HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.065 2022-2024 C01.114TY .C€
COUNTY ur HAW
'Honorable County Councilmembers: January 22, 2024
2 21 JAN 22 AN if: 15
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for Bill 121. I am adamantly
opposed.
I have rented a room in my principal residence short term for many years. I own
my home and have lived here full time since 2004. When I divorced and became
a single parent in 2010, this short-term rental income was a lifesaver. It enabled
me to crawl out of foreclosure, get current on my mortgage, and hang on through
a very rough financial period when I was the sole support for my family. Through
renting I have met people from all over the world; some have remained dear
friends for life. I have given visitors with limited budgets the opportunity to
experience, even briefly, the magic of this beautiful place we get to call home. I
pay my state excise, state TAT and county TAT, and income tax. I have all five
star reviews and have been a Superhost for years.
Please know I am not against fair and common sense regulation, but your bill
restricting hosted rentals is harsh, overly punitive, overreaching and
COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!
Hosted rentals will not impact housing availability or affordability very much if at
all. Many of us mom and pops are renting small spare rooms. Why does this sort
of rental justify such harsh regulation? Common sense regulation is not a terrible
thing. But you need to make sure it fits the area it is designed to regulate.
We are not San Diego or Vail (two places Ms. Kimball has mentioned during
preview sessions and whose STVR rules they were using for templates.) NYC
just basically banned their hosted rentals, but they have a population of 19
million. In a place like NYC, hosted rentals might indeed impact housing, yes. So
it probably makes sense to do something to limit too many airbnbs. The Big
Island, in contrast, is not dense; it is highly spread out, we are a rural place and
no surprise,--there are very few reliable ways to make a living here. Hosted
in-home TARS provide a way to participate in the state's largest industry and
make some modest income to make ends meet.
In past preview sessions, Ms. Kimball mentioned the "internal debate" about the
180 days minimum rental period. That Director Zendo Kern wanted to keep
pthe
Comm. No. (IRS�1S• (g
Ref. To: P pip tmi
Ref. Date JAN 2 2024
minimum at 30 days. So clearly she's for 180 days, but why? As a reminder,
there's no legal basis or precedent in the state for imposing 180 days (6 months)
as the minimum rental period, and if passed, it would become the highest
minimum rental period in the entire nation, most of which has 30 days.
Remember, 90 days was struck down last year in Honolulu by a federal judge:
"As recently as October 13, 2022, United States District Court, granted the order
for temporary injunction against Honolulu Ordinance 22-7, on the matter of the
order's increase of the minimum permissible rental period from 30 to 90 days
with no provision to accommodate owners who have been operating their
businesses in the 30-day range. On December 12, 2022, the court ruled again to
uphold the decision, denying the motion brought by additional defendants."
(Source: Honolulu Advertiser)
In Bill 121, the language around whether a TAR must be `permitted' or not is
vague and confusing. In previous versions of this proposed bill, you had to
submit final permits with your application. Now it seems you can just submit an
affidavit declaring that everything's 'safe and up to code?' What does that mean
exactly? So are unpermitted places allowed or not? How is it that you'll have to
go into planning with your application and they will look at your records and see
that it may not be permitted or partially permitted, as an example, and they will
still just print you off a registration? And off you go? Unclear. Also will this
encourage applicants to "lie?" and hope for the best? Not great planning
department protocol in my view.
Between the new 3 percent county TAT and the disallowed homeowners
exemptions, it seems to me this county is already making plenty of money on our
home-hosted short term rentals. The registration for home-hosted with NUC is at
least $750, but with the 300-foot NUC letters you have to send out, as well as
site plan drawing requirements, it could veer into $1000 territory. Not sure about
you, but I consider `registration' a tax. It's money that comes out of my pocket
and paid to the county for literally no benefit other than to cover the
self-described 'high man hour' processing times for something not even needed
in the first place. It's. A. Tax.
In my case, I have just had my homeowner exemption disallowed, the cap removed and
my property tax QUINTUPLED. I only rent during the high season to quiet couples. It's a
room in my home, not a separate ohana or guesthouse. I can't sustain this. So I have
sadly just taken early social security, losing hundreds a month because I didn't wait until
full retirement age. Being able to rent is NOT a huge cash cow for me, but this modest
rental income has helped me pay the mortgage, which now, by the way, has my giant
property tax increase impounded into it.
You have still not given us a really good reason to justify this legislation other
than it's to force us to operate `safely' and `legally' (hello, we are already doing
that, and have been doing it for years) and "open up" long term housing. Bill 108
did not do that, so why do you think regulation of hosted rentals will? If it has,
please provide peer reviewed, authoritative sources to back up that claim.
Especially when our most of our short-term rental units are not suitable for long
term rentals anyway, which you admit.
Also, where is the peer review study of Hawaii county indicating that.hosted
rentals cause disruptions, operate unsafely and take away long term housing?
Where is the data showing our quiet rentals, since we reside on-site, have been
problematic? Exactly how many complaints about hosted rentals have been
received? We deserve to see the data before such an onerous, expensive and
punitive measure is imposed on us.
But you tried! Here's your weak and vague reasoning. (None of this can really be
substantiated. It's just your opinion. )
"The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, the bill is meant to ensure that all TAR
operations in Hawaii County are legal, safe,and following standards of operation so that
they are not disruptive to the neighborhoods where they are located.
The second reason for the bill is due to the impact that TARs have on the housing
market. TARs reduce the inventory of housing available for residents and increase area
• housing costs and rents. Hawaii County has a significant problem with the availability of
housing and this bill is intended to reduce speculation by outside investors on our
island." (Source: Hawaiicountytar.com)
This bill doesn't do any of that. I can't figure out why you really think youNEED it. We
are already "legal." Home-hosted rentals are the LEAST kind of impactful rental
possible. Owners live on-site, and renters are typically quiet sightseers who don't cause
disruption. There are never problems with parties, our neighbors would be pissed! We
have to keep our home's exteriors looking nice for guest arrival, so that's an added
benefit for the neighbors. Speculators are not renting a bedroom to quiet tourists. By the
planning department's own definition, these rentals can't pull housing from the stock if
there's no kitchen and they are just renting a room in your house. So why should we be
subject to ANY regulation?
And speaking of affordable housing, let's also not forget that the county's own fiasco a
couple of years ago. The department of affordable housing had an employee embezzle
AH credits, to the tune of$11 million, taxpayer money paid by all of us that is
FOREVER GONE.
"According to the indictment and informations, the defendants deceived the public into
believing that Rudo was dutifully working on their behalf to provide affordable housing,
when in reality he was using his official position to obtain money from Sulla,Zamber and
Budhabhatti in the form of bribes and kickbacks. Rudo abused his official position with
the OHCD to ensure the County approved three affordable housing agreements (AHAs)
involving Luna Loa Developments, LLC, West View Developments, LLC and Plumeria at
Waikoloa, LLC. These companies were variously owned, controlled, and used by the
defendants to obtain public benefits related to development projects in South Kohala,
Kailua-Kona, and Waikoloa. Through the AHAs, the defendants fraudulently obtained at
least$10,980,000 worth of land and excess affordable housing credits (AHCs)." (Source:
httos://www.i ustice.oov/usao-h i/pr/four-charged-bici-island-affordable-housing-corruption
-scheme)
So yes, this is why it makes sense to come after hardworking, law-abiding citizens to
make up for the shortfall that their own employees caused!!! I get it now.
Utterly disgraceful.
I am left wondering why this county council can't work on things that actually help
people? What a concept!
—Why are there so many accidents on mile marker 99, the dead man's curves? Have
you counted the cars over the drop off that are left there? Reminds me of driving in Baja
California. You always know where the bad spots are because they just leave to cars to
rot and stack up for years! Same with mm 99. I'm serious. Have a look over the side
next time you drive past 99.
—Why don't a good portion of the rural areas have transfer stations open daily? We
don't have trash service out here in the country but the stations are cut back to three
days a week, while stations in town are open every day.
—Why is the road between Manini and the National Park not cared for? You can't see
the drop offs due to all the weeds and it's dangerous. That's a county road but it
remains neglected. People have died and will continue to die along that stretch.
—A huge proportion of this county is living on water catchment, which is not running
water—it's a pool with a pump— and is subject to hazards such as biological
contamination or ongoing droughts. This is worse than a third world country. ( I should
know—I lived in Africa for three years, and even THEY had municipal water service!)
—Rat lungworm disease is an active worry all over the county. So is the scourge of coqui
frogs. Now we have the coconut rhinoceros beetle here. What about impending septic
conversion?And a million other issues.
But no, you have to spend countless man and woman hours (it's been over a
year working on the draft alone) thinking about the best ways to HARSHLY
regulate us hosted rentals unnecessarily for our own good. Without giving us a
good reason why it is even necessary!
If passed, this legislation will severely hurt seniors and local families, and it feels like a
poison pill. They say, sure...you can do it, but let's make the process so onerous and
expensive that you will get discouraged and have to quit. You accept the poison pill but
you die anyway. It will probably work with me. I'm too old to fight city hall. I feel done. I'm
looking at properties in New Mexico now and I just might sell and move. I can't afford
this place anymore, and I have lived here for 31 years. You win, Hawaii County.
Why not just ban STRs outright if that's your end goal?
In conclusion, I feel like this county HATES its constituents and that's sad.
Further, I will NEVER vote for anyone who votes for this awful proposed bill.
PLEASE, councilmembers, I beg you to VOTE NO on this terrible Legislation III!I
ge41141---
Chris Jones
South Kona