HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0236.085 2024-2026From:
Liz Lees
Sent:
Monday, May 19, 2025 7.49 AM
,
To:
Council Testimony
o,
Subject:
Bill 47- Oppose
tJ
Dear Council,
I have written many times regarding short term rental regulations for Hawaii county but I
feel the HIRPA analysis and suggestions are some of the best to date, so I have included
them in my testimony opposing the current version of Bill47.
Hawaii's tourism sector is seeing a significant downturn in visitors this year and this will
impact many sectors beyond those of us who host short term visitors.
Please pause any additional regulations until after the economic study approved by
council is complete and council has better understanding of the impact on our local
economy.
Public Introduction.
On May 6, the Council Committee (PCPLUED) heard Bill47 and a small group of folks testifying
in opposition (33 written testimonies, approximately +/-25 oral testimonies) - and one paid
lobbyist in support. The bill passed with little meaningful discussion.
Heather presented a PowerPoint full of charts and info substantially taken from the 2024
UHERO Housing Factbook, but it was ultimately ineffective in explaining WHY this council is so
determined to pass legislation. If you dig deeper into her statistics, you have to scratch your
head even more.
Her first point was that there is "likely a housing cost impact" of STRs. Then, she provided a
study based in Barcelona, one based in Los Angeles, and one based in London. What the
studies showed was that adding or subtracting 50 STR units in either Barcelona or LA resulted in
a 2% positive change to rent prices.
*Applied to Hawaii County, if you use UHERO's median rental price of $1800/month, a 2%
decrease would save renters $36.00 a month.
The study in London found that doubling the STIR stock resulted in an 8% increase in rents.
Comm. g • S
Ref. To:
Ref. Date
*Applied to Hawaii County, eliminating 3700+ STRs (half the UHERO estimated STRs) would
decrease monthly rents by $72.00 a month (4%).
Question: Are those savings enough to make a difference? Are they worth the reduction in
income the rentals provide residents? That is certainly a question better answered AFTER the
economic impact study is complete.
Her second point was to show that the number of rentals have increased while the enforcement
fund has been nearly depleted.
*Applied to Hawaii County, which has repeatedly said that they have been unable to enforce
existing regulations effectively (and we agree), these charts show we spent nearly $2 million
throwing good money after bad.
Question: Why spend more money without changing how we implement enforcement or the
rules we enforce?
Her following points were to state the objectives of the bill, which are to identify the number and
location. of all STRs, to:
Ensure taxes are paid, refill the enforcement coffers, make sure we have accurate contact info
for owners, and identify illegal operators (particularly unhosted in residential and ag zones).
*Applied to Hawaii County, which passed a bill last year requiring all property owners to provide
contact info for all real property; this bill isn't needed.
Further, this bill does nothing to help the county determine what is hosted and what isn't
(anyone can still say their rental is hosted when it is not).
What this bill boils down to is: MONEY
It compels registration($), creates fines for failure($), and provides easy identification for
enforcing future restrictions ($) or eliminating them, and compels booking platforms to be
complicit in enforcement ($).
We are advocating for three specific, responsible measures:
1. Delay final action on Bill 47 until the County's economic impact study is released.
The Council itself ordered this study to better understand the short- and mid-term rental industry. It should inform
any policy —not follow it. We believe this delay will ensure smarter regulation, aligned with actual data and
measurable outcomes - or even show that regulation will not result in meaningful, positive change, and is
unncessary.
2. Protect registrants through clear, written amnesty provisions.
Many residents operate in good faith but may have unpermitted structures, legacy additions, or zoning that
doesn't currently align with their legal use. These folks are not criminals —they're community members trying to
make ends meet. We're asking the Council to create protections for those who voluntarily register and self -
disclose, so that this doesn't turn into a "gotcha° enforcement mechanism down the road.
3. Build policy based on trust, not fear.
After the experience of Bill 121, where late -stage amendments caused a surge in fear and confusion, it's
understandable that many in our community remain skeptical. We're not encouraging mistrust —we're responding
to it. Our goal is to make sure that Bill 47 includes the necessary protections so that people can participate in
good faith, and the county can start to restore public trust.
We Support Regulation —But It Must Be Done Right
Liz Lees
77-110 Nahale PL
Kailua Kona, HI 96740