HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0236.041 2024-20261 1
plPCPUJED
sit q7
comm.9-56
From: R Kehau Schofield
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2025 10:55 PM
To: } Council Testimony
Subject: testimony re: bill hearing #47-25 scheduled for May 6 re:TVRs
Please enter my comments and questions into testimony prior to first draft bill hearing #47-u '
scheduled for May 6 re: TVRs, and provide confirmation of receipt. Mahalo, cp
Rene Kehaulani Schofield -=
15-2784 Maiko Street , -c
Pahoa HI 96778
Rene.Schofield@gmail.com
(807)494-9540
I am a native Hawaiian hosted TVR owner-operator in Pahoa HI, 96778, and have listed my property
with AIRBNB since 2008, long.before any attempts at regulating vacation rentals were even
considered. I have never had a complaint from neighbors (which can be verified by the HI county
planning office), and I have ALWAYS paid required tax payments on time (GE, TAT and HI County
TAT, in addition to property taxes). This draft bill has some gaping shortcomings in clarity and
purpose. I would like to comment specifically on the following and recommend changes for clarity and
consideration:
Section 6-40 Definitions
(3) "host"..."is on the same property as TVR and who resides there while TVR is rented. This
language is punitive to an owner who elects to vacate a primary residence while rented. It is an
overreach of regulation on a private property and impacts an owner's ability to supplement income on
their personally owned private residence. In our case, our family home is adjacent and in ear and eye
shot of rented TVR. Recommend: add the words, "Whose principal home is on OR ADJACENT" and
"who RESIDES NEARBY while the TVR is rented".
Section 6-42 Rulemaking authority
This first sentence, language is vague and nonspecific granting rule making authority for any future
rules to finance and director of planning. As written, it allows all future rules to be determined by these
two directors, an open door to make future rules without due process of impacts and community input
into decisions affecting the owned personal properties of hosts. We cannot adhere to rules that we
have to clear guidance on, or to take away our right to input into decisions affecting us and our
residences.
Section 6-45 Registration
(a) (5) specifics needed-declaration health/safety requirements as MAY BE required. We cannot
register what is NOT clearly stated, or in this case may not even have been thought up yet.
(6) is this process to be streamlined for owners-hosts? Further run-around to get tax clearances is a
process already verifiable on county finance HI DoTAX website. Why doesn't the county provide its
own tax clearance documentation? If owner-hosts have paid their taxes, the county already can
document it. Why further burden and threaten taxpaying citizens?
Ref.To: MI
Ref. �:�::__�y :� — 6 2025
(8) signed statement acknowledging what? That HI County ca further tax us by raising real property
tax liability of the owner? This is double, even triple taxation. Owner-hosts provide an important
function by bringing local traffic to our small communities here in Puna, where they spend at local
markets, small businesses and restaurants. Triple taxing us is NOT in the county's or island's best
interest.
(9) "other info/material may be required by Director of Finance" again, nonspecific documentation
requests and open authority to request it is an overreach of authority that penalizes owner-hosts once
more. We cannot meet moving targets and this offers Director of finance an open door to create more
regulations without any due process and community input.
Section 6-46 Failure to Register
(a) (2) and (3) civil fine escalations are extremely high and are punitive. $10,000 and possibly per day
based on the whim and wish of Director of planning, is so highly punitive. I am a mom and pop TVR
with only 1 listing; We are Kupuna supplementing retired incomes. This effort to shut down TVRs has
no graded approach, but an intense fine structure destined to shut down any TVR with such a small
impact. Again, two central points are at issue: DISTURBANCE and TAXATION. Why doesn't the
county go after those who have documented disturbance in their location, AND do not have
documentation proving TAXES are paid? This would be a more targeted approach to compliance that
penalizing those of us who have met those two criteria.
Section 6-51 Registration Required
(A) "hosting platforms..."
(1) (A) registration fee of$1000..." do you expect hosting platforms to pay this too? In addition to
hosts registering? This is a straight up money grabbing attempt, which will likely backfire. If hosting
platforms like AIRBNB also have to pay this fee PER LISTING, do you really think they will continue
to host owner hosted listings? They will drop us. There will be no listings available , especially in
smaller communities like ours, and the taxes gained from our TVRs will be lost. How will the county
make up that revenue shortfall when they regulate us out of business?
Section 6-53 Violation; penalties
Once again, this section penalizes all owner hosts by penalizing the hosting platforms that support
reservations and payments. Civil fine structures are impossibly high for both Kamala owned TVRs
and Hosting platforms, who will be held hostage to fines for owner hosted properties, which in turn
may shut down our businesses which only bring economic gains to our small communities.
In conclusion, create partnerships with owners and hosting platforms that benefit our communities.
Avoid penalizing with steep fines, vague and nonspecific regulations that have not even been thought
up yet, and prioritize holding accountable those hosts who:
Have NOT paid their taxes and
HAVE documented complaints in the TVR neighborhoods.
These two points of focus will provide plenty of regulatory oversight, tax revenue generation, and
priority that does not penalise the rest of us who actually meet these TVR standards.
Mahalo,
Rene Kehaulani Schofield
2