Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0739.199 2016-2018Coll UNTY OF HAWAII From: Bail armand �, To: Poindexter, Valerie; Chung, Aaron; Lee Loy. Sue; Ohara, Eileen; Ruggles, Jennifer; David h u; N 7. 0 Eoff, Karen; Richards Tim; Council Testimony Subject: Bill 108 letter of response � M Date: Thursday, July 05, 2018 3:05:31 PM �i ll l0q Members of the Council, Mayor Kim, Island neighbors I would like to open by registering my dismay that the council continues to push forward any legislation of vacation rentals on Hawaii Island during this eruption and before there is a sense of how many have already been lost, or any idea of how profoundly this eruption will be affecting our communities in the near and long term. To table this measure until the eruption is over would be appropriate and a great relief to those of us who are already very much in harm's way economically. I come before you as someone who has lived here for nearly a decade, who years before that bought a home here that we could afford to own only if people rented it out on vacation. This is the dream that many have, to buy a home where they will live out their lives, and to offer it to visitors until they themselves can move into it at a future time. The advantages of this particular form of investment to the island economy are many, in that local people are employed in the process, and the influx of tourism boosts all the local businesses. Since May 4, conditions here have radically changed. We are told there is no end in sight, for our island. The current eruption of Kilauea and the closure of the park have called into question how we will be able to sustain ourselves here, and there is no obvious array of solutions from which to choose. Speaking for ourselves, our life savings are invested in our home and in our wedding business that includes a little house in the forest on a lot separate from where we live. That little house was built for honeymooners, to appeal to a sense of adventure, offer up privacy, and speak to the freedoms of not having to prepare meals. There is no place to keep food except a tiny refrigerator. There is no place to keep clothes other than a couple of hooks for some overnight items. It was never intended to be other than a place for travelers and in particular honeymooning couples. It would be nice if Bill 108 could be amended to exempt what might be termed "holiday structures", In a spirit of fairness to those of us who actually live and work here it would be nice if Bill 108 could be amended to offer those whose vacation rental structure is in the neighborhood in which they live the same status as if it was an ohana on their home TMK. There is no market today for our home or our business, for all the successes we enjoyed before May 2018. This drop in visitors was not anticipated when Bill 108 was conceived, and it deserves attention first and foremost now. Our experience in many ways mirrors that of business all over this island. We are still open for business as they say. There are people who come to Volcano despite all the negative press because they made their wedding plans long ago. They ask me what about the volcano. I tell them my impressions and my experiences, and they come, and they are awed and amazed. But after the park closed for the indefinite future, no one made future wedding plans with us. It is hard to reach those who are not actively making travel plans. Eventually this will change. The park will reopen sometime. Should we opt to go elsewhere until conditions permit us to make a living here again, presumably there will be renters for our original home. The honeymoon suite is another story. No one can live there, unless they are willing to live without a wardrobe, without personal possessions, and intend to eat out all the time. There would still be a market for it someday. The earthquakes have not harmed it. Presumably in a year or two we will have our park back. In the mean time, we would remain subject to the provisions of Bill 108 even if we have little or even no business activities going on. This includes the so called good neighbor- policy appended to iteration 3. In a few short weeks we will have to decide how we are going to move forward with our lives. If this bill goes through as it reads today, our options will be unnecessarily limited. Whether we elect to stay on island or off, I have no idea how we are supposed to comply with provisions of the good neighbor policy that demand we be present 24 hours a day, seven days a week, present within an hour upon demand of a neighbor or official whether we have guests or not. To be in compliance, we could not even go across the island, obtain medical treatment, let alone visit our children on the mainland. I guess the idea is that we would hire someone to sit in for us, to be available 24/7. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Presumably a whole new industry will spring up here of vacation home on call people who spend their entire work time waiting for a call that never comes, but cannot go anywhere. With or without a steady flow of visitors, how will any of us be able to afford to pay for such a service? How is this in any way a fair demand of any business? Qwm No. Ref. T®: �Pv RRf. DWA I 0 2018 ., ,s Doesn't it make more sense to directly address the issues that gave birth to this bill? In today's Hawaii Island big picture, doesn't it make more sense to look for ways to build the economy rather than tear it apart? If you are looking for a way to enforce collecting the TAT and GET from vacation rental owners who advertise and rent out and don't pay up, why not implement strategies for collection that would not cost the county a dime other than from new revenues collected. as an alternative to this bill 108. If the thoughts behind this bill are to enforce good neighbor noise abatement practices. why not go directly to the offending home owners? Why not a stipulation that any short term rental that allows guests of guests submit to the more rigorous rules designed to preserve neighborhood qualityj When there is a product recall, every similar product is not pulled from the shelves. Perhaps the practices used in product recall would be better applied here than universal rules. There is a lot more to be said about Bill no. 108. But for today, this is enough. The answer to noise problems and tax evaders should not include ruining lives of others who happen to fit an arbitrary definition that works out just fine for those in resort areas but not for Puna. Sincerely, Gail W Armand Volcano, HI