Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0739.013 2016-2018Testimony by Tom Burton in favor of Bill 108 COUNTY of 101 8 APR 2 8 P, -k0% tlpC . Page 1 of 3 Introduction My name is Tom Burton. Representing only myself, I write in favor of control of short-term rentals. Mahalo to all committee members for allowing me to testify, and, to Council Members Eoff and Kanuha for getting this ball rolling. Short-term vacation rentals are vexing governments throughout Hawaii and the world. Their social damage is a fast-moving crisis that so far evades a complete solution anywhere, to my knowledge; so it should come as no surprise that our first attempt, Bill 108, falls well short of ideal. By suggesting changes, I mean no disrespect to the blood, sweat, and tears that have gotten us this far. The rest of this testimony is divided into three parts: essential improvements, suggestions, and creative options. I'll address the first part also in oral testimony. Essential improvements These three improvements must be included into, or at least hinted at, in the bill you pass; otherwise, you run the risk of going through these motions for nothing. ; t f .a Section 1 of Bill 108 presents its purpose in tactical terms: where, what, and how. I propose to first state the goals of the act: why we need it. To preserve affordable housing; to bring in more revenue; to try to shape the growth of short -terms rentals so that rental income and taxes outweigh the social costs of displaced residents; to keep Hawaii County a nice place to live—these ',are some of the goals you might consider. Stated goals could build a moral consensus and guide you toward better legislation, and they would make the legal argument for a social need to regulate short-term rentals. The County may need this argument in court. Liget grandfathering This photo shows a typical weekday in Los Angeles in 1960. Growing up nearby, I watched the battle to clean this up. First, the big guys: industrial polluters had deep pockets, but they were few and easy to spot. But the rest of us, the small fries whose only crime was being too numerous, were most of the problem. If Los Angeles had grandfathered A-, e little guys forever, LA today would be worse than Beijing on a bad day. Planning Committee Meeting, April 24 2018 Testimony by Tom Burton in favor of Bill 108 Page 2 of 3 Grandfathering works only when the rules are ahead of the curve; and when is a clumsy democratic process ever ahead of the curve? The social costs of rampant STRs are already severe—unacceptable in places—and sure to worsen. Those STRs in place now, and the new ones who slide in before we get our act together, cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Grandfatherings in Bill 108 need amortization periods, perhaps dependent upon zone, after which they expire. So, current owners would suffer some economic loss, to be balanced against the social need argued in the purpose of the bill. Amortization periods stated in the bill won't be credible, unless the bill you pass spells out their details, and how they will be administered and enforced. To reduce the administrative and enforcement cost of this. effort, owners must be strongly encouraged, through the permit and enforcement system, to provide complete and accurate data to the County. Voluntary disclosures by owners can be verified by administrative work, and by complaints from neighbors. If informed neighbors choose not to complain, and if the result is more unpermitted short-term rentals, maybe that's OK; maybe that's a form of neighborhood input that deserves respect. The County should burden the owner with the job to inform neighbors about his or her STR. Perhaps we can follow the example of the notification process required by Planning when one applies for a water variance during subdivision. There's so much more be said on this crucial topic, and I hope others will fill this gap. Are residential STRs a good fit for commercial or tourist zones? Perhaps more, or denser, short-term rentals should be allowed in certain zones, but I can argue that a proliferation of short-term rentals in a commercial or tourist area, with their low-paying nonunion jobs, will compete unfairly with hotels; and when the economy turns down, and tourists opt for the lower cost short-term rentals, those union jobs may disappear. I'm not sure about that, but it seems to me that these residential rental units may have no more right to exist in a commercial or tourist zone than they do in a residential zone. e Perhaps you could consider allowing short-term rentals in new housing stock, after a waiting period, perhaps depending on zone. Give a new building a chance to make it as a home before throwing it under the bus. The waiting periods won't be credible unless the bill you pass spells out their details, and how they will be administered and enforced. Planning Committee Meeting, April 24 2018 Testimony by Tom Burton in favor of Bill 108 Page 3 of 3 Is collecting TAT an essential element of the solution? Transient Accommodations Taxes (TAT) are a huge incentive to hide for small STR operations. Bill 108 burdens the County to assist the State in collection of TAT for short-term rentals, with little return for the County. This effect would be worse if home owners, who live.in their homes, are saddled with TAT for renting out rooms, because the TAT robs them of income that they would have spent in the community. Bill 108, in Section 3, currently avoids this issue by excluding such operations from the definition of "short-term vacation rental." Unfortunately, these operations are part of the numerous small fries who will do us in, if we exempt them all, forever. Could we possibly come up with a new label for these operations, one that will allow us to raise their property taxes a bit, and regulate their numbers, without triggering the collection of TAT? Planning. Committee Meeting, April 24 2018