The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0236.104 2024-2026P / C,aIAl edI q'l From: Kent Giacomozzi ED Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1.48 PM .. C,,�- To: Council Testimony Subject: Opposition to Bill 47�' ca -< Opposition to Bill47 ^> We are writing to oppose Bill 47, which has been presented as a "registration -only" measure. History shows that such bills are rarely just about registration; they often serve as a gateway for more intrusive regulations. Given the recent failure of Bill 121, it is clear that the true intent behind this bill is to undermine TVRs. We struggle to understand why there is such a push for TVR regulation at this time, especially while an economic impact study is underway and many residents are facing financial pressures. TVRs have been a part of this community for decades, and yet, there is a rush to target them when there are more pressing issues like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security concerns affecting our constituents. For many, TVRs are a necessary source of income to cover basic expenses, especially for older residents like ourselves. Without the ability to operate a TVR, we would face difficult choices: sell our home, take on full-time work despite health challenges, and lay off the employees who help maintain our property. Instead of pushing more regulations that could force people to sell their homes or leave the island, the council should focus on enabling people to stay in the homes they already have —particularly those who rely on TVRs for financial stability. Why not wait for the results of the economic impact study and national issues to play out before introducing new regulations? Typically, when a bill fails, it cannot be reintroduced for two years. Yet, this bill is being reintroduced less than six months after the previous one failed. It would be more prudent to wait for the study's findings before moving forward with further regulation. Additionally, the bill's introduction lacks sufficient public notice and community input. We often learn of these proposals last-minute, leaving little time to respond. Many residents are unaware of these bills because they are not properly communicated through official channels. This lack of engagement should not be taken as a lack of interest. As former government employees, we understand the importance of proper public involvement, and the current process falls short. As for the bill itself, several key issues remain unaddressed: • It makes no allowance for the 2,600 family rental operators with significant unpermitted improvements. • It fails to account for long-term renters, farmers housing temporary workers, or other industries relying on short-term housing. • It imposes a blanket ban on TVRs in agricultural zoning. • The proposed fines for non-compliance are severe, and enforcement lacks due process d� protections. Conlon. 1 Ref. Date 2 1 202 The prohibition on TVRs in agricultural zones is especially concerning. Many small farmers rely on TVRs to supplement their income. How does targeting them promote local agriculture or support food security? We are told that agricultural zoning does not permit TVRs, yet Bed and Breakfasts are allowed in these zones. Why aren't TVRs, which are similar in nature, treated the same way? This seems arbitrary. In rural areas, where TVRs have minimal impact, why is this a priority? These areas are less likely to generate complaints, and many people prefer the experience of staying in a rural, nature -based setting rather than a crowded resort. Why not allow visitors to experience authentic agritourism? The idea of "vacation nodes" has been discussed, but it seems uncertain when (or if) they will materialize. Many properties in these proposed areas are zoned agricultural. Does this mean TVRs will be shut down indefinitely, or will there be a grandfather clause for those currently operating on agricultural Land? The proposed fines and criminalization of TVR operators for alleged permitting violations are extreme and unfair. It seems disproportionate to punish elderly residents who are simply trying to make ends meet. Given the challenges of verifying past permits and incomplete records, it would make more sense to have a grandfather provision or an "after -the -fact" permitting process, allowing time to resolve any discrepancies. This bill appears to be a "Trojan Horse" for further amendments aimed at shutting down TVRs. Previous attempts to restrict vacation rentals have not been in good faith, and we fear that this bill is no different. Proponents of anti -TV rental legislation have repeatedly attempted to push these measures through without considering the broader impact on local residents. ° For example, the requirement for TVR owners to replace their cesspools with septic systems before 2050 is arbitrary. Why are TVRs being singled out for this expense? Is this being proposed for long-term rentals as well? Additionally, the county is considering Al software for enforcing new regulations. Why not first enforce the existing 2018 rules and assess their effectiveness before adding more? Al is not yet reliable enough for this purpose, and mistakes could be costly. The Big Island has two forms of tourism: participatory tourism, which benefits locals, and extractive tourism, which benefits large corporations. This bill seems to prioritize the latter, redirecting revenue from local residents to mainland hotel conglomerates. We urge the council to reconsider Bill 47 and focus on solutions that allow residents to stay in their homes, support local businesses, and ensure fairness and due process in any new regulations. Sincerely, Steven Hooper and Kent Giacomozzi Residents of Volcano