Aloha, Iʻm submitting a link to Fannie Maeʻs national Selling Guide: https://selling-guide.fanniemae.com/sel/b2-3-03/special-property-eligibility-and-underwriting-considerations-leasehold-estates
This outlines requirements for mortgages given on leasehold properties and I will reference this guide in my testimony.
Mahalo,
Autumn Ness
Please add Maui Kamaole (all Phases) to one of the two resolutions being considered on the agenda. This resort complex looks similar and functions in the same manner.
Chair and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee
I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to HLU-18, HLU-19, and related agenda items.
This testimony is not directed toward any individual property owner or condominium association. It is directed toward the legislative process.
Today's agenda proposes permanent Community Plan and zoning changes affecting hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in property rights. Decisions of this magnitude require objective standards, transparency, accountability, equal treatment, and public confidence. Unfortunately, this agenda does not demonstrate those principles.
On June 30, 2026, the Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency (GREAT) Committee devoted its meeting to ethics, accountability, transparency, fraud prevention, conflicts of interest, and restoring public trust. Those principles should not end with committee discussion. They should govern every legislative action before this Council.
The issue is not whether selected properties deserve relief. The issue is whether every citizen can clearly see that the process was objective, impartial, transparent, evidence-based, and applied equally to everyone.
Resolutions 26-110 and 26-111 select certain properties for extraordinary legislative relief, yet the public has not been shown objective, measurable criteria explaining why these properties were selected while thousands of similarly situated apartment-zoned properties were not. Resolution 26-111 relies on the phrase "operate like hotels," but provides no measurable legal standard defining what that means.
Even more concerning, Corporation Counsel approved both resolutions as to form and legality but added the same handwritten comment:
"Bills will need to establish evidence supporting determination criteria."
If the determination criteria still require supporting evidence, why is the Committee proceeding before that evidence has been presented to the public?
Likewise, the Committee requested written analyses from the Departments of Planning and Finance, yet those responses are due after today's meeting.
Good government requires analysis before action, not afterward.
The public deserves answers:
Who developed the selection criteria?
Who selected these properties?
What evidence supports each selection?
Were all similarly situated properties evaluated equally?
Where are the written findings?
Government must show its work.
In light of yesterday's GREAT Committee discussion, the public also deserves complete transparency regarding this legislative process, including:
Meetings between Councilmembers, staff, lobbyists, attorneys, consultants, condominium associations, industry representatives, and affected property owners.
Emails, texts, memoranda, draft proposals, and other communications related to these resolutions.
Campaign contributions, fundraising support, endorsements, independent expenditures, or other political support provided by individuals or organizations that may benefit from these legislative actions.
Any meetings held outside the public process, including private meetings, campaign events, fundraisers, or residences.
Any financial, business, professional, or organizational relationships that could create either an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of preferential treatment.
These are not accusations. They are legitimate questions whenever government exercises extraordinary discretion affecting substantial private economic interests.
Transparency protects the public and honest public officials alike. If these decisions were based solely on objective planning principles, complete disclosure should strengthen public confidence.
Yesterday, the GREAT Committee asked how Maui County prevents fraud, favoritism, manipulation of governmental processes, conflicts of interest, and the erosion of public trust. Those questions are answered not by policy discussions, but by how this Council conducts its business.
Before granting extraordinary legislative relief to selected private properties, the public deserves complete transparency regarding the process that produced these proposals.
I respectfully request that the Committee defer HLU-18, HLU-19, and related agenda items until:
Objective selection criteria are publicly adopted.
Supporting evidence is released.
Planning and Finance complete their written analyses.
Relevant communications are disclosed to the fullest extent permitted by law.
The record demonstrates these decisions were reached through a transparent, impartial, and evidence-based process.
Government should never ask citizens to trust a process that has not shown its work.
Testimonies received from HLU Committee
Aloha, Iʻm submitting a link to Fannie Maeʻs national Selling Guide: https://selling-guide.fanniemae.com/sel/b2-3-03/special-property-eligibility-and-underwriting-considerations-leasehold-estates
This outlines requirements for mortgages given on leasehold properties and I will reference this guide in my testimony.
Mahalo,
Autumn Ness
Please add Maui Kamaole (all Phases) to one of the two resolutions being considered on the agenda. This resort complex looks similar and functions in the same manner.
Thank you
Chair and Members of the Housing and Land Use Committee
I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to HLU-18, HLU-19, and related agenda items.
This testimony is not directed toward any individual property owner or condominium association. It is directed toward the legislative process.
Today's agenda proposes permanent Community Plan and zoning changes affecting hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in property rights. Decisions of this magnitude require objective standards, transparency, accountability, equal treatment, and public confidence. Unfortunately, this agenda does not demonstrate those principles.
On June 30, 2026, the Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency (GREAT) Committee devoted its meeting to ethics, accountability, transparency, fraud prevention, conflicts of interest, and restoring public trust. Those principles should not end with committee discussion. They should govern every legislative action before this Council.
The issue is not whether selected properties deserve relief. The issue is whether every citizen can clearly see that the process was objective, impartial, transparent, evidence-based, and applied equally to everyone.
Resolutions 26-110 and 26-111 select certain properties for extraordinary legislative relief, yet the public has not been shown objective, measurable criteria explaining why these properties were selected while thousands of similarly situated apartment-zoned properties were not. Resolution 26-111 relies on the phrase "operate like hotels," but provides no measurable legal standard defining what that means.
Even more concerning, Corporation Counsel approved both resolutions as to form and legality but added the same handwritten comment:
"Bills will need to establish evidence supporting determination criteria."
If the determination criteria still require supporting evidence, why is the Committee proceeding before that evidence has been presented to the public?
Likewise, the Committee requested written analyses from the Departments of Planning and Finance, yet those responses are due after today's meeting.
Good government requires analysis before action, not afterward.
The public deserves answers:
Who developed the selection criteria?
Who selected these properties?
What evidence supports each selection?
Were all similarly situated properties evaluated equally?
Where are the written findings?
Government must show its work.
In light of yesterday's GREAT Committee discussion, the public also deserves complete transparency regarding this legislative process, including:
Meetings between Councilmembers, staff, lobbyists, attorneys, consultants, condominium associations, industry representatives, and affected property owners.
Emails, texts, memoranda, draft proposals, and other communications related to these resolutions.
Campaign contributions, fundraising support, endorsements, independent expenditures, or other political support provided by individuals or organizations that may benefit from these legislative actions.
Any meetings held outside the public process, including private meetings, campaign events, fundraisers, or residences.
Any financial, business, professional, or organizational relationships that could create either an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of preferential treatment.
These are not accusations. They are legitimate questions whenever government exercises extraordinary discretion affecting substantial private economic interests.
Transparency protects the public and honest public officials alike. If these decisions were based solely on objective planning principles, complete disclosure should strengthen public confidence.
Yesterday, the GREAT Committee asked how Maui County prevents fraud, favoritism, manipulation of governmental processes, conflicts of interest, and the erosion of public trust. Those questions are answered not by policy discussions, but by how this Council conducts its business.
Before granting extraordinary legislative relief to selected private properties, the public deserves complete transparency regarding the process that produced these proposals.
I respectfully request that the Committee defer HLU-18, HLU-19, and related agenda items until:
Objective selection criteria are publicly adopted.
Supporting evidence is released.
Planning and Finance complete their written analyses.
Relevant communications are disclosed to the fullest extent permitted by law.
The record demonstrates these decisions were reached through a transparent, impartial, and evidence-based process.
Government should never ask citizens to trust a process that has not shown its work.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward Codelia
Maui Resident