HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0236.165 2024-2026Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 7:42 AM
To: ca rola
Cc: Council Testimony
Subject: RE: OPPOSITION TO BILL 47, Draft 2
From: carola
Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2025 10:36 AM
Subject: OPPOSITION TO BILL 47, Draft 2
To: Hawaii County Council
Subject: Opposition to Bill47
Date: June 4, 2025
From: Carola Peterson
Address: Captain Cook
Phone: 808 2010739
Dear Council Members,
P / Counc;l l
151(1 41
6mm. M
C
Ccc
N
C'J—C
'
A
�
Comm.KR LA V
Rer. Tc: ' E
Ref. Date JUN - 4 2025
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Bill 47, Draft 2 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.
1
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:
(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 instance, fines for driving under the influence (DUI) in Hawaii are typically under $1,500. Illegal
dumping, animal cruelty, and even some assault -related misdemeanors can carry lower penalties.
Applying a $10,000 fine for a code violation, possibly committed without malicious intent, threatens
families' financial security and undermines the principle of proportionality in law enforcement.
Economic and Social Context
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.
Constructive Path Forward
Rather than rushing this bill through under uncertain assumptions, we respectfully urge the Council to:
Defer Bill47 until the economic impact study is complete and can guide a clear, evidence -
based path forward.
Develop a targeted and fair registration program that includes enforceable protections for
voluntary registrants and clear criteria for participation.
Include a limited amnesty period to acknowledge the economic and structural realities that
many local families currently face —allowing for good -faith compliance without fear of excessive
penalties or retroactive enforcement.
Final Recommendation
I urge the Council to take a more balanced, transparent, and community -oriented approach before
enacting any legislation that could have long-lasting consequences for residents and the local economy.
Let's ensure that any regulation is not only enforceable but also equitable, well-timed, and grounded in
real -world impact.
Thankyou foryour time, public service, and consideration of these points.
Sincerely,
Carola Peterson