|
general fund, taxpayer money allocated from the general fund, to pay for more enforcement staff
<br />positions within the Planning Department; they felt that the businesses, the fees generated by
<br />these businesses should self-sustain those enforcement positions. Another idea that was
<br />discussed was considering implementing a quota on short-term vacation rentals in a particular
<br />community. The City and County of Honolulu has some active legislation going through where
<br />they are recommending that in a community planning area, and they have defined community
<br />planning areas, that only one percent of dwelling units in those areas be allowed to be used as
<br />short-term vacation rentals so that more of the housing can be kept for long-term rentals.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Just a personal comment. I don’t understand how we can work so hard and diligently
<br />towards permitting and regulating short-term vacation rentals, and then, and then practically
<br />legislate them out of existence. I’m thinking, I’m thinking considering implementing a quota of
<br />STVRs in a particular community that doesn’t fall under a certain number. And at some point
<br />that discussion needs to be broached as well. I mean, we are going through a lot of effort to
<br />regulate and tax and oversee these STVRs to clean up some of the current issues that are out
<br />there, and then at the same time we are trying to limit them in every opportunity. So that’s just a,
<br />that’s just a general comment, and I’m sure we are going to get into a lot more of that.
<br />
<br />CHURCH: Chair Unger, can, can we make a comment or does it have to be questions? Can we
<br />make a comment here, too?
<br />
<br />UNGER: Sure, if I did. \[Laughter from the audience.\]
<br />
<br />CHURCH: That’s where I thought it was going. First of all, any comments that I make are not
<br />to disparage whatsoever. The effort that has been put in by the Planning Department and the
<br />people who are behind it, I accept that. And I know that given the direction that it’s taken,
<br />people have tried their very best to try to make sense of this. And I know that the County is all
<br />struggling with this issue, and that there is a number of motivations that underpin it. But one of
<br />those motivations is just money. And everybody in this room, or most people in this room,
<br />would probably know somebody that is involved in transient vacation rentals that to some extent
<br />is violating the law or not paying their fair share. And, you know, just before we even started, I
<br />was talking to one of my fellow commissioners, you know, we sat and we kind of nodded our
<br />heads, put us in the room for a day and we’ll tell you how to chase everybody down. So there is
<br />a money issue here. But the process here of communicating this to people that live here, operate
<br />here, and on the mainland, and then implementing it, and then getting compliance with it, and
<br />then enforcing it, is just, seems to be a bureaucratic nightmare. Absolutely, the bureaucratic
<br />process shown in its finest form. If I had a recommendation, it would be to try to simplify this
<br />thing as much as possible, because I don’t know that as the Planning Department and others
<br />struggle to make sense of this whole thing, I don’t know to what extent the people who are
<br />actually a part of the industry, who would have to participate in enforcement and
<br />implementation, were part of the process. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t, maybe there
<br />should be more. But to me this thing seems, it’s just, it’s not viable, it’s not going to solve the
<br />problems that we are trying to solve in my opinion. Here we go. \[Applaud from the audience.\]
<br />
<br />UNGER: I’ll tell you what. Why don’t we hold further Commission discussion because a
<br />process now will be to open it up to public testimony? That’s a really critical, important part of
<br />17
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|