TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO BILL 119 (2025)
PENALTIES FOR PROHIBITED NOISE VIOLATIONS
Chair Sinenci and Members of the Water Authority, Social Services, and Parks Committee,
My name is Edward Codelia, REALTOR® and resident of Maui County, and I am in opposition to Bill 119 (2025) as currently proposed.
This bill is another example of Maui County government spending time, staff resources, legal review, committee hearings, enforcement discussions, and taxpayer money pursuing symbolic enforcement legislation while failing to address far more serious and visible public safety issues already impacting residents, employees, customers, and businesses throughout Central Maui.
The Council recently deferred action on a proposed overnight parking ban affecting only three streets in Kahului despite years of ongoing complaints regarding public intoxication, trespassing, vehicle dwelling, open drug use, aggressive behavior, sanitation concerns, trash accumulation, and deteriorating conditions affecting nearby businesses and industrial properties.
Those conditions directly impact working residents, small business owners, employees arriving before sunrise, customers visiting commercial properties, and neighboring property owners who continue paying increasing property taxes while watching public disorder expand around them.
Yet the Council was unable or unwilling to take action on three specific streets already experiencing repeated public complaints and visible deterioration.
At the same time, this same Council is prioritizing increased penalties for noise violations.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore.
The County’s own records and correspondence regarding Bill 119 demonstrate the larger problem. The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and Maui Police Department raised concerns regarding enforceability, inconsistent application, forfeiture authority, procedural burdens, and practical implementation. The original forfeiture language was ultimately removed because the County itself recognized the operational and legal weaknesses within the proposal.
More importantly, the data provided to the Committee showed extremely limited citation and prosecution activity under the existing ordinance. This raises an obvious question: if the County is already struggling to consistently enforce current laws, what exactly is accomplished by dramatically increasing fines?
This bill risks becoming another example of government appearing active without addressing underlying enforcement realities.
Many residents already believe the County selectively enforces laws depending on the political sensitivity of the issue involved. Property owners, businesses, and working residents often face swift enforcement actions while ongoing disorder in certain public spaces continues largely unmanaged.
The public frustration being expressed throughout the community is not simply about noise. It is about declining confidence in the County’s ability to perform basic governmental functions consistently, fairly, and effectively.
Maui County does not have a shortage of ordinances. It has a shortage of enforceable, sustainable, and operationally realistic solutions.
Before expanding penalties and increasing fines, the County should first demonstrate its ability to:
* consistently enforce existing laws;
* protect commercial and industrial corridors;
* support businesses and workers already affected by deteriorating public conditions; and
* create clear public safety standards that are actually maintained.
If the County cannot protect commercial corridors, industrial streets, employees, and customers from ongoing visible disorder on a handful of streets in Kahului, the public has legitimate reason to question whether stricter noise penalties will suddenly become effectively enforced.
This issue also exposes a larger structural problem within Maui County government itself. Decisions affecting concentrated public safety, economic, and infrastructure impacts on Maui island can be delayed or blocked by representatives whose districts do not directly experience the same level of impact or operational burden.
That reality is increasingly forcing a broader public discussion regarding representation, redistricting, and separation of authority between the islands within Maui County. Communities carrying the majority of the population, commercial activity, infrastructure burden, enforcement demand, and economic impact should have governance structures that accurately reflect those realities.
At this point, Bill 119 appears less like meaningful public safety policy and more like another expenditure of taxpayer time and resources on legislation unlikely to materially improve conditions on the ground.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition to Bill 119 (2025).
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO BILL 119 (2025)
PENALTIES FOR PROHIBITED NOISE VIOLATIONS
Chair Sinenci and Members of the Water Authority, Social Services, and Parks Committee,
My name is Edward Codelia, REALTOR® and resident of Maui County, and I am in opposition to Bill 119 (2025) as currently proposed.
This bill is another example of Maui County government spending time, staff resources, legal review, committee hearings, enforcement discussions, and taxpayer money pursuing symbolic enforcement legislation while failing to address far more serious and visible public safety issues already impacting residents, employees, customers, and businesses throughout Central Maui.
The Council recently deferred action on a proposed overnight parking ban affecting only three streets in Kahului despite years of ongoing complaints regarding public intoxication, trespassing, vehicle dwelling, open drug use, aggressive behavior, sanitation concerns, trash accumulation, and deteriorating conditions affecting nearby businesses and industrial properties.
Those conditions directly impact working residents, small business owners, employees arriving before sunrise, customers visiting commercial properties, and neighboring property owners who continue paying increasing property taxes while watching public disorder expand around them.
Yet the Council was unable or unwilling to take action on three specific streets already experiencing repeated public complaints and visible deterioration.
At the same time, this same Council is prioritizing increased penalties for noise violations.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore.
The County’s own records and correspondence regarding Bill 119 demonstrate the larger problem. The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and Maui Police Department raised concerns regarding enforceability, inconsistent application, forfeiture authority, procedural burdens, and practical implementation. The original forfeiture language was ultimately removed because the County itself recognized the operational and legal weaknesses within the proposal.
More importantly, the data provided to the Committee showed extremely limited citation and prosecution activity under the existing ordinance. This raises an obvious question: if the County is already struggling to consistently enforce current laws, what exactly is accomplished by dramatically increasing fines?
This bill risks becoming another example of government appearing active without addressing underlying enforcement realities.
Many residents already believe the County selectively enforces laws depending on the political sensitivity of the issue involved. Property owners, businesses, and working residents often face swift enforcement actions while ongoing disorder in certain public spaces continues largely unmanaged.
The public frustration being expressed throughout the community is not simply about noise. It is about declining confidence in the County’s ability to perform basic governmental functions consistently, fairly, and effectively.
Maui County does not have a shortage of ordinances. It has a shortage of enforceable, sustainable, and operationally realistic solutions.
Before expanding penalties and increasing fines, the County should first demonstrate its ability to:
* consistently enforce existing laws;
* protect commercial and industrial corridors;
* support businesses and workers already affected by deteriorating public conditions; and
* create clear public safety standards that are actually maintained.
If the County cannot protect commercial corridors, industrial streets, employees, and customers from ongoing visible disorder on a handful of streets in Kahului, the public has legitimate reason to question whether stricter noise penalties will suddenly become effectively enforced.
This issue also exposes a larger structural problem within Maui County government itself. Decisions affecting concentrated public safety, economic, and infrastructure impacts on Maui island can be delayed or blocked by representatives whose districts do not directly experience the same level of impact or operational burden.
That reality is increasingly forcing a broader public discussion regarding representation, redistricting, and separation of authority between the islands within Maui County. Communities carrying the majority of the population, commercial activity, infrastructure burden, enforcement demand, and economic impact should have governance structures that accurately reflect those realities.
At this point, Bill 119 appears less like meaningful public safety policy and more like another expenditure of taxpayer time and resources on legislation unlikely to materially improve conditions on the ground.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition to Bill 119 (2025).
Edward Codelia, Maui Resident