HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0675.626 2022-2024 P/ PcPLuD
fill 121
Cat.05
LAW OFFICE OF J. MTI'CHELL JOYNER
810 West Second Avenue
Anchorage,Alaska 99501
(907)274-5646 Fax: (907) 272-4851
mitchlaw@msn.com
J.Mitchell Joyner,Attorney at Law Cindy A.Colbert,Paralegal a ,.
October 18, 2024
Council Member Holeka Inaba co -<
Holeka.Inaba@hawaiicounty.gov
Dear Counsel Member Inaba, '
I am writing to you out of concern over the Bill 121 as it relates to Non-Conforming Use
Certificates. I am the property owner of a NUC property which has operated since 2015. I
purchased this property before regulations came into existence. I invested my family's assets into
this property because I believed there was a need for short term vacation rentals in Hawaii and
because I believed in the value of the Kona community. When the initial STVR regulations I
understood the need for some regulation and guidelines. Now I understand that the regulations
are being modified with an intent to phase out the STVR's completely. I believe this proposed
law is unfair and unnecessary.
When you limit the ability to pass on the property,with the NUC in place you substantially
change the nature of the property. Not only are you unfairly taking value away from a property
owner.but you are also taking property taxes away from the community. I currently pay 3 times
the property taxes of my neighbors who reside in their home. Why does the county want to cut
tax revenue income or corresponding gain to the community? If my heirs sell the home it will not
increase the availability of low cost housing. And what happens to all the jobs that STVR's
support?
If you want to be fair about it, why not allow all grandfathered NUC properties two (2)
transfers of the permit,by sale or inheritance. That would allow the NUC to be phased out more
slowly with less impact on the owners and the community.
I also understand that the new law creates new standards for the operation of NUC
properties. I have read the proposed and I don't believe these standards are too vague. As an
attorney I can tell you that the unfair application of any law invites litigation. I am sure that many
owners would strongly oppose the application of unfair measures. This would result in a drain to
the legal resources of the county. I recommend that you make any standards clear and fair. If
not, the Bill 121 will be seen as a thinly disguised law designed to rid the community of NUC
properties.
Finally, I understand that Bill 121 allows an owner to lose his NUC for 2 years if there are
two verified noise complaints. What protections are in place to prevent false reports by neighbors
who might simply complain because they object to an NUC? Will there be a hearing afforded to
owner before the NUC is suspended? What is the legal burden of proof? What are the appeal
rights an owner has? None of these consideration seem to have been taken into account in your
Bill.
I would urge you to vote NO on this Bill. The negatives of its enactment, loss of tax
revenue, loss of jobs, and potential litigation expense far outweigh any benefits.
to y,
amen . ner Comrv,. L\lot (OTC (0No
Ref. T o:U t L�Y
Ref. ie NOV - 8 2024