievement in the 18 months since the fires; thank you for finding a way, for "can can." P.S. I am a local.
Mayor & County " all A-1 & A-2 were built for work force housing".. OOPSY time shares were built in A-1/2 zones.. so they're exempt (?) Now we're going to pick and chose who is exempt and not? Wrong to me that shows they're guilty of misleading the public for support.. so wrong
Position Statement on TIG Recommendations for
Maalaea Banyans
Date: October 20, 2025
To: Maui County Council - Housing & Land Use Committee (HLU)
1. Background
The Temporary Investigative Group (TIG) recently released recommendations regarding properties on the
Minatoya List.
My complex, Maalaea Banyans, was recommended against continuation of short-term rental (STR) rights, while
the neighboring Island Sands complex (approximately 100 feet away) was recommended for STR continuation.
TIG suggested that complexes with market values considered 'affordable' should be transitioned into long-term
housing for Maui residents.
2. Affordability Analysis: A Realistic Look
Typical unit value: approximately $800,000 for a one-bedroom oceanfront condo at Maalaea Banyans.
HOA dues: approximately $705/month (plus property taxes, insurance, and maintenance).
Estimated total monthly housing cost (mortgage + HOA + taxes + insurance): ~ $5,000/month at current interest
rates.
Income needed to avoid cost burden: at least ~$190,000/year household income (near 140% of Maui's Area
Median Income (AMI) for a 4-person household).
For households at 80–100% AMI, such units are effectively unattainable; even households at 120% AMI would
be heavily stretched.
3. Mismatch With Local Needs
• One-bedroom, single-parking-stall condos do not meet the needs of many working families who typically
require 2–3 bedrooms and multiple parking spaces.
• Oceanfront locations carry higher HOA, insurance, and maintenance costs—pushing units further out of reach
for workforce households.
• Layouts and operating costs do not align with common local household structures (families with children,
multi-generational living, essential workers).
4. Policy Implication
The assumption that removing STR rights from complexes like Maalaea Banyans will free units for long-term
residents is not supported by the numbers.
Eliminating STR status removes significant property tax and TAT revenue streams without creating practical
workforce housing.
Neighboring complexes of near-identical age, zoning, and design (e.g., Island Sands) were granted STR
continuation, raising concerns about consistency and fairness.
5. Recommendations
• Re-examine the inclusion of Maalaea Banyans in the TIG's phase-out group, given its similarity to complexes
that were allowed to retain STR status.
• Apply explicit affordability analysis tied to 80–120% AMI when making policy decisions to ensure targeted
outcomes are realistic.
• Protect tax revenues and fairness by recognizing that certain oceanfront condo complexes are not practical
sources of workforce housing and should remain in the STR pool.
Follow the Money – Impact of Banning Oceanfront STRs
LOSERS BELOW
Current Owners Property values drop 20–40% with loss of rental income.
County & State Tens of millions lost annually in property tax, County TAT (3%), State
TAT (10.25%), and GET (4%).
Tourism Industry Reduced visitor capacity means less spending in local shops,
restaurants, and activities.
WINNERS BELOW
Wealthier Local Elites Doctors, lawyers, business owners can acquire discounted
oceanfront property.
Nonprofits & Trusts Housing nonprofits and land trusts gain assets at lower cost.
Mainland Cash Buyers Wealthy second-home buyers (California, Canada, Asia) benefit from
lower prices.
Developers & Builders STR reductions create pressure for new hotel and housing
developments, boosting contracts.
Who Loses:
Who Gains:
Bottom Line:
This is less about creating true workforce housing and more about reshaping who owns Maui’s shoreline. Average
families are unlikely to benefit directly. The real winners are well-funded buyers, nonprofits, and developers who can
absorb discounted oceanfront property. Meanwhile, the County loses both tax revenue and credibility if decisions
appear arbitrary and unfair.
Final Word:
It certainly appears that Maui County Council is negligent in moving forward with a plan that is mathematically doomed
and will not provide the benefits it claims. This resembles the poor planning that preceded the Lahaina fire — in fire
suppression, water delivery, and evacuation routes — and mirrors housing policies between 2006 and 2014 that nearly
eliminated affordable housing and created today’s crisis. Now, Council members propose to crash the real estate
market, not to make homes affordable for locals, but to shift oceanfront property ownership to wealthy elites, creating
winners and losers exactly as shown above.
✅ My read
The Council/TIG knows full well that most Maui families will not move into $800k oceanfront one-bedrooms. But:
• It plays well politically (take back the shoreline from tourists).
• It pushes out investor buyers and reshuffles who owns that real estate.
• It lets them claim they’re tackling housing, even if the practical benefit to local families is minimal.
So in plain terms: the policy is less about actually housing the workforce, and more about political optics, symbolism, and shifting ownership of high-value oceanfront property.
Someone provided in-person testimony a while back, emphasizing the importance of trust - trust in your government, trust in your elected officials, and on this Bill 9/TIG issue, I don't see why any owner should or would trust some of the members of this council with a decision as important as Bill 9, and now the TIG report.
For one, owners of Minatoya condos have not only been explicitly regarded as collateral damage of Bill 9, they have been largely scapegoated by certain council members, by some of the public, by some of the social media "stars', and by Lahaina Strong, a de facto arm of the "Ohana" council members as The Only Reason for housing inventory falling short of population demands, or housing costs exceeding population affordability.
- All Investments Come With Risk: These owners purchased these properties with confidence based on nearly a half a century of lawful practice as well short term rental rights having been written into the Maui County Code.
- Did Your Realtor Inform You About the Minatoya List?: It wouldn't have mattered if they did or did not inform them about a property being "on the Minatoya List" because 19.12.020 of the Maui County Code guaranteed and protected the short-term rental rights of the owners of these properties.
- CM Paltin may have been instrumental in creating the TIG report, but she and Rawlins-Fernandez have in the last several years, made multiple (failed) attempts at phasing out these properties.
- Rawlins-Fernandez is on record for arguing AGAINST development of new housing because more housing means more people. But at the same time, she laments the loss of locals to the mainland (seemingly unable to connect the dots between housing availability and ability to remain here). So rather than get behind affordable housing projects, she hides behind water, resources and her penchant for xenophobic dog whistles against mainlanders. This diatribe can be found online under the title "Lahaina Strong Does not want Affordable Housing".
- Kate Blystone is the Mitch McConnell of Maui County. Mitch was known in Washington as the Grim Reaper. Blystone - an APPOINTEE - has the ability to "Mitch McConnell anything that moves out of council. She can drag her heels, delay, obfuscate...do any number of things to serve the wishes and whims of her appointer, and not enact measures that the elected officials who represent actual constituents want her to do.
I'll wrap up by saying something everyone on council already knows. These condos have not brought harm to Maui or the local population. The mayor's office / council have been happy to profit from their business activity. With hundreds of condos on the market at 30-50% discounts, we all see that the Mayor's "affordab....I mean attainable" argument was impotent because 15 months of condo inventory are sitting longer and longer, with no meaningful number(s) of local buyers scooping up what the shills at UHERO claimed were EXACTLY what locals wanted (but that the Maui Chamber of Commerce's polling showed was in fact an asset class of exceptionally low desire and low demand), it's clear that this entire endeavor is a bust. SB2919 allowed Bissen to bring in Bill 9. UHERO created a slideshow littered with lies and false promises. Bill 9 has chilled the market. "Downward pressure" has effectively been put onto the market and no locals are doing what Bissen, UHERO, and others promised would happen. Real people with real jobs, real families and real financial obligations have had equity erased simply because they "aren't from here". And now the TIG looks to remove 2/3 of these properties from the crosshairs they've been in for 2 years.
All for what? So Paltin and her gang of obstructionists can pretend they've pulled a 180 from what has effectively defined their political careers for the last half decade? For a bill that will remove property rights from Maui County's cash cows under some vague, undefined, unarticulated, and likely false promise of restoring 2/3 of them "on the back end"?
Pauleeeeze.
If you don't trust your government, if you have no faith in the institutions, then you have nothing. That's what Trump has done, and that's what this "Ohana" group on council has done.
Nobody trusts this council to do the right thing. Everyone fears you are still the dog being wagged by the Lahaina Strong tail. Lahaina Strong is a diminished and unimportant group of try-hards and wannabe's, forcefully injecting themselves into everything from a local makeke to the Board of Water.
Look at the island now. This is the island Lahaina Strong has built - and the enablers have been Bissen, UHERO, Paltin, Johnson, Sinenci, and of course, KRF. What I predict happening is that this current council will have another 13 months of analysis paralysis and this issue will be on the laps of who we vote in next year.
Time to have a spine. Time to have some integrity.
You're going to get sued to the moon and back if you pass Bill 9.
You're going to get sued to the moon and back if you adopt the TIG recommendations after passing Bill 9.
You're going to get sued to the moon and back if you attach amendments before passing Bill 9.
Why not do the right thing and give all of these properties WHAT THEY'VE ENJOYED FOR HALF A CENTURY (and what the county has enjoyed financially) and that's blanket rezoning, as Cook said, "with the swipe of a pen".
Bissen has put you in a lose-lose-lose situation.
He has lost the support of his constituents. He has no veto power over your decisions.
Do the right thing without fear or favor.
Good morning Council members.
My name is Terri Zager, and I am an owner at the Maalaea Banyans.
I am here because your Temporary Investigative Group has recommended that Maalaea Banyans lose its
short-term rental rights, while the complex right next door — Island Sands, just one hundred feet away — is allowed to keep them.
Same street. Same zoning. Same age. Nearly identical buildings. Yet two completely different outcomes. That
looks arbitrary, selective, and unfair.
You’ve said this is about freeing up affordable housing for Maui families. But does my 550-square-foot condo,
with one parking space and zero storage, really meet your workforce housing criteria?
Does my $5,000-a-month cost — mortgage, HOA dues, taxes, and insurance — meet your definition of
affordable? PLEASE ANSWER
That is not workforce housing. Teachers, firefighters, nurses — the very families you say you want to help —
cannot buy or rent these units. Taking away STR rights here will not put local families in these condos.
What it will do is cut off a major source of County revenue. By your own tax classifications, shifting thousands of
units like this out of STR status could cost Maui County tens of millions of dollars every year in lost property
tax and TAT revenue. You will lose revenue without creating usable housing.
So I ask you directly:
- What price point did you decide was affordable? PLEASE ANSWER
- What income level are you actually targeting? PLEASE ANSWER
- And why are two neighboring properties, virtually identical, treated so differently? PLEASE ANSWER
Our community deserves clear standards, transparency, and equal treatment under the law. Anything less opens this County to challenges of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
If your true goal is housing for local families, then focus on properties that actually meet those needs —
multi-bedroom homes, inland neighborhoods, places where residents can truly live and thrive. Do not take away
STR rights from oceanfront one-bedroom condos that will never be and never was meant to be workforce housing.
This body has a choice: act fairly and transparently, or adopt a policy that is unfair, legally questionable, and
financially harmful to Maui County.
I urge you to answer my questions, not dismiss without comment and to make the best choices for Maui residents for the long term solutions we all seek. We are truly all in this together!
Thank you
I am confused about how you guys came up with what condos would be on the new list that you are calling list 2, which are the condos that would be able to remain vacation rentals.
I am specifically asking about how you came up with letting the Maui Vista be on list 2, but then, Pacific shores condo, which is next door to the Maui Vista and also shares a fence with the Maui Coast Hotel is not on the list 2.
How did you guys come up with leaving Pacific Shores OFF the list when it is sandwiched between an actual hotel and the Maui Vista which is on list 2?
The Maui Coast was able to expand last year and now shares a fence with Pacific Shores. Why would Pacific Shores then not be considered to be rezoned as its fence is on hotel-zoned property?
Also, Pacific Shores condo is not ideal for long-term rentals for these reasons:
*Maui Coast has nightly music that is heard at pacific shores so the noise is not ideal for residents
* The parking at Pacific Shores is very limited, so if a family has more than 1 car they will have to park on the street somewhere a block or 2 down the road as there is no parking in front of the complex
*Most of the parking spots are VERY TIGHT, so people are constantly getting blocked in and unable to get into their cars, which a vacation person can deal with but a local that needs to get to work is going to have a problem with that issue.
*Many people can’t park in their assigned parking spot at times because others who have larger cars have made it impossible to fit in a person’s assigned parking spot so we are always having problems with people parking in other owners assigned parking spots because they could not get into their own spot. This is a CONSTANT PROBLEM at Pacific Shores. I foresee many fights happening with this parking problem at Pacific shores if local families start living there and they get blocked in for work or can’t park in their spot after work or if they park in someone else’s spot. Etc.
* I have asked the board at Pacific Shores if we could widen the very narrow parking spots and they say they can’t do that because it would cause the location of deeded parking spots to move etc. so it is not something that can be fixed. So you really need to consider this big problem if you are looking at Pacific Shores as a place for local residents to live
* Also, my unit is a 2b2b unit BUT ONLY ONE BEDROOM HAS A CLOSET. I am not sure if all the units are built WITH A BEDROOM WITH NO CLOSET, but you might want to check that out. How is a family supposed to live in a place with only 1 bedroom having a closet? Where does the person in the other room hang their clothes? It is OK for a vacation rental because they just bring a suitcase of clothes and can make it work, but it DOES NOT WORK FOR SOMEONE LIVING THERE.
I would just really like to know the answer to how Pacific Shores is not on that list 2 when next door to us, the Maui Vista is on the list and then the Maui Coast Hotel next door to us is a hotel property and then next to the Maui Coast is the Wyndham timeshare and then the ABC store. So we are not next to any residential or apartments.
Please clarify this for me.
Please consider adding Pacific Shores to list 2 for all these reasons. I hope Bill 9 does not go through at all because it won’t help anyone at all, but if it does, I hope you add Pacific Shores to the list.
I have owned a condo at Kanai a Nalu on Hauloi Street in Maalaea for over 30 years.
I just read the TIG committee report concerning the "Montoya properties". I definitely understand the need for affordable housing on Maui and wish that the problem had been addressed in an organized manner over the past years. I think the TIG recommendations concerning moving many properties from A-1 and A-2 to new land use designations of H-3 and H-4 were well thought out and make sense. I was surprised, however, that Kanai a Nalu was not included in "Exhibit 2". It may have been an oversight. Kanai a Nalu definitely meets the two main criteria outlined on page 10 of the TIG report.
1) "Properties with market values (carrying costs) not attainable by most Maui residents."
Because we are leashold our "resale value" is lower than our neighbors because we have to pay the land lease and so would
the new homeowner.
We are a leasehold property so not only do we pay $1,100 HOA cost but also $1004 in monthly land lease due to increase by
$250 in June. Electricity runs $250 to $350 per month. Property tax is $1,000/month (mine is over $12,000/yr) our building and
has hundreds of thousands in expenses coming up in the next few years - not to mention $1,700,000 in expected cost for ocean
rise/storm damage mitigation. These costs don't include thousands that a new owner would pay per month in mortgage
expense.
2) "Properties where any portion of the property is located in the full SLR-XA or would already be impacted by sea-level rise"
All of the Maalaea condos (especially Kanai a Nalu) according to the State of Hawaii Sea Level Rise exposure website are
in the most critical classification and, according to the TIG report, "would not produce long-term housing options for residents
and would therefore be appropriate to continue TVR use." Kanai a Nalu is in fact already severely affected by sea level rise.
We have lost much of the property abutting the ocean less than 20 feet from the condo building and are currently working with
the County on a very expensive mitigation plan. Properties on both side of Kanai a Nalu were included on "Exhibit 2" and our
oceanfront situation as bad or worse than theirs and more expensive to mitigate.
Again, I strongly believe that Kanai a Nalu should be include on the list of properties suggested to be moved to the new property designation.
Mahalo,
Mike Watson
I oppose the adoption of Bill 9 and the TIG's report. On Hauoli Street, 5 buildings were put on 'Exhibit 2', but 3 were not, including the Ma'alaea Banyans. All 8 buildings are very similar (small apartments, most around 600 square feet, 1 parking stall, no storage facilities, one bedroom, one bath, and all buildings at least 40 years old and experiencing lots of special assessements due to age). Further, all 8 buildings are affected by shoreline encroachment, which was supposed to have been a reason for not considering them appropriate for housing for locals.
We own a 2-bedroom unit in Maui Sands. This property was developed in 1966 as a Contel, investor /owners who hired a management company to run it like a resort with common reservations systems and hotel management. It was built for vacation rentals. The adjacent property, Maui Sands Seaside (formerly known as Maui Sands 2) was developed by the same development company in 1969 and jointly managed. Some decades later, both properties were converted to condominiums. And much later, Maui Sands Seaside departed from the common management to become independent. The same zoning should apply to both properties and we respectfully request that Maui Sands (sometimes referred to as Maui Sands 1) be included in your list.
Aloha Chair and Committee Members,
I am writing as a homeowner at Maui Sands I to submit testimony regarding the current draft of the TIG recommendations for Bill 9. I respectfully request that the Committee re-evaluate the scope of Exhibit 2, as it currently includes the neighboring Maui Sands II complex for exclusion but omits Maui Sands I.
As a resident and property owner at Maui Sands I, I can attest that our complex shares the same location, environmental conditions, and development constraints as Maui Sands II. We are adjacent properties and are equally impacted by shoreline erosion, rising insurance costs, and the high cost of maintaining aging infrastructure in this area.
However, what further complicates the situation for Maui Sands I owners is the leasehold nature of the property. Each unit is subject to a monthly land lease fee. On top of that there are HOA fees. The purchase of the property would require cash as the current length of the land lease limits financing. Combining that with the level of overhead it makes it financially impossible to offer the unit as a long-term rental at a price point that is reasonable. Now include the cash required to purchase the unit makes it unsustainable for local families to purchase.
Long-term rental viability is one of the key goals of Bill 9, but leasehold properties like Maui Sands I are fundamentally different from other housing types. The additional financial burden placed on these units makes it unrealistic to expect that they could meaningfully contribute to long-term affordable rental inventory, especially when these costs are passed on to tenants.
Given this context, I urge the Committee to consider including Maui Sands I in the Exhibit 2 list of excluded properties, just as Maui Sands II has been. Excluding Maui Sands I would recognize the shared realities of our properties and help avoid unintended consequences that could disproportionately burden our already struggling homeowner community.
Mahalo for your time, attention, and your commitment to thoughtful policymaking.
I don’t own a STR but I’m concerned about the economic harm during this fragile time where we are not even 3 years after the fires. Many of us have not even been able to even start the healing process because of all the government dysfunction. I am speaking up because don’t appreciate the maneuvering and gaslighting by our elected officials or the waste of tax dollars that is going into this ridiculous process that helps nobody. We have so many real needs as we try to recover and Bill 9 doesn’t provide a reasonable likelihood of satisfying any.
The TIG report reeks of Paltin scheming. A feeble attempt to dangle a fake safety line in front of STR owners to create false hope and try to reduce resistance to passage of Bill 9 “clean.” Trust us (and don’t sue us) we will rezone properties once we pass the bill clean.
Perhaps property owners should ask Paltin to pinky swear and confirm she doesn’t have any fingers crossed behind her back like she did to a prominent local attorney during prior proceedings. This is a classic Paltin plan to make fake promises to get what she wants in the moment, only to double cross later. She has no intent of rezoning any properties. The plan didn’t work, Tamara. Nobody believes that you or anyone in the Planning Department or Planning Commission are capable of proceeding in good faith. Your games are exhausting and you’re doing a disservice to all of us with your grandstanding and pandering that produces no tangible results.
Mere development of new H3 and H4 zoning designations will spiral the drain for years with disingenuous discussion and alleged Planning Department staffing shortages that they claim prevent them from doing their jobs. If those new designations ever come into fruition, the rezoning process will become a full employment act for Lahaina Strong with virtually unlimited opportunities for tantrums, propaganda, and toxic behavior which will all be on the clock and compensated. Remind me to check back on the rezoning efforts in 10 years to see how many meetings have been had to explore a study to consider a process to develop a strategy to weigh the options.
Passage of a “clean” bill allows the Planning Department and Council to wield delay as a powerful weapon while the clock runs out on the amortization period. Owners will see this from a mile away and will sue our county rather than trust in a charlatan.
Why would we take away property rights from property owners where rentals should continue only to spend years and substantial county resources giving those rights back? That is government waste at its finest.
If the TIG was anything but window dressing, there would be draft bills prepared and ready for discussion. Instead, this 10/22 meeting has no action items and no proposed legislation. Nothing more than an attempt to backfill and create the perception of actual diligence. Fortunately, for those that insist upon accountability from elected officials, these actions have timestamps and you can’t re-write the timeline. Remember, the HLU already voted on Bill 9 BEFORE doing any diligence. The opposite of making an informed decision.
Again, wasting everyone’s time. Get it together please and stop wasting time and OUR TAX DOLLARS on Bill 9. Everyone is sick of all of you.
3543 Lower Honoapi’ilani Road, Lahaina, Maui, HI 96761-
Support for Maui County Bill 9 and the Hawaii Land Use Committee investigation : Prioritizing Residents and Resources
Maui County's Bill 9, which proposes phasing out Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) in apartment-zoned districts, is a crucial step toward addressing the island's
severe housing crisis
long-term strain on its limited natural resources.
This measure correctly prioritizes the needs of local residents over the profits of transient accommodation operators, offering a necessary realignment of the county's housing priorities.
Housing Affordability and the Path to Homeownership
Locals won't be able to afford to buy a condo:
The argument that those paying high rents can not afford to buy a condo is flawed if a renter is currently paying $3,000+ a month for a rental unit that money would be better spent building equity.
The scarcity created by TVRs drives rental prices up:
There is a scarcity of rental units making rentals in Maui extremely expensive. Returning some of the inventory of long-term rentals, even at current high prices, gives residents a stable, non-transient option.
Single Parking Spaces or Condo fees restrict local ownership.
The argument that a small family or single person would not live in or rent a condo with a single parking space is ridiculous. Many families thrive with just a single parking space especially in dense walkable and on bus route areas such as those that exist in Kihei and Lahaina. Additionally the idea that a local person would not be able to afford a condo and the fees is insulting - according to the US Census Bureau the median household income in Maui County is above $95000 I would argue local residents CAN afford condo ownership.
Environmental Limits Over "Build, Build, Build"
Build Build Build
The impulse to simply "build, build, build" to solve the housing crisis is fundamentally flawed given Maui's fragile environment and limited water resources. Also building wealthy communities such as Wailea 670 do not solve our housing crisis and in fact tap our limited resources. WE should really question the motives of any Council Member who supports overdevelopment.
Water and Infrastructure:
The reality of water restrictions across parts of the county—including Stage 2 water shortage in Upcountry and West Maui as of the current time—underscores this constraint. Massive new development places an unsustainable burden on existing infrastructure, aquifers, and watersheds. Reclaiming existing apartment units from transient use is the most environmentally responsible way to increase long-term housing supply, as it requires zero new infrastructure development for water, sewage, and roads. There has been no plans to expand our sewer infrastructure or roadways - despite our ecosystem being impacted by partially treated sewage in injection wells -
Reassessing the Transient Visitor Economy
But they keep our economy running:
Do they really? I am a business owner and I see very little business from the tourists who stay in condos - the majority of my business is from resort and hotel visitors. The perception that tourists in TVRs contribute significantly more to the local economy than other visitors is questionable. Yes they pay the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) BUT they often cook more meals at home and opt out of local tours and activities when compared to hotel guests. They are essentially guests in a residential community, not hotel patrons. The economic benefits they do bring are often realized by out-of-state owners and corporate management companies, minimizing the trickle-down effect to local businesses and residents. Prioritizing long-term residents ensures a more stable, equitable economic base rooted in local jobs and community support.
Regulatory Clarity and Discouraging Exploitation
Bill 9 aims to create clarity by phasing out TVRs in apartment districts. The proposal suggests that owners will still be able to apply for a Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) permit if their property is in an appropriate zoning district, such as resort or hotel zones, or by pursuing a re-zoning. This measure doesn't eliminate the industry; it simply enforces the original intent of apartment zoning—housing residents—and centralizes TVR operations where they are zoned to be.
Most importantly, this bill will discourage corporate and exploitative ownership. When a property is taken out of the long-term rental pool for short-term gains, it contributes to the displacement of the local workforce. By creating a path for long-term residential use, Bill 9 makes apartment-zoned properties a less attractive target for large-scale, absentee corporate investors seeking exploitive and speculative, high-yield tourism income.
The Need for Progressive Taxation
Maui County's property tax system, while recently adjusted, is one of the lowest in the country, this incentivizes exploitative investment. While the county is using a tiered system, the tax rates on non-owner-occupied and TVR properties still need to be higher in order to deter speculative investment.
For instance, the Tier 3 Non-Owner Occupied tax rate (for property over $3,000,000) is $17.00 per $1,000 of net taxable assessed valuation (for the 2025/2026 tax year). While this rate is higher than many other classifications, more aggressive taxation is required. If an individual or corporation can afford a multi-million dollar second property, they must contribute proportionally more to the local infrastructure and services they utilize. A higher tax on second and corporate-owned properties would generate the essential revenue needed for affordable housing projects, infrastructure improvements, and water conservation efforts, thereby forcing exploitative investment to pay its true cost to the community.
Maui County is delivering a master class in how to unnecessarily complicate a matter while assuring no actual results. Despite substantial findings and evidence that Bill 9 will not actually create affordable housing options for local residents, the County is dedicating substantial resources to try to make Bill 9 work. True leadership recognizes when a path has been fully explored and will not lead to the desired result. Continuing on with a knowingly erroneous path can only be the result of hubris. What happened when Icarus insisted that he could fly closer to the sun? The Council must recognize that Lahaina Strong is not a voice of reason and is willing to lead Maui into peril as part of its myopic and maniacal desire to “win” Bill 9.
The TIG recommendations involve substantial resource expenditure by Maui County over the next 10-15 years (about how long it will likely take the County to get through creation of new zoning designations and rezoning of over fifty properties). The TIG did not prepare any proposed legislation regarding creation of the new zoning designations, and instead punted this task to the Planning Department with no deadline or accountability. The Planning Department has demonstrated a childish resistance to any self-reflection regarding its own inefficiencies and the lack of a clear path for rezoning. Director Blystone’s claim that the rezoning process is already as efficient as possible would be hilarious if it were not indicative of serious character flaws. A director that claims there is no way to improve a process is effectively claiming they have achieved perfection. There is no place for such arrogance in County leadership.
The County will still face litigation from those property owners that are not rezoned. So, the County will be fighting litigation while dedicating substantial resources to explore new zoning and rezoning legislation. All with no assurance that any housing will be created for local residents.
Instead of continuing to charge forward with a plan that involves increasingly complex, divisive and disruptive administrative burden and cost, with no assured outcome, this is a good time for the Council to take a step back and attempt to simply its strategy.
The TIG process has identified nearly fifty properties that MAY be appropriate for long-term housing solutions. Instead of spending taxpayer dollars fighting litigation, dedicating the Planning Department and Planning Commission to years of rezoning work, and jamming up the Council calendar with rezoning related-legislation, the Council should pursue strategies that assure that dollars spent (or revenue not received) result in actual long-term housing options for local residents.
Perhaps the most significant piece of disinformation perpetuated by Mayor Bissen’s administration and Lahaina Strong is the Bill 9 will “convert” short-term rentals to long-term rentals. This rhetoric is very intentional because it glosses over the most significant flaw with the theory that Bill 9 will create housing. Bill 9 creates nothing. Bill 9 converts nothing. Bill 9 simply takes away property rights. Mayor Bissen’s administration then hopes that property owners will convert to long-term rental. The hope of conversion to long-term rental has been undermined repeatedly by owners confirming that they will not rent long-term for many reasons. Accepting the known economic and labor impacts of Bill 9 while ignoring the voices of property owners stating that they will not rent long-term is arbitrary and capricious.
Instead of continuing down the Bill 9 path which is a waste of time with serious consequences, the TIG has provided the Council with intelligence to pursue more reliable strategies to create housing. Specifically, the TIG report helps the Council develop strategies for actual conversion of properties with lower carrying costs from short-term to long-term rental. Creation of financial incentives for owners to rent long term could bridge the gap between attainable rental rates and owner costs. The property tax waiver is a good start but the County needs to go further to incentivize conversion of condos to long-term rental. Rental subsidies will not work for all properties but Mayor Bissen’s administration previously declared that any conversion from short-term to long-term rental would be a success. Thus, even a few property owners opting in to a long-term rental incentive program would be a success according Mayor Bissen’s definition of success with none of the consequences of Bill 9.
The County should continue its efforts to purchase lower cost condos. Notably, the County has previously purchased at least one condo at Kahana Manor, a hotel-zoned property. The fact that the County was able to purchase a hotel-zoned property to use for local resident housing shows that County purchase is a reliable way to ensure conversion to long-term rental.
The Lahaina Community Land Trust has received millions of dollars from Maui County. The land trust could have been purchasing low priced condos as part of its multifaceted strategy to create housing options, but has not.
It’s impossible to ignore the size of the homes under construction in Lahaina which are many times larger than previous structures which housed local residents. Why is Mayor Bissen manically focused on conversion of Minatoya condos to long-term rentals when the structures being rebuilt right now were undisputedly the homes of local residents before the fires? Where is the legislative effort to force/incentivize those property owners to house local residents in the monster homes that are nearing completion in Lahaina?
Finally, the County must begin planning conversion of temporary housing sites where infrastructure was installed to permanent housing options.
Please oppose Bill 9 and start working on something that will actually benefit the community.
From: Justin Mack <justinmack@me.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 9:37 PM
To: HLU Committee <HLU.Committee@mauicounty.us>; County Clerk <County.Clerk@mauicounty.us>
Cc: planning@mauicounty.gov <planning@mauicounty.gov>; zoningdivision@mauicounty.gov <zoningdivision@mauicounty.gov>; Alice L. Lee <Alice.Lee@mauicounty.us>; Yukilei Sugimura <Yukilei.Sugimura@mauicounty.us>; Tasha A. Kama <Tasha.Kama@mauicounty.us>; Thomas M. Cook <Thomas.Cook@mauicounty.us>; Gabe Johnson <Gabe.Johnson@mauicounty.us>; Tamara A. Paltin <Tamara.Paltin@mauicounty.us>; Keani N. Rawlins <Keani.Rawlins@mauicounty.us>; Shane M. Sinenci <Shane.Sinenci@mauicounty.us>; Nohe M. Uu-Hodgins <Nohe.Uu-Hodgins@mauicounty.us>
Subject: Request to Add Kanai A Nalu (250 Hauoli St, TMK 380140040000) to Exhibit 2 – Bill 9 TIG Recommendations
You don't often get email from justinmack@me.com. Learn why this is important
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 and land-lease obligations) make long-term resident occupancy impractical. Nearly all 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.
o 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
justinmack@me.com
My wife and I have lived on Maui since 2002 and worked very hard to establish roots and raise two teenagers and would someday like to retire on Maui. As part of our retirement plan we purchased a 2 bedroom condominium in Haleakala Shores in South Kihei to use as a vacation rental to supplement our income during retirement. The monthly mortgage is $5,853.11 and the monthly association dues are $1,421.00. Two bedroom condominiums at Southpointe, which allows pets, currently rent for around $2,800 per month and have monthly association dues of approximately $650 per month. If bill 9 is passes, we would no longer be able to use our unit as a vacation rental. With the current mortgage and association dues I don’t see how this unit could ever be an affordable long-term rental. If we are no longer allowed to use it as a vacation rental, we will suffer severe economic losses and possibly foreclosure. Please consider the hard working long time residents who have invested in Maui with hopes of someday retiring here when considering your options for bill 9.
Thank you
My family has been an owner of a property in West Maui since it was built in 1965. The complex is on the Minatoya list. Maui Sands 1, as it is called was not added to the Exhibit 2 list. Our sister Property Maui Sands II (also called Seaside) however is on the Exhibit 2 list. We are all on the same leased land that has 11 years left. Our land lease payment is $1400/mo while my current HOA fee is $1600/mo. We are 1 and 2 bedroom units with 1 parking space. Any new buyer of any of our units will have to pay cash as no lending institution will loan any money unless at least 20 years are left on the lease. Unfortunately, my fixed costs with my unit is 60k/yr. without a mortgage. That includes Land, HOA, 3 insurances, (Flood, Hurricane, Fire), and taxes. This amount makes it completely impossible to rent it out to a long term tenant. Please consider adding Maui Sands I to the possible re-zoning list.
Our property is in Kihei Garden Estates. Parking spots average one per condo, not suitable for Long term renters. The HOA fees are high due to garden type grounds.
I am opposed to Bill 9. Eliminating short term rentals is not the answer to the housing problem Those who are for the bill argue that the people should be considered first. Unfortunately it is the people who will suffer the most when the economy s devastated.
I appreciate that the TIG committee was trying to find a compromise. But there should be no compromise on bad legislation. Bill 9 hurts Maui's economy, jobs and tax revenue. It hurts locals who own Minatoya condos, trying to partake in our biggest industry, tourism. The TIG's recommendations do nothing to lessen the county's legal exposure. From the beginning, Corp Counsel advised all or nothing. You should listen to them, and spend the money on developing local housing instead of legal bills. Bill 9 is a wolf in sheep's clothing: pretending to be about housing, but really just anti-visitor, anti-haole. No one on the Council should be comfortable with that hidden agenda. It's sickening. The Council deserves recognition for creating nearly 3,000 new affordable homes for locals, which will be ready before Bill 9's effective date of Jan. 1, 2031. It is a tremendous achievement in the 18 months since the fires; thank you for finding a way, for "can can." P.S. I am a local.
Condominium Developers Public Report should also have been considered. Koa Resort in Kihei was not in the list yet the initial report allowed TVR.