Laserfiche WebLink
#2) The county is unfairly placing the burden of creating more housing on existing home owners. <br /> There is no evidence that limiting vacation rentals adds housing affordable or otherwise to the <br /> inventory.This seems a bit backward when zoning changes such as including duplex, 4 plex <br /> housing for example, could go a long way to creating more affordable housing. Addressing existing <br /> antiquated infrastructure and onerous building codes should be a focus, that is being ignored. Our <br /> county council is against development and that alone creates a housing shortage . So instead of <br /> being pro development of more affordable housing options,county council choses to burden <br /> existing home owners. This is just wrong and short sited, affecting manywho are retired or on <br /> fixed income. There is an unintended economic consequence that will also impact a micro <br /> economy such as cleaners, landscapers and service providers. One cleaner I know, has more than <br /> 70% of her families income is from cleaning rentals the county wants to re-classify. <br /> #3)Section 25-4-16.1 I should be able to live in and utilize any portion of my home or property for <br /> my personal use. Bill 121 is trying to dictate which portions of my property I may live in and which I <br /> may rent. I believe this is a direct violation of my constitutional rights and private property <br /> rights. This is a bad bill! <br /> #_Section 25-4-16.7 Called Registration by the county when truly it is not just a registration <br /> because it can be denied, it is an application process. <br /> #5 Section 25-4-16.17 3-D The proposal requires license and signage visible from the street of <br /> subject property identifying the transient vacation rental. I believe this poses a security risk. My husband <br /> is an invalid and now in a care home. So, not only am I faced with expensive medical bills and since I now <br /> live alone,this type of signage I believe puts me at a greater risk for residential crime. This is a bad bill! <br /> #6)_Section 25-4-16.25 If the 180 day definition is adopted, many owners on fixed income and <br /> retired, depending on additional income to supplement the high cost of living in Hawaii will lose <br /> their owner occupant residential tax exemption! This is unacceptable and Bad Business for the <br /> residents of Hawaii. <br /> I know there are several residents here today that are opposed to unhosted STVR/TAR in residential <br /> neighborhoods where non-confirming certificates have been approved. There have been <br /> complaints lodged, but the county can't even control and police the situation under the current <br /> laws. Extending 30 days to 180 days covers many more properties, how will they monitor and <br /> manage when they can't handle it now. <br /> In closing,we have much greater challenges ahead for our county and State. To name a few: 1) <br /> There is not enough Senior housing and no Senior co-housing or other plan for senior living or <br /> nursing home facilities. Baby boomers are in their 60's&70's!!the time is now to focus on <br /> providing for these age groups. 2)There are huge Cesspool/Septic issues looming with major <br /> deadlines starting in 2035 that need absolute focus to make a feasible and doable plan for the <br />