2024-04-02 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Sundar Subramanyam & Meena Subramanyam Testimony

Home

April 2, 2024 Chairperson Lin; Windward Planning Commission Members RE: Bill 121 Testimony Dear Chairperson Lin and Members of the Windward Planning Commission, We, Sundar and Meena Subramanyam, owners of the property located at 76-853 Pakalakala Pl, Kailua Kona, HI, 96740, come before you to express our strong support for the amendment 91 by the Planning Director regarding Bill 121. This amendment, which revises the definition of "transient" to encapsulate rentals of thirty consecutive days or less, resonates with the operational realities we have experienced in renting our property within the 31 to 179-day range. It offers a balanced approach to managing already existing short-term vacation rentals, recognizing the nuances of the local rental market and the need for clear, consistent regulations. The Planning Department's experience in regulating short-term vacation rentals underlines the practicality of this amendment. Aligning the definition of"transient" and"transient accommodations" with these well-established practices acknowledges the existing ecosystem and mitigates the risk of unintended consequences for homeowners and the community at large. As property owners engaged in renting our home under the terms defined by current regulations since 2016 when we acquired the property as an investment, the potential reclassification of our ability to rent our home without a clear path for adaptation or compensation presents a significant concern and would potentially cause numerous unintended consequences, which could ultimately lead to a deprivation of our vested rights as residential homeowners. The end result of such impacts could also lead to potential litigation. It is therefore, imperative that any regulatory changes include provisions to either grandfather existing practices or offer just compensation under existing Hawaii and U.S. law to those affected. This approach not only ensures fairness, but also respects the investments and planning made by homeowners based on existing law and current legal frameworks. In this regard, Hawaii courts have repeatedly held that under the United States and Hawaii Constitutions,preexisting and lawful uses of property are generally considered to be vested rights that zoning ordinances may not abolish, and prohibit zoning changes that eliminate prior lawful uses without grandfathering in nonconforming uses l'2'3; and enforcing a zoning ordinance such as Bill 121 on such homeowners likely violates the Takings Clause.i ' See e.g.HAWAII LEGAL SHORT-TERMRENTAL ALLIANCE v. City and County of Honolulu,Dist.Court,D. Hawaii 2022 at 18. relevant provisions of HRS § 464(a)unambiguously states"Neither this section nor any