HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0928.028 2022-2024t' / cowl cil
Re5.556-2y
Cow. US
From:
trustharry
Sent:
Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:27 AM
To:
Council Testimony
Subject:
SUPPORT SILL 556
Importance:
High
Aloha Heather, t
r_
In an article in Civil Beat News about Bill 121's attempt to further curb vacation rentals
on the Big Island there was this argument: ""There's so much outside investment and
speculation in the county. Property is picked up and land -bagged by outside investors and
used for transient accommodations instead of being made available to local residents,"
The argument is not valid because the current bill 108 cut off the availability of new
STVR permits back in 2019. Since then, no more STVR permits have been allowed to
be granted. Because the `outside investor" argument has been dead since 2019, now
bill 121 is going after hosted vacation rentals. But by it's very definition "Hosted"
means that the owner lives on the premises and "owner" mean "local resident".
Hosted vacation rentals are not owned by "outside" investors; they are owned by Big
Island residents who use the income to offset the high cost of living in Hawaii. When
you have to pay a million dollars for a house that would cost $350K on the mainland,
the vacation rental income helps to offset your high mortgage payment.
Or, you may be a long time resident with limited income, or on a fixed income, and the
extra income from vacation rental helps you pay your everyday expenses. The extra
income may even allow you to remain in Hawaii instead of having to move to the
mainland. It is really a good idea to force homeowner's to sell at a loss and leave
Hawaii because they can't make ends meet anymore? Does reducing land value really
help the local people? I don't think any local person wants to see the value of their
property go down. Nor does the County; because that will reduce the income from
property taxes. You said your bill is not intended to put anyone out of business, but
why have the bill at all if that is not your intention? What is the intension if not to put
people out of business? If vacation rentals don't go out of business how will more
rental housing be made available for local families?? If people aren't forced to sell and
move back to the mainland, how will more housing be made available for local
families??
And think about this: The money that tourist bring in to the Big Island doesn't just help
support the owner's of the vacation rentals, it supports the cleaners that the owners
• a 1.
. �rtM�l,sr,in
hire, it supports the owners and staff of the restaurants the vacationers frequent; not
to mention all the other gift shops, grocery stores and even the big box stores like
Walmart. Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs has never been a good idea.
Of course the Hawaii Tourism Authority supports the bill; they are in the pocket of the
big hotel chains. But on the Big Island, hotel occupancy has been 75% to 100%, so
vacation rentals aren't harming the hotel industry on the Big Island. In fact, private
vacation rentals bring in millions of dollars of tourist's money that benefits everyone,
the home owner, businesses and their employees. Many of these tourist only come to
the Big Island because they can afford the cost of private vacation rentals, but not the
exorbitant hotel room cost.
Bill 108 was also supposed to lower rents for local people and make more housing
available to purchase. That did not materialize. Rents and home prices have actually
sky rocketed over the past 5 years. Bill 121 won't help local renters either. The
landlords who rent to locals are different people than vacation rental hosts. It's their
fault that rents are so high, not vacation rental owners.
Trying to further hamstring owners of hosted vacation rentals with ill-advised bill 121
will actually do more harm than good. It's called "unintended consequences".
Respectfully, Harry M. Pritikin homeowner and resident of the big Island for 44 years.
z