Please don't neuter Bill 9 by removing almost all the properties. If you are going to move all those properties to a new hotel zone, what was the point of passing bill in the first place? Does this mean you are now going to restrict the residential Minayota properties? Those people that watched their home turn into a hotel were elated for a few days and now the rug is pulled out from under them. Another day in paradise. How many Council Members live surrounded by vacation rentals? How many Vacation Rentals in Alice Lee's area?
I am writing to express my profound opposition to the current trajectory of the Minatoya phase-out and, specifically, the "transactional" pivot led by Councilmember Tamara Paltin.
Councilmember Paltin’s current stance is a betrayal of the TIG’s original intent. She sat on the TIG, hand-picked a specific set of West Side condos for exemption (Exhibit 2), and is on the record supporting the TIG’s findings. However, once Bill 9 was passed "clean," she shifted the goalposts. What was originally presented as a "like-for-like" lateral zoning move has been transformed into transactional extraction - a tithe demanded from owners in exchange for their existing rights.
While negotiation is a standard part of the legislative process, ex post facto extraction is not. Councilmember Paltin has moved from a position of principle to a "quid pro quo" model that feels more like a political favor than a policy. By demanding a tithe in order to fulfill the TIG recommendations, she is treating the (existing) rights of property owners as chips in a high-stakes game of political leverage. By global political standards, this isn't how a democratic government operates, it's become a microcosm of a Trumpian transaction where "Y" only follows "X" if a payment is made to the gatekeeper.
It has become patently clear that if Councilmember Paltin wants to see the Exhibit 2 properties exempted, it is only so the County can extract something from them in return (as if 10x RPT over residential rates is insufficient). This transactional overture is not just punitive, it is a violation of the public trust. She appears to have secured what was needed for her specific interests ( https://mauimom808.substack.com/p/instagram-politics-billion-dollar ), and is now using the remaining properties as leverage for further extractions.
The Council’s current path is one of extreme legal exposure. You are operating with a reckless disregard for the County’s fiscal health. The lawsuit against Planning Director Kate Blystone in her individual capacity serves as a warning. There is no bulletproof vest, no medieval shield for Council members who engage in documented, reckless decision-making that ignores established conventions, legal protocols and standards of good governance. This "clown car" approach to legislation ignores the millions in taxpayer funds that will be incinerated defending these reckless decisions in court.
Shifting the rules of the game after the TIG has concluded its work creates a moving target for compliance that no voter, no good faith observer, and certainly no court will look upon favorably. Councilmember Paltin should not be taken seriously on this matter because her position has shifted from "fact-based investigation" to "punitive extraction." This Council is leading Maui into a legal and economic minefield. I urge you to return to the original, clean recommendations of the TIG and cease this attempt to extract favors in exchange for the basic recognition of property rights.
Please do after the passage of Bill 9 what you said you'd do before the passage of Bill 9. That's how politicians show that they have integrity.
And if KRF wants to grandstand, she's a paper tiger. Shut it down.
Please pass Member Cook’s resolution “clean.” Please oppose Member Paltin’s dirty amendment.
Member Paltin just cannot stop creating legal exposure for Maui County. After proclaiming full support for creation of the H3 and H4 zoning designations that were supposed to be “like for like” with A1 and A2 requirements, Paltin is attempting to impose arbitrary and unrelated conditions through the rezoning process.
Paltin’s proposed amendment is worded as if it is some sort of settlement agreement with property owners that is not only highly unusual for zoning code, but also legally problematic. The proposed language states that, by moving to H3 and H4, properties “are accepting the benefits of being permitted to continue transient vacation rental operations.” Paltin’s intentions to turn what was (before passage of Bill 9) represented as a streamlined rezoning process into an extractive and abusive maneuver are quite transparent. Imposing unrelated and unreasonable conditions on the new H3 and H4 zoning designations will result in more litigation for the County.
Notably, Paltin's proposal would make the H3 and H4 zoning designations the only zoning designations in Maui County where the Code requires “[p]ublic shoreline access and parking for public shoreline access during daylight hours of at least 10 percent of the property's parking spaces.” Similarly, H3 and H4 would be the only zoning designations in the sea level rise exposure area where the Code includes a waiver to “not hold the County and State liable for any and all future costs associated with maintaining or protecting the property developed within the sea level rise exposure area.”
Member Paltin’s proposed singling out of Exhibit 2 properties with these new restrictions is unlawful. None of the shoreline properties located in the Residential Districts, Apartment Districts, Hotel Districts have any of these restrictions or requirements. Paltin is treating policymaking as a game and she is playing with our taxpayer dollars. Enough is enough.
The ability to continue short-term rental activity has nothing to do with providing shoreline access or relinquishing parking spots, making these new restrictions highly problematic for the County to defend. If shoreline access is of great importance, why do the Apartment and Hotel Districts not already have these requirements? The answer is because Paltin's measure is purely punitive and designed to inflict harm on properties that move into the H3 and H4 zoning pursuant to the COUNTY-INITIATED rezoning effort. I don't recall any of the Exhibit 2 properties being part of this discussion about "accepting" these conditions.
The Planning Director cautioned the Planning Commission recently about the legal risk associated with imposing conditions that are unrelated to the matter under consideration. In other words, the County cannot leverage an approval process to impose unreasonable and unrelated restrictions or require public dedications of private property, which is exactly what Member Paltin wants to do here. Demanding that private property owners dedicate private property to public use triggers heightened scrutiny and is not likely to be upheld. KRF also made it clear that continuing STR activity that has occurred for over 40 years was some sort of “gift” to property owners that owners should have pay for. Thus, the intent here is to extract unrelated value through this rezoning process rather than impose reasonable conditions that are actually related to the change in zoning that involves no change in actual use. Since the rezoning effort is supposed to be a simply alignment of zoning designation with actual use by Exhibit 2 properties, imposing any almost any new restrictions is legally unsupported.
Corporation Counsel was obsessed with the legal risk related to “carveouts” when it came to Bill 9. How could Corporation Counsel possibly support Paltin’s selective imposition of oppressive and unrelated conditions on only the H3 and H4 zoning designations? What legitimate ZONING purpose is accomplished by imposing these requirements on an Exhibit 2 property that may sit directly adjacent to a Hotel or Apartment district property that does not have these restrictions?
Will Corporation Counsel actually provide real advice to Council on this issue? Doubtful, because Corporation Counsel have proven to be nothing more than amateur politicians that cosplay lawyers. When the dump hits the fan, Corporation Counsel will be nowhere to be found and the County will have to hire expensive outside counsel with taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess.
Mahalo for a chance to testify it would be great to understand a few things. Hope that during the discussion phase we can learn:
1. Zoning. Why do we need new Hotel zones? What is deficient with the current Hotel zones we already have? Is this just the easy way to duplicate the A1/A2 or is the right way to ensure existing hotels zones have any nuances corrected? In West Maui we know both Aina Nalu and Lahaina Shores are in Hotel zones. Were these new H3/4 zones something the administration suggested to be easy or speedy? Should we instead ensure the existing Hotel zones are doing what they were designed to do and that other similar sized and use properties can be adopted to existing zones?
2. Residents. When doing the research on possible properties in Exhibit two (2) did anyone look at the historical owner/occupied status? Knowing my community was 90% residential pre-Minatoya list and now we are dominated and controlled by Continental Investors. Did the TIG reach out and speak to any residents of these properties? Hearing only from the Investor controlled board of directors may not be an accurate reflection of their members hopes and desires.
3. SLR-XA. We can all see what the ocean has done and will continue to do. Please give some of us "mature" residents a chance to live oceanfront for our remaining days. We can all understand the risks and maybe creating a requirement that anyone buying property below not just 3.2' but actually 4' (per DLNR) recommendation just need to acknowledge the risk and hold the county harmless as was suggested in the Planning Commission Meetings.
4. Costs. Please do not use the cost of a home as the exclusive reason to prevent peaceful enjoyment of a residence, see #2.
5. Council Sponsored Land Use changes. Please consider the fact other properties have already upzoned as they have been able to read the tea leaves as the TVR situation has evolved over the past 40 years. Let properties come to the council and let the council have clear and transparent requirements for properties. One amazing requirement would be for 100% of ownership to agree and for that 100% to be confirmed by a neutral party. Another requirement could be that shoreline properties provide dawn 'till dusk parking and unlockable and well maintained shoreline access. No empty promises like we currently have, but the ability to suspend TVR privileges if shoreline access is not maintained. Not used as a storage area. Not locked daily and frequent "Forget" to unlocked days. We have seen these kind of promises in the past and we do not want a repeat of the continental investors making promises they have no intention of keeping. One other amazing requirement could be to disallow the gating of entire communities on the shoreline. To also require any existing gates to be removed. Gates present a problem we have seen for far too long on the shoreline.
6. Size, parking and condition. Please ignore any issues assumed as many people are more than happy to have a small home. Not everyone needs three bedrooms and even an efficiency unit can be a forever home to a great number of people. It is interesting that somehow, they cram 6 people into a single room for weeks at a time and that fine, but a single person will be unacceptable.
7. Never forget this is 94% non-resident owners and self described "tax payers". All of these continental investors are flooding the comments and are more than happy to testify and say almost anything to protect their ability to extract from our community. What is the County definition of "Part time Resident"? Is a visitor for a week considered a part time resident if they have equity in a time share? We have heard Council Members say they represent "Part time Residents" and also people that do not vote, can this committee please provide the legal definition of "Part Time Resident"?
8. Tax and revenue implications. The Mayor has made it clear he is prepared to deal with the tax situation. As a council we know the members are creative, resilient and adaptable. While the county needs to continue to be funded, can we please clearly prioritize Maui County Residents over Continental Investors. We all know we can make this work as our taxbase will only be impacted if we convert a large quantity to owner-occupied or long-term rentals. But that would be good for residents, right?
9. Checklist for upzoning. We heard from Planning that the process is well established to upzone. Is there any kind of concise and complete guide for property owners? Perhaps a very clear step-by-step process (with estimated times) would be helpful and could calm down any fears the process has been designed to be a moving target with endless delays and changing requirements.
10. Speed. This is an incredible change to see that on December 15 Bill 9 was signed into law and on December 19, just four (4) days later resolution 25-230 was introduced in council. This is an incredible display for everyone in the county that it is possible to fast track important legislation. his amazing speed that the council can move is reassuring for future efforts.
Mahalo for your time and it sure will be reassuring to hear during discussion how this is all going to work moving forward. This opportunity for everyone to understand what to expect is appreciated.
Greg Rylsky
Lahaina Resident
Current guest of FEMA
Supporter of repealing Ordinance 4369
Start implementation of bill 9 instead of creating more loopholes
Please don't neuter Bill 9 by removing almost all the properties. If you are going to move all those properties to a new hotel zone, what was the point of passing bill in the first place? Does this mean you are now going to restrict the residential Minayota properties? Those people that watched their home turn into a hotel were elated for a few days and now the rug is pulled out from under them. Another day in paradise. How many Council Members live surrounded by vacation rentals? How many Vacation Rentals in Alice Lee's area?
Aloha members of the HLU,
I am writing to express my profound opposition to the current trajectory of the Minatoya phase-out and, specifically, the "transactional" pivot led by Councilmember Tamara Paltin.
Councilmember Paltin’s current stance is a betrayal of the TIG’s original intent. She sat on the TIG, hand-picked a specific set of West Side condos for exemption (Exhibit 2), and is on the record supporting the TIG’s findings. However, once Bill 9 was passed "clean," she shifted the goalposts. What was originally presented as a "like-for-like" lateral zoning move has been transformed into transactional extraction - a tithe demanded from owners in exchange for their existing rights.
While negotiation is a standard part of the legislative process, ex post facto extraction is not. Councilmember Paltin has moved from a position of principle to a "quid pro quo" model that feels more like a political favor than a policy. By demanding a tithe in order to fulfill the TIG recommendations, she is treating the (existing) rights of property owners as chips in a high-stakes game of political leverage. By global political standards, this isn't how a democratic government operates, it's become a microcosm of a Trumpian transaction where "Y" only follows "X" if a payment is made to the gatekeeper.
It has become patently clear that if Councilmember Paltin wants to see the Exhibit 2 properties exempted, it is only so the County can extract something from them in return (as if 10x RPT over residential rates is insufficient). This transactional overture is not just punitive, it is a violation of the public trust. She appears to have secured what was needed for her specific interests ( https://mauimom808.substack.com/p/instagram-politics-billion-dollar ), and is now using the remaining properties as leverage for further extractions.
The Council’s current path is one of extreme legal exposure. You are operating with a reckless disregard for the County’s fiscal health. The lawsuit against Planning Director Kate Blystone in her individual capacity serves as a warning. There is no bulletproof vest, no medieval shield for Council members who engage in documented, reckless decision-making that ignores established conventions, legal protocols and standards of good governance. This "clown car" approach to legislation ignores the millions in taxpayer funds that will be incinerated defending these reckless decisions in court.
Shifting the rules of the game after the TIG has concluded its work creates a moving target for compliance that no voter, no good faith observer, and certainly no court will look upon favorably. Councilmember Paltin should not be taken seriously on this matter because her position has shifted from "fact-based investigation" to "punitive extraction." This Council is leading Maui into a legal and economic minefield. I urge you to return to the original, clean recommendations of the TIG and cease this attempt to extract favors in exchange for the basic recognition of property rights.
Please do after the passage of Bill 9 what you said you'd do before the passage of Bill 9. That's how politicians show that they have integrity.
And if KRF wants to grandstand, she's a paper tiger. Shut it down.
Please pass Member Cook’s resolution “clean.” Please oppose Member Paltin’s dirty amendment.
Member Paltin just cannot stop creating legal exposure for Maui County. After proclaiming full support for creation of the H3 and H4 zoning designations that were supposed to be “like for like” with A1 and A2 requirements, Paltin is attempting to impose arbitrary and unrelated conditions through the rezoning process.
Paltin’s proposed amendment is worded as if it is some sort of settlement agreement with property owners that is not only highly unusual for zoning code, but also legally problematic. The proposed language states that, by moving to H3 and H4, properties “are accepting the benefits of being permitted to continue transient vacation rental operations.” Paltin’s intentions to turn what was (before passage of Bill 9) represented as a streamlined rezoning process into an extractive and abusive maneuver are quite transparent. Imposing unrelated and unreasonable conditions on the new H3 and H4 zoning designations will result in more litigation for the County.
Notably, Paltin's proposal would make the H3 and H4 zoning designations the only zoning designations in Maui County where the Code requires “[p]ublic shoreline access and parking for public shoreline access during daylight hours of at least 10 percent of the property's parking spaces.” Similarly, H3 and H4 would be the only zoning designations in the sea level rise exposure area where the Code includes a waiver to “not hold the County and State liable for any and all future costs associated with maintaining or protecting the property developed within the sea level rise exposure area.”
Member Paltin’s proposed singling out of Exhibit 2 properties with these new restrictions is unlawful. None of the shoreline properties located in the Residential Districts, Apartment Districts, Hotel Districts have any of these restrictions or requirements. Paltin is treating policymaking as a game and she is playing with our taxpayer dollars. Enough is enough.
The ability to continue short-term rental activity has nothing to do with providing shoreline access or relinquishing parking spots, making these new restrictions highly problematic for the County to defend. If shoreline access is of great importance, why do the Apartment and Hotel Districts not already have these requirements? The answer is because Paltin's measure is purely punitive and designed to inflict harm on properties that move into the H3 and H4 zoning pursuant to the COUNTY-INITIATED rezoning effort. I don't recall any of the Exhibit 2 properties being part of this discussion about "accepting" these conditions.
The Planning Director cautioned the Planning Commission recently about the legal risk associated with imposing conditions that are unrelated to the matter under consideration. In other words, the County cannot leverage an approval process to impose unreasonable and unrelated restrictions or require public dedications of private property, which is exactly what Member Paltin wants to do here. Demanding that private property owners dedicate private property to public use triggers heightened scrutiny and is not likely to be upheld. KRF also made it clear that continuing STR activity that has occurred for over 40 years was some sort of “gift” to property owners that owners should have pay for. Thus, the intent here is to extract unrelated value through this rezoning process rather than impose reasonable conditions that are actually related to the change in zoning that involves no change in actual use. Since the rezoning effort is supposed to be a simply alignment of zoning designation with actual use by Exhibit 2 properties, imposing any almost any new restrictions is legally unsupported.
Corporation Counsel was obsessed with the legal risk related to “carveouts” when it came to Bill 9. How could Corporation Counsel possibly support Paltin’s selective imposition of oppressive and unrelated conditions on only the H3 and H4 zoning designations? What legitimate ZONING purpose is accomplished by imposing these requirements on an Exhibit 2 property that may sit directly adjacent to a Hotel or Apartment district property that does not have these restrictions?
Will Corporation Counsel actually provide real advice to Council on this issue? Doubtful, because Corporation Counsel have proven to be nothing more than amateur politicians that cosplay lawyers. When the dump hits the fan, Corporation Counsel will be nowhere to be found and the County will have to hire expensive outside counsel with taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess.
Pass Resolution 25-230 clean!
Aloha HLU members,
Welcome Kelson Batangan!
Mahalo for a chance to testify it would be great to understand a few things. Hope that during the discussion phase we can learn:
1. Zoning. Why do we need new Hotel zones? What is deficient with the current Hotel zones we already have? Is this just the easy way to duplicate the A1/A2 or is the right way to ensure existing hotels zones have any nuances corrected? In West Maui we know both Aina Nalu and Lahaina Shores are in Hotel zones. Were these new H3/4 zones something the administration suggested to be easy or speedy? Should we instead ensure the existing Hotel zones are doing what they were designed to do and that other similar sized and use properties can be adopted to existing zones?
2. Residents. When doing the research on possible properties in Exhibit two (2) did anyone look at the historical owner/occupied status? Knowing my community was 90% residential pre-Minatoya list and now we are dominated and controlled by Continental Investors. Did the TIG reach out and speak to any residents of these properties? Hearing only from the Investor controlled board of directors may not be an accurate reflection of their members hopes and desires.
3. SLR-XA. We can all see what the ocean has done and will continue to do. Please give some of us "mature" residents a chance to live oceanfront for our remaining days. We can all understand the risks and maybe creating a requirement that anyone buying property below not just 3.2' but actually 4' (per DLNR) recommendation just need to acknowledge the risk and hold the county harmless as was suggested in the Planning Commission Meetings.
4. Costs. Please do not use the cost of a home as the exclusive reason to prevent peaceful enjoyment of a residence, see #2.
5. Council Sponsored Land Use changes. Please consider the fact other properties have already upzoned as they have been able to read the tea leaves as the TVR situation has evolved over the past 40 years. Let properties come to the council and let the council have clear and transparent requirements for properties. One amazing requirement would be for 100% of ownership to agree and for that 100% to be confirmed by a neutral party. Another requirement could be that shoreline properties provide dawn 'till dusk parking and unlockable and well maintained shoreline access. No empty promises like we currently have, but the ability to suspend TVR privileges if shoreline access is not maintained. Not used as a storage area. Not locked daily and frequent "Forget" to unlocked days. We have seen these kind of promises in the past and we do not want a repeat of the continental investors making promises they have no intention of keeping. One other amazing requirement could be to disallow the gating of entire communities on the shoreline. To also require any existing gates to be removed. Gates present a problem we have seen for far too long on the shoreline.
6. Size, parking and condition. Please ignore any issues assumed as many people are more than happy to have a small home. Not everyone needs three bedrooms and even an efficiency unit can be a forever home to a great number of people. It is interesting that somehow, they cram 6 people into a single room for weeks at a time and that fine, but a single person will be unacceptable.
7. Never forget this is 94% non-resident owners and self described "tax payers". All of these continental investors are flooding the comments and are more than happy to testify and say almost anything to protect their ability to extract from our community. What is the County definition of "Part time Resident"? Is a visitor for a week considered a part time resident if they have equity in a time share? We have heard Council Members say they represent "Part time Residents" and also people that do not vote, can this committee please provide the legal definition of "Part Time Resident"?
8. Tax and revenue implications. The Mayor has made it clear he is prepared to deal with the tax situation. As a council we know the members are creative, resilient and adaptable. While the county needs to continue to be funded, can we please clearly prioritize Maui County Residents over Continental Investors. We all know we can make this work as our taxbase will only be impacted if we convert a large quantity to owner-occupied or long-term rentals. But that would be good for residents, right?
9. Checklist for upzoning. We heard from Planning that the process is well established to upzone. Is there any kind of concise and complete guide for property owners? Perhaps a very clear step-by-step process (with estimated times) would be helpful and could calm down any fears the process has been designed to be a moving target with endless delays and changing requirements.
10. Speed. This is an incredible change to see that on December 15 Bill 9 was signed into law and on December 19, just four (4) days later resolution 25-230 was introduced in council. This is an incredible display for everyone in the county that it is possible to fast track important legislation. his amazing speed that the council can move is reassuring for future efforts.
Mahalo for your time and it sure will be reassuring to hear during discussion how this is all going to work moving forward. This opportunity for everyone to understand what to expect is appreciated.
Greg Rylsky
Lahaina Resident
Current guest of FEMA
Supporter of repealing Ordinance 4369