2024-04-02 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Christi L. Mallicoat Testimony

Home

A Position Paper Against the Adoption of Proposed Bill 121: An Ordinance for Hosting Platforms Amending Chapter 25, Articles 1, 4, and 5 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as Amended), Relating to Transient Accommodation Rentals and Hosting Platforms By: Hawaii Island REALTORS® and West Hawaii Association of REALTORS® January 23, 2024 Hawaii County, Hawaii This position paper was drafted in consultation with members of both above-named associations, outside legal counsel, and industry consultants. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the named contributors and speak only on behalf of the memberships and any Hawaii County individual's private property rights, both realized and unrealized. No other group is represented herein. On January 12, 2024, Council Member Heather Kimball circulated the proposed bill, now assigned as Bill 121, leading to the following summary based on a careful review. It is extremely disappointing that the Council members proposing this bill continue to seek to erode, and in some instances eliminate individual, constitutionally protected private property rights as a means to justify unstated, unquantified, and immeasurable goals. This concern is further compounded by the existing inefficiencies within the County Planning Department, which already exhibits a notable and inequitable lapse in enforcing current regulations. Imposing additional regulations could lead to inconsistent and unfair application across different zoning districts and individual homeowners, a concern already starkly demonstrated by the problematic execution of Ordinance 2018-114 (Bill 108). This proposed legislation financially harms local families, reduces housing security, and in part, is contrary to existing Hawaii Revised Statutes. Adding more regulations is impractical and counterproductive, given the current administrative challenges. The complexity of this bill is beyond the scope of the general public's understanding. OPPOSED to erosion of private property rights. Homeowners should maintain the right to use their home for residential purposes regardless of length of tenancy or number of occupants. The County should not dictate to private property owners which parts of their own home they may occupy, or rent, or how many visitors they may allow. Furthermore, requiring homeowners to disclose which rooms they are living in or renting out is not only an undue intrusion into property rights but is also unenforceable. The proposal of a public-facing list and license signage requirements identifying all transient accommodations poses unacceptable security risk, particularly when coupled with public-facing calendars (e.g. on Airbnb, VRBO, Booking.com, etc.). OPPOSED to county regulation that directly conflicts with state law. The proposed legislation contradicts Hawaii Revised Statutes. Many uses of residential property are permitted. Eliminating existing unhosted transient rentals of 31 days or greater without allowing non- conforming use permits for homeowners is prohibited by State Law. Increasing the minimum duration for short-term rentals from 30 to 180 days poses legal complexities and could result in unnecessary litigation. This change unfairly strips many homeowners of their current usage rights, impacting the value and utility of their properties. This is especially relevant considering a recent Oahu ruling (Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City and County of Honolulu), where a judge maintained the 30- day minimum and highlighted the legal and equitable issues of extending the minimum period. OPPOSED to further endangering housing security. Bill 121 will disproportionately hurt those on the lower socio-economic spectrum. No evidence has been presented by the County to demonstrate that property currently used for transient accommodation will convert to long-term or affordable housing. The inherent risks (Landlord-Tenant code and emergency