Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.107 2022-2024 BILL 121 - Public Feedback 1/22/2024 ,� , r ) "MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS" AS x=, JUSTIFICATION -- `' (Reference letter 1/12/2024 Heather Kimball RE: Announcing Jan 23 Council Meeting) This letter asserts that regulating TARs helps "maintain the character of neighborhoods). That premise is FLAWED. Houses are "designed and zoned" for residential use. Residential uses include gatherings, church picnics, volleyball nets, parties, poker games, barking dogs, family reunions, Tupperware parties and SLEEPING. The nature of those residential use activities doesn't change, regardless if you're a non-paying guest, vs. a TAR guest. The only difference is that a tourist TAR renter uses the property LESS than a full time occupant. TARs have zero impact on 'changing the character of the neighborhoods." I am allowed to have non-paying guests stay at my home. These guests would be STRANGERS to any of the existing neighbors. So, to be clear, the current laws allow me house an UNLIMITED number of "STRANGERS to the neighbors" into my home as long as they aren't renting a room, but Bill 121 will not allow a husband/wife "unknown to the neighbors" who are PAYING guests. This is ludicrous. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 1 of 14 A Comm.N 1-SIR Ref.To: • Ref.Date Rather, TARs help drive utilization of EXISTING HOMES which otherwise might remain vacant. More accurately stated, Bill 121 regulating TARs will help keep larger homes with extra bedrooms vacant and unused. In this way, neighbors who live next to a 4 bedroom house can pretend that they don't have neighbors. The character of the neighborhood was established and molded when the county allowed PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES to be constructed. This Bill 121 is unjustly regulating the "residential use" of private property. NEIGHBOR COMPLAINTS, NEIGHBOR CONTROL, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE I recently purchased my 4 bedroom home and began renting my home as a TAR. Before I purchased the home, it was vacant 50% of the time with absentee owners. Since I have begun renting, there has never been a single noise complaint regarding my property, however neighbors decided to file a zoning complaint nonetheless.... (Why? Because they didn't like the fact that I was renting? Or because of a fear that there would be constant parties going on? Or because they liked it much better when the home sat unoccupied?) BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 2 of 14 Disgruntled neighbors who prefer that my 4 bedroom home only be occupied by 2 people - should have moved next to a 1 bedroom home. A 4 bedroom home is understood to house a lot of people, including rowdy teenagers. Would these same disgruntled neighbors prefer I have rowdy teens occupying my home, or the occasional vetted and affluent husband & wife tourists ? FYI tourists spend most of their time AWAY FROM THE RESIDENCES. The vast majority of TAR renters don't come to Hawaii to sit at a property and intentionally annoy neighbors. And, a touring couple DOESN'T THROW WILD PARTIES. Any suggestion that Hosted TAR renters are more prone to break noise ordinance law is statistically unproven and rationally unfounded. If neighbors want to control my property, they should have purchased the property themselves, or moved onto an acreage where they can control their own privacy. For the record, the neighbor who filed a complaint about my TAR renting, actually rents to a long-term tenant themselves. Hypocrisy. There is no evidence that a long-term renter is "better" for the neighborhood than a short term TAR renter (who in many cases is an affluent couple paying a premium price, with a bonafide VRBO guest rating.) In fact, a strong argument could be made that TAR renters are better neighbors, vs long-term renters. Long-term renters cannot be easily evicted. Long-term renters can set off illegal fireworks, shoot guns, and party every Saturday night. Long-term renters can have nuisance pets, and unkept properties. Long-term renters can have screaming toddlers or teens with loud trucks. AND LONG-TERM RENTERS ARE NOT MOVING OUT ANY TIME SOON. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 3 of 14 Undesirable TAR occupants: They vacate within days. They are normally away from the property all day. They don't rent cars with rusted mufflers. If justified, they can be legally removed from the property at a moments notice. Also for the record, the LOUDEST people in my neighborhood is a couple (full-time occupants) who have adult children on the island whom regularly gather and party at their parent's home - WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL ! From my experience, disgruntled neighbor objections to TAR activities are more about control, and an egoistic desire to manufacture a level of privacy inconsistent with the REALITY of living in neighborhoods comprised of multi-bedroom homes. These neighbors are trying to achieve privacy and seclusion, as if the house next door didn't exist. Supposition and conjecture are not valid reasons upon which to base regulations of private property rights. There are already laws which govern illegal activities and noise ordinance rules, which any citizen/neighbor can pursue enforcement thereof at any time. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 4 of 14 "HOSTED", DOESN'T MEAN RENTED 100%. "Hosted" means "someone lives in the home, while conducting their normal residential use." Therefore, the proposed rules limiting "gatherings" are flawed, and fail to contemplate that the resident host might have a picnic for 15 of his church friends. Under currently enacted law, is a resident legally allowed to have 15 church members attend a bbq? Is a resident legally allowed to have a family reunion for 30 family members? How is a disgruntled neighbor able to discern who is a personal guest of the resident host vs who is a paying renter? If the disgruntled neighbor (inaccurately) complains to the planning department of a violation of the TAR gathering limit, how is the planning department going to investigate and ascertain how many people were private guests vs paying renters? What is the vehicle for the TAR host to file a legal complaint against a disgruntled neighbor for false reporting? Or, is the intent of this Bill 121 to forever limit the number of private guests ever allowed onto the property of a Hosted TAR? I repeat, the logic of Bill 121 as it relates to "gatherings" is flawed, unenforceable and fails to contemplate that the resident host is allowed to have any number of private visitors, cookouts, garage sales, Tupperware parties and poker nights JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN IN THE USA. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 5 of 14 LIMITING "HOSTED" TARs DOESN'T CREATE MORE LONG-TERM RENTAL UNITS • The council has stated as justification - that regulating Hosted TARs will directly translate into more long-term rental availability. This premise is FLAWED. As a host, I live on-site. I enjoy having paying guests at times, other times I enjoy my own privacy. I have no intention of having a permanent long-term tenant share my home 24/7/180, regardless of whether or not I am allowed to rent a few weeks per year. It is not reasonable to presume, nor use as justification, that limiting Hosted TARs will result in increased long-term unit availability. REGULATORY OVERREACH "the detached bedroom rule" What is the credible reasoning and justification for dictating which bedroom in the home the host may or may not sleep? Stating that the host may NOT sleep in a detached bedroom = is an indirect way of stating that the host MUST sleep in an attached bedroom (which is assumed apart of the main home containing the kitchen) - which then will prevent a renter from having private use of a kitchen. Why does Bill 121 prevent a renter from having private use of a kitchen? Preventing a renter from having private use of a kitchen DETERS RENTING by making the unit less desirable. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 6 of 14 Despite the commonly cited reasons for enacting TAR regulations, rules such as "the detached bedroom rule" calls into question the motivation and credibility for this initiative. On face value, the only plausible reasons for the "detached bedroom rule" is to make the rental unit LESS DESIRABLE TO RENTERS and therefore to DETER RENTING altogether. So, in summary Bill 121 effectively states: "They can rent a room, but cannot have private access to a kitchen." What's next? "They can rent a room, but any window makai cannot be more than 1 square foot in size?" This level of regulation is absurd and unjust. IN -TOWN VS RURAL. HOUSING DENSITY IGNORED This Bill 121 ignores the reality that the challenges of urban density (ie noise, parking, etc) are lessened or non-existent in low-density or larger parcel areas, such as Agricultural zones. For example, Bill 121 prescribes regulations relating to off-street parking. Perhaps I live on 9 acres, upon which I could easily park over 100 vehicles. Why is Bill 121 regulating the amount of off-street parking when it is irrelevant on larger parcels ? BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 7 of 14 • Bill 121 prescribes notification rules related to distance. Why is 300' from the TAR property line relevant for notification? Are you inferring that noise from the TAR might impact a neighboring home? If the same 300' notification rule is applied to my 9-acre TAR property, I will be forced to notify landowners in a geographical area amounting to 35 acres. Why is Bill 121 mandating a notification area which is irrelevant to noise transfer? Coqui frogs make substantially more audible noise for the neighbors than would a 4 person outdoor party on 9 acres, thousands, or tens of thousands of feet away. If anything, notification rules should be based upon distances between the physical residential structures. LOWERING COST OF LONG-TERM RENTALS (Reference letter 1/12/2024 Heather Kimball RE: Announcing Jan 23 Council Meeting) This letter acknowledges the "inflationary pressures TARs have on long-term rental rates." Who benefits if property owners are able to increase the rent for their long-term property? Bill 121 may help reduce inflationary pressures on long-term rentals, however, Bill 121 will also REDUCE THE MONEY WHICH OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS ARE ABLE TO DERIVE FROM RENTING OUT A BEDROOM. Promoting Bill 121 supports the reduction of revenue generation potential for property owners/occupants. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 8 of 14 Additionally, Bill 121 prevents a long-term renter, from subsidingtheir income via renting rooms. My daughter rents a small home (long- term). She presently rents a room out (short-term) to help with her. expenses. She has small children in the home and does not want a long-term renter to cohabitate. Bill 121 will prevent my daughter from earning extra income. EXCESSIVE AND BURDENSOME NOTIFICATION REQUIRMENTS WITH BIAS AGAINST TAR OPERATORS What extent of public notification is required for zoning "changes"? Is Bill 121 prescribing a more expansive notification system for TAR registration, when there is no change in residential use? Why do operators on large parcels have to notify other property owners whose homes may be thousands, or tens of thousands of feet away? Bill 121 goes too far in alerting others of a non-issue. Neighbors don't need to be warned or alerted that a "residential property" is going to be used for "residential purposes." The fact that money changes hands is a private matter, and is of no business to neighbors. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 9 of 14 Moreover, Bill 121 mandates that the operators notify neighbors of the number of permitted guests (gatherings and overnights) as if to invite the neighbors to be on the lookout for higher occupancy. Bill 121 requires that the notifications include grievance procedures. Do all currently enacted public notification policies mandate that grievance procedures be included in the notification? Further, it is simply SHOCKING that Bill 121 would include specific directives that instruct disgruntled neighbors to "call the police" with noise complaints. I am not aware of any other law which specifically directs a person to "call the police." Involving police in any matter is a personal decision of significant consequence. Will ALL of the currently enacted nuisance laws be amended to specifically prescribe that people "call the police?" Noise "complaints" are not conclusive proof that any law has been broken. The validity of a noise violation is based upon scientific measurements of audible decibels as established by an authority. Noise violations are not measured by the amount of subjective neighbor upset. If Bill 121 is going to instruct people to call the police, why doesn't Bill 121 also help protect operators by warning neighbors about the implications and illegalities of making FALSE REPORTS. If Bill 121 is going to instruct people to call the police, why doesn't Bill 121 also help operators, by prescribing what operators should do in BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 10 of 14 • response to false or unsubstantiated reporting of noise violations by neighbors? The excessive and largely meritless notification requirements in Bill 121 will serve to INVITE UNREST AMONG NEIGHBORS. Pitting neighbor against neighbor. The language in Bill 121 CLEARLY conveys a bias AGAINST TAR operators. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND ABSENCE OF CLEARLY DEFINED REVIEW AND APPEAL PROCESS Registration renewal should not be based upon subjective measures and judgment. Registrations should be GUARANTEED to be renewed as long as the specific, quantifiable requirements are met — such as parking, taxation, etc. No owner should EVER be barred in perpetuity from operating a TAR. BILL 121'Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 11 of 14 • ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LIMITING AND/OR PROHIBITING TARs: If you reduce the supply of TARs: • The rates for the remaining available TARs will increase. Rental income and profits will INCREASE for the current rental segment. • As a result tourism will decrease. • Reduced tourism, reduces economic prosperity. • Income invested back into the community by current TARs will DECREASE. TARs provide jobs in RURAL AREAS. Without these rural jobs, people will have to travel into larger towns (Kailua-Kona, Waimea, Hilo) for employment opportunities. This results in increased transportation costs, increased traffic, increased pollution, increased commute time, increased unemployment, lower labor rates and increased unemployment or underemployment. WHY A DISTINCTION BETWEEN OWNER HOSTED VS OPERATOR HOSTED. What are the duties of an Operator host? What are the duties of an Owner host? Are the duties the same ? Do the duties include "supervision and oversight" to make sure guests follow the rules? BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 12 of 14 If the duties are the same, and if the guests are "supervised by a host" then why is Bill 121 disallowing Operator hosted TARs, while allowing the Owner hosted TARs to continue? No property owner should be precluded from operating a TAR on the basis of whether the TAR is Operator vs Owner hosted. Bill 121 is a meritless infringement on private property rights on the basis of Operator vs Owner hosting. Owner vs. Operator hosting has NOT been quantifiably proven to result in any better/worse neighbor impact. The NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT does not change. Operator Hosting, affords JOBS for the operators. The obvious reason for Bill 121 to prevent operator hosting, is to FORCE an owner to operate the TAR, and thereby prevent absentee owners from being able to generate income from owned-assets. Bill 121 prevents owners from generating income from their privately owned assets? (Reference letter 1/12/2024 Heather Kimball RE: Announcing Jan 23 Council Meeting) This letter acknowledges that Bill 121 is intended to "reduce the speculative investment of properties." Property owners pay property taxes. TARs generate excise tax. Tourists drive coastal economies. Owners have the right to pursue maximum return on their assets. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 13 of 14 UHERO DATA 2023 suggests that the %TAR is Hawaii is too high, in comparison to "other cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas." This is clearly a flawed comparison. Comparing the % of TARs in coastal/island properties to major-metropolis cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas is tantamount to misrepresenting the research data to support a desired outcome. Las Vegas has a MASSIVE revenue stream derived from business and trade exhibitions, and of course gambling. Los Angeles has extensive commerce outside of tourism (including global shipping hubs). Instead, compare the TAR% in Hawaii TO OTHER CITIES (COASTAL, SIMILAR POPULATION, SIMILAR COMMERCE ACTIVITIES) WHICH DERIVE THE SAME % INCOME FROM TOURISM. The percentage of TAR to total housing will be much more similar to Hawaii. BILL 121 Public Feedback submitted via email 1/22/2024 11:00 HST Page 14 of 14