HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.572 2022-2024P / PCPUJ
60W . C15
RE: BILL 121
Aloha: In order to better understand this proposal, I printed it out. I could no longer find the
specific visitor destination sites, unless, as stated in the bottom half of p.15, all of Hamakua,
North Hilo, South Hilo, Ka'u, Kohala, Kona and Puna, the whole island, are. No details were
given. In addition, when checking what was permitted in the different districts, only
abbreviations were given. I had to look up and search through the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2016 Edition, as amended), to find the meanings of RS, RD, RM, etc.
I feel the average person needs to hire a translator to understand the proposal.
So far, all these new regulations have only benefitted the county money wise. The owners of
legal, so-called non -conforming TAR's have had to do a lot of work, and pay additional
moneys, which are now proposed to go up by an additional $500 per year. There has been no
benefit to them, and some have been prohibited from operating, after having been a successful
rental for years, bringing GE and TAR taxes into coffers. The reason given for the original laws
was that the county would go after illegal rentals. As far as I can see, nothing has been done in
that regard, encouraging people to stay under the radar and rake in more money.
Also, every new rule you have come up with and are trying to come up with is back -dated to
become effective during a time that it did not exist.
It seems curious to me that the original regulations were introduced shortly after Pele took the
two Kapoho subdivisions with numerous vacation rentals, and any attempts by those owners
to establish new vacation rentals in another location were automatically turned down by the
head of the Planning Department, helped tremendously by back -dating the effective date of
those rules.
The above makes me feel that the county is not acting in the best interest of many, in order to
make a few happy! Please do not adopt these rules!
Magdalene Phillips
low