HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.011 2022-2024 Sent: Monday,January 22, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Bill Babbitt
Cc: Council Testimony
Subject: RE: Bills 121, 122, 123 Written Testimony in Opposition
o �
N.)
(-11
,,.-tl ---
From: Bill Babbitt
Sent: Monday,January 22, 2024 11:56 AM
Subject: Bills 121, 122, 123 Written Testimony in Opposition
Aloha,
Please accept the following as my written testimony against the proposed Bills 121, 122, and 123.
I'm opposed to the 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.).
I'm 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 nonconforming 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.
I'm 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
Ref. To:
M
Ref.Oate, AN 2 3 2024
transient accommodation will convert to long-term or affordable housing.The inherent risks(Landlord-Tenant code and
emergency proclamations) in providing residential housing combined with lower rental rates deter many owners from
offering their rentals in the long-term market. Residents who specialize in servicing such properties, offering maid
service, handyman assistance, and landscaping, especially in rural areas, will be affected. If these individuals have fewer
opportunities for work,they may be compelled to either leave the island or commute long distances for lower-paying
employment.These unintended consequences further hinder residents' ability to secure housing. Bill 121's exemptions,
by focusing on specific professional groups such as nurses and doctors, even as outlined in state legislation,
inadvertently create a discriminatory framework.This selective approach not only overlooks the broader spectrum of
housing needs across various occupational sectors but also fails to address the overarching housing shortage issue on
the island.
I'm opposed to punishing local homeowners with unreasonable fines,fees and processes.The onerous application
process, initial, and renewal fees outlined in this bill, create an undue financial burden on lower income residents. Fines
up to$10,000 in addition to Director imposed fines at twice the highest advertised daily rate are exorbitant and
disproportional to the violations proposed in the bill.These issues are in direct conflict with existing fines stated in the
Hawaii County Chapter 25 which start at$500 on first offense.Additionally, if a host receives three complaints within a
12-month period,the TAR/NUC may be suspended for up to two years.This concentration of power, combined with the
non-transparent complaint and appeal process for operators is unreasonable.The proposed bill's reporting
requirements are overly;demanding, requiring monthly detailed submissions not just from large hosting platforms but
also from individual owners and small-scale operators, including'mom and pop'setups managing direct bookings.This
overreaching demand for comprehensive rental information is impractical and places an unreasonable workload on
these services.
I'm opposed to additional regulations in lieu of full enforcement of Ordinance 2018-114. Ordinance 2018-114 (Bill 108)
and the resulting Planning Department Rule 23 have had little to no impact on deterring'illegal vacation rentals or
curbing non-compliant behavior.The lack of proactive enforcement measures by the county failed to adequately
address the underlying issues that Ordinance 2018-114 sought to solve.The County has an obligation to actively pursue
and terminate illegal transient rental operations as well as equally enforce existing regulations to protect all residents.
This responsibility extends beyond a complaint-driven enforcement model which only contributes to the erosion of
community character. Until Ordinance 2018-114 is proven effective in preserving the character of our residential and
agricultural areas, reducing speculative investment in properties within these markets, and adding to housing availability
for residents,further regulatory changes should NOT be considered. For the reasons above,we strongly oppose this
legislation and believe a completely different approach is necessary.
For the above noted reasons, I strongly urge that you NOT pass any of these proposed bills.Thank you for your time.
Bill Babbitt
75-250 Malulani Dr
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
808-430-9411
2