The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0236.035 2024-2026 P 1 PCPLUED NI 47 C OMM,236 From: carola Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2025 6:55 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: OPPOSITION TO BILL 47 c C) CD'(-) To: Hawaii County Council am Subject: Opposition to Bill 47 U-: -< Date: May 4,2025 -nz- From: Carola Peterson . , Address: Captain Cook Phone:808 201 0739 L Dear Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 47 in its current form. While I appreciate the County's effort to address the short-and mid-term rental market, I believe this bill is premature, potentially harmful to residents, and introduces legal and economic risks that have not been properly evaluated. Concerns About Timing,and Transparency Bill 47 is presented as a "registration-only" measure,yet it is being introduced just months before the anticipated release of an economic impact study.The outcomes of that study are critical to informed, balanced policymaking. Moving forward with this bill before the study's publication raises serious questions about the motivations and data (or lack thereof) informing this legislation. As the Hawaii Island Rental Property Alliance(HIRPA) points out, Bill 47 creates mechanisms for enforcing as-yet-undetermined rules. It is unreasonable to require operators to register publicly before the economic and legal implications are fully understood.This erodes trust and suggests a potentially punitive intent cloaked in administrative formality. Key Problems with Bill 47 1.Cancellation Based on Any Violation The bill allows for permit cancellation based on any activity or structure on a property that violates county law, no matter how unrelated to the rental activity.This opens the door for excessive enforcement and penalization over minor or unrelated infractions. Suggested Amendment to Section 6-48: Comm. Ref. To:11 _ Ref. Dc;a 1 (c)Notwithstanding subsection (b), any self-identification of non-compliance with existing building or land use codes made at registration shall forever preempt county enforcement action on that specific variance(s). 2.Administrative Enforcement and Foreclosure The bill would allow the County to impose liens and even initiate foreclosure over unpaid administrative fees.This is an extreme overreach that could jeopardize residents' primary homes and worsen housing insecurity. Suggested Amendment to Section 6-41: Strike subsections(e)and(f). The County should not weaponize code enforcement through financially ruinous legal action, especially without judicial oversight. 3. Inconsistency and Lack of Clarity There are significant conflicts between Bill 47 and Chapter 25 of the County Code, and no clear enforcement protocols have been defined.Without specific procedures and performance benchmarks, there is no reason to believe this bill will be more effective than Bill 108—or that it won't create even more confusion and litigation. 4. Disproportionate Penalty Structure The proposed$10,000 fine for violations is grossly disproportionate to the potential harm caused by operating a short-term rental in violation of Bill 47.Such a punitive amount far exceeds fines for much more serious violations—including those involving public safety or environmental harm. For example,the fine for operating a motor vehicle under the influence(DUI)in Hawaii is typically under$1,500,and fines for illegal dumping,animal cruelty,or even certain forms of assault can also be significantly lower. Imposing a$10,000 fine on a resident—potentially over a technicality or regulatory discrepancy— could be financially devastating and is not aligned with the severity of the alleged offense.If the goal is compliance,then penalties should be proportional,corrective in nature,and allow for due process.This excessive fine structure reinforces the perception that the bill is more about punishment than regulation. Economic and Social Context 2 We are in a period of historic inflation, declining tourism revenues, and an increasingly unstable national funding environment. Local families are struggling with rising gas and food prices. Now is not the time to impose sweeping new regulations that may reduce income sources for homeowners, stifle small businesses, and create costly legal entanglements for the County and its residents. Recommendation ' I strongly urge the Council to postpone any action on Bill 47 until the economic impact study is available and thoroughly reviewed. Only then can we make evidence-based decisions that support fair regulation while protecting residents' rights and livelihoods. Let's use public resources wisely and allow the democratic process to proceed in good faith. Effective legislation requires clarity, balance, and transparency—qualities Bill 47 currently lacks. Thank you for your attention and service to the community. Sincerely, Carola Peterson 3