HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0236.060 2024-2026P/C C;ll
.bill V
60PIK. 2%,
From: Kristina Anderson
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 9:17 AM
To: Council Testimony
�CD
Subject: Opposed to Bill 47
< --,
May 19, 2025
_0
C
-1
Honorable Councilmembers,;
Thank you for taking my testimony. I am opposed to Bill 47.
Well, I cannot believe we are back here again, Less than 6 months after you all decided your
original TAR bill was so bloated, so unpopular, so complicated and so unpassable, that you
pulled it. But you now come forward with Bill 47, which you claim with excessive pats on your
backs is nothing more than a "simple registration." After spend inglwasting two years of time
and taxpayer resources for literally nothing, you trot this thing out with self-congratulatory
fanfare like it's some kind of minimalist masterpiece.
While at first glance, the new bill appears to be "simple registration," but indeed, a closer
inspection reveals this is actually a malevolent trojan horse loaded with more land mines than
anything else you ever heretofore proposed. It's also still replete with some of the things
"Community" hated the most.
One example: Enormous, targeted punitive fines. And the mandate that unpaid fines for
not registering will lead to having your property liened and sold as though you didn't pay your
property taxes! What? A minor civil violation should not lead to a tax lien. Is that legal? You are
losing your home not because of taxes but because of simple, civil non-compliance where you
didn't even get the chance to cure the violation? Draconian!
Or this: I don't understand why a host and an owner are " jointly and severally liable" for the
fines and violations. What if, it's a tenant who lives on site and is just responsible for a few
managerial duties? I think this could be unconstitutional. How can someone not involved in
the ownership of a property be responsible for its fines? It's absurd. What if they are a renter,
and they don't own a piece of real property in which to affix a lien on? This was in the
previous legislation and I hated it then too.
These are just two examples that I find troubling in this so-called simple registration bill.
There's much more.
I am not in this business and have no skin in the game. But what infuriates me no end is the
way you councilmembers seem to think there are some ginormous sums of money being
made by some kupuna hosts or single moms renting out a spare room or ohana and you have
to clamp down with regulation. Comm. *N.
o
Ref. To: fl
i Ref. Dote 2 1
I have to honestly ask again. Don't you have anything better to work on? Something that
helps the community instead of making life harder?
And speaking of life being harder for Hawaii Island residents, international tourism to the
United States and travel in general has dropped off a cliff, in case you haven't noticed. We
are headed for a major, self-inflicted recession imposed by the Trump administration, which
as longtime residents of this island know, will hit us doubly or triply hard and will make Covid
supply chain shortages and hyper inflation look like the good old days. Coming soon!
So once you shut down every short term rental like you dream of, you will finally see our
tourist numbers really plummet, as well as your 3% tax revenue. I just cannot understand why
you don't get that some tourists want a choice. Some chose hotels, sure. But others don't
want that experience. They don't want to be crammed in a hotel, paying resort fees and
eating expensive hotel meals every night. If they don't get a choice, they will simply vacation
elsewhere. Hawaii is a very expensive destination, between the rental cars, per -day highway
taxes, soon -to -rise to 11 % TAT, (bringing us to the most expensive accommodations taxes in
the nation,) and exorbitant food prices, as well as the lengthy travel distance to get here. They
will just skip it and go to Mexico or Costa Rica. Wouldn't you?
I also resent the implication that STVR owners are tax scofflaws, as claimed by Stephanie
Donoho, hotel and resort lobbyist, and others.
It's virtually impossible not to pay (collect) STVR taxes here.... because why? The state
Department of Taxation employs none other than Granicus to track down all the tax scofflaws.
If you aren't paying, or don't have your tax ID listed as required, you'll get a big fat white
envelope from them with a bill for three years of back taxes, along with huge penalties and
interest. Good times.
Why would you take that chance when you can simply pass the taxes through to the guest?
You;d be absolutely stupid not to collect and remit your taxes as required.
Bottom line is that if Hawaii County wants to put every STVR—hosted or not --out of
business, wouldn't it just be easier to write a bill that does that and be done? Be transparent?
Yet you spend your time on this nonsense, attempting to put lipstick on a pig. Again. After the
community and at least one planning commission rejected it outright. After endless parades
of people gave their time to testify multiple times in opposition to 121. After you went down
rabbit hole after rabbit hole with that universally hated, frankenstonian bill for two solid years.
Why not be proactive and help the community prepare for the upcoming economic
catastrophe instead of thinking of new ways to limit our ability to make income and maybe
participate in the state's largest industry? We do understand that you with your high county
council salaries of $86k annually plus benefits are safe and don't have to worry about tariffs or
economic conditions like the rest of us low-income peasants. At least until the next election.
Really shameful that you cannot use your well -paid positions to actually help constituents for
a change.
Sincerely.,
Kristina Anderson
Captain Cook