I oppose Bill 142 (2025) as currently drafted because the Committee has now been placed on clear notice of serious legal and administrative defects that have not been addressed. The residency-duration classifications embedded in this bill—whether five years, ten years, or otherwise—raise direct federal constitutional concerns under long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent. Multiple cases make clear that governments may not distribute public benefits among otherwise qualified residents based on how long they have lived in a jurisdiction without a compelling justification. Proceeding with this structure, after that risk has been expressly identified on the record, exposes the County to predictable federal litigation and likely injunctive relief. That is not policy disagreement; it is foreseeable legal consequence.
In addition, testimony regarding timing and tax-year application highlights a second, independent failure of this bill: it does not align with the real-world administration of property taxes. Many taxpayers have already paid at higher rates, while others are imminently required to do so, yet the bill provides no coherent framework for retroactivity, refunds, or equitable treatment within the same tax year. Advancing legislation that creates unequal outcomes among similarly situated taxpayers—while simultaneously weakening long-term rental incentives and severing alignment with Bill 9 enforcement—demonstrates that this measure is not ready for passage. For these reasons, I oppose Bill 142 as drafted and urge the Committee to defer or substantially amend it before taking further action.
I oppose Bill 142 (2025) as currently drafted because the Committee has now been placed on clear notice of serious legal and administrative defects that have not been addressed. The residency-duration classifications embedded in this bill—whether five years, ten years, or otherwise—raise direct federal constitutional concerns under long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent. Multiple cases make clear that governments may not distribute public benefits among otherwise qualified residents based on how long they have lived in a jurisdiction without a compelling justification. Proceeding with this structure, after that risk has been expressly identified on the record, exposes the County to predictable federal litigation and likely injunctive relief. That is not policy disagreement; it is foreseeable legal consequence.
In addition, testimony regarding timing and tax-year application highlights a second, independent failure of this bill: it does not align with the real-world administration of property taxes. Many taxpayers have already paid at higher rates, while others are imminently required to do so, yet the bill provides no coherent framework for retroactivity, refunds, or equitable treatment within the same tax year. Advancing legislation that creates unequal outcomes among similarly situated taxpayers—while simultaneously weakening long-term rental incentives and severing alignment with Bill 9 enforcement—demonstrates that this measure is not ready for passage. For these reasons, I oppose Bill 142 as drafted and urge the Committee to defer or substantially amend it before taking further action.
Jolee Bindo
Waikapu