HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-08 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Janice Glennie From: ianice glennie
To: Kimball,Heather; Planning Internet Mail
Cc: Villegas,Rebecca
Subject: STVR/TAR legislation
Date: Monday,April 8,2024 3:59:38 PM
Importance: High
Aloha Council Chair Kimball Heather and members of the planning department,
Mahalo for working on ways to create fair STVR/TAR legislation. Though I feel strongly that
his effort is poorly timed (current GP, KOSN, and other significant land use issues
happening), it was helpful to hear Council Chair Kimball's presentation at the WPC meeting
last week. Still a lot to digest.
Following are top priorities and concerns regarding STVR/TAR rules. They are my own as
well as those of many other people I've tallied to and heard discussed through the years,
including during Bill 108 proceedings. I hope council members and planners will continue to
explore ways to achieve shared goals though win-win legislation. To do that, the voices of
community members who'll have to live with the outcomes must be heard. Top priorities
include:
1- Clear, bottom line, enforcement strategy with funding and ironclad buy-in from
appropriate agencies written into the bill(i.e.,police,planning, etc.). Currently there's no or
insignificant enforcement. Neighbors are suffering and laws are being broken. People have to
give their names to make complaints. Not pono.
2- No exceptions:All STVRs outside of Resort zones should be owner-hosted. If a person
can afford to own two or more separate properties with housing on them (on-island or
elsewhere), there should be no STVR on the one(s) where they don't live.
3 -Any un-hosted STVRs currently allowed on Residential, Ag, Rural or other lands outside of
Resort zones should be phased out in less than 2 years.
4 - 7:OOa is too early for noise restrictions to end in neighborhoods (or ag lands, for that
matter, where neighbors are within earshot). STVRs are often previously unplanned-for
burdens on neighborhoods, neighbors, and infrastructure and not for the common good. Not
everyone gets up early, and it can be a long day of swimming pool and other noise that isn't a
normal part of residential neighborhoods and/or not what homeowners bought into when they
purchased their homes. Strong restrictions should apply to make life better for residents, not
just tourists.
• The current stated goal of counties and state is to create and open up housing for
residents,not create income-generation in neighborhoods not designed or zoned for that
purpose.
• Rules need to be clear and simple enough for people to follow so no one can use "too
complicated" as an excuse for not following them.
• An STVR and residence are different animals with different goals. One is for income,
the other is for living in.
• There are unobtrusive STVRs where the owners aren't(or are) on site and horribly
disruptive ones. Who can tell before they get going? Once they get going, the owners
consider them"entitlements"which STVRs are not. In fact, they are commercial
enterprises which can be considered"takings" from the public.
• Since enforcement rarely happens, it can take legal action($$ by neighbors) to stop
illegal activities (which is what happened in my neighborhood and others I'm familiar
with). Not pono.
I personally don't support allowing hosted or un-hosted rentals outside of Resort zones as
there are annoyances and inconveniences associated with owner-hosted ones as well (parking,
traffic in small neighborhoods, uncontrolled holiday-maker noise, etc.); and my hope is that
we'll ban them outside of Resort areas before there's a disaster that makes us do it. At the
same time, my compromise to those who want or already have an STVR is that, at a minimum,
they be owner-hosted with strict, enforced noise, parking and other rules to help them blend
into the areas where they exist. Again, no exceptions.
Mahalo and best regards,
Janice