Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-03 Testimony Megan IssacMel of 1 sf a -C T V"l- �-A Testimony in opposition to Bill 121 Date: 4/3/24 To: Windward Planning Commission From: Megan Isaac Magdalene, Hilo resident and STIR Operator (12 years) Aloha. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this legislation is likely the most fiscally irresponsible legislation ever to appear before your Commission. It's unethical and it's also illegal and will result in multiple law suits since it involves interference with property rights. Hosting is the largest industry sector: Given that there have been no successful initiatives to bring in new industry or employment 'at scale' to the island in a few generations (besides tourism), it is shocking that a Council would lean in so heavily to regulation and restrictions on the one industry that has provided income and generated economic activity throughout the island. A study done by Grassroots Institute on the $350 million value to the island economy is cited here: . "ttps://www.grassroutiristitute.otg/2U2/U3/hawaii-county-should-be-wary-of- short-term-rental-ban-kent-says/ Spending patterns of visitors favor the island when they choose hosted stays : Living in the city of Hilo with one of the poorest demographics in the entire USA (** reference is to census data) we are aware of how essential tourism is to East Hawaii. Why is this being ignored? It is well documented that the spending patterns of visitors staying in our communities is completely different from the spending pattern of guests in resorts and large hotels. Bill 121 if passed will harm the economy: The point was clearly made that Bill 121 will be devastating to an extremely vital sector. The testimony given was about the ways Bill 121 will harm the economy. STRs are also essential to our farming communities and to our economy as a whole.lt is easy to acknowledge that our economy lacks diversity. It would be better if the island's economy was more robust and did not rely so heavily on tourism but let's not take away the means that farmers have to supplement their income. A study done by UHHERO about the cause of high housing costs bein rooted over regulation is here: 'd at as by https://u hero.hawaii.edu/measuring-the-burden-of-housing-regulat 'd V Rwd 10 W Testimony presented to all Council -members on 1/23/24 has been like an economics lesson you would give 3rd graders on the subject of 'how our economy works.' It appeared extremely disrespectful that in the Council meeting so much testimony in opposition to this bill (from many sectors : residents, owner operators, attorneys, farmers and realtors) was dismissed and ultimately has been ignored to this point. Here are further concerns about Bill 121: • Listening to discussion afterwards amongst several council members revealed hostility toward STIR operators and a bias in their approach that is extremely concerning and not based in reality. A divisive narrative about the STIR hosting community bearing responsibility for unaffordable housing is not born out by facts but has served to polarize the community and hide the harm that will be caused if Bill 121 passes. • The authors of Bill 121 have commissioned no studies of the impact and yet a majority of the Council stated that they believe that they must proceed 'at speed' to regulate a highly functional part of our island economy? • It is a complete logical fallacy to suggest that this Bill should be driven by a concern for affordable housing. There is no 'affordable housing' if most are jobless and the economy is stripped bare. It should always be of concern to hear small farmers say that this will hurt their chances of survival. More jobs & better jobs are surely a bigger part of the solution to our housing crisis,not destroying an economic driver on our island? • With the presentation of a Bill in the Senate (SB2919) that is heavily endorsed by The American Hotel and Lodging Association a bias is on display if passed. The passage of either SB2919 or this bill 121 would essentially pave the way to hosts being 'deplatformed' (a stated goal of the lobbyists) and a monopoly of market share being possible. • This Bill 121 is stepping out ahead of The General Plan and as such this appears wholly inappropriate. Doing so represents gross overreach of County Council. • Hosts are already regulated and taxed. Bill 108 already saw County Planning Division regulate short term rentals since 2018. Hosts have been collecting tax revenue for Hawaii County since 2022. This is not 'complaint driven.' Many of us question the reasoning for this Bill . This does not have merit in responding to any pressing need.When Councilwoman Kimball was challenged to state the number of complaints she stated that County of Hawaii has only 60 complaints on file. In testimony before the Governmental Affairs committee hearing the bill on 1/23/24 that the only individuals in favor were retired former mayor Harry Kim and a paid Hawaii County employee in uniform. The ratio of those in opposition was something like 60 :2. This shows a very poor imperative to pass this legislation. Overregulation and over taxation will be the result of Bill 121 if it passes. The requirement that all hosts put on display their registration 'ID' at their property boundary is an invasion of basic privacy rights and poses a security risk. Measures forcing all hosts to register under a County Department forces an entrepreneur sector to be subjected to yet more control and scrutiny from a department that performs the worst of the entire nation. (Planning Department recent rating in a study). It's obvious to many of us that implementing this is not a magical solution to our housing issue. More surely of what drives an economy, growth and innovation. It should concerns us always to see more 'socialist' measures that are objectionable: • regulated & surveilled households • heavy fines up to $10,000 which will lead to property forfeiture and seizure Bill 121 will deliver terrible optics to the public: As Councilmembers, having just received the first of two substantial pay rises (this month being the first) it is a particularly poor optic to be engaged in dismantling the livelihoods of others. Further the potential for Bill 121 to favor Hotels to the point of delivering them a monopoly share of business is simply not a good optic and would lead to a breach of public trust and an abuse of power. Conclusion: As a Planning Commission body I hope you won't recommend the passage of this Bill. I believe that the testimony on record shows the very clear understanding the constituency has that this Bill will cause much more harm than good. Taking us for dummies is never a good way to treat constituents. Please recommend against this bill. Please don't spare this Council in the way that you reject this Bill since it is an example of poor judgement and it is an abuse of public trust. Aloha.