HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-02 Andrew Perero Testimony
From: Andrew PERERO
To: Planning WPC Testimony
Subject: Written Testimony for Upcoming Hawaiʻi County Council Meeting on STVR Regulation
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 4:05:37 PM
Aloha Chair, Councilmembers, and County Staff,
My name is Andrew Perero, and I am a Hawaiʻi Island resident,
homeowner, and local short-term rental operator. I support balanced short-
term rental regulation that addresses housing and neighborhood concerns
while recognizing the difference between absentee investors and
responsible local owner-operators.
My family and I live on island, and our rental income helps sustain our
household, maintain our properties, support local workers and vendors, and
contribute to the local economy. We have operated responsibly for more
than five years, paying taxes, maintaining our properties, responding
promptly to issues, and remaining accountable to our neighbors. During
that time, we have had zero neighbor complaints.
I understand that the County is trying to address real concerns around
housing, neighborhood impacts, and unmanaged rentals. I also understand
the County’s goal of encouraging more affordable housing and preventing
newly created housing from immediately being converted into short-term
rentals. Those are valid concerns.
However, I strongly urge the Council to be very careful about applying a
broad, one-size-fits-all approach that treats all short-term rental operators
the same.
There is a major difference between absentee investors running unmanaged
rentals and local owner-operators who live here, manage responsibly, pay
taxes, maintain their properties, and have a proven track record of
complaint and peaceful operation.
The County’s own commissioned Hunden Partners study supports this
distinction. That study found that more than 75 percent of STVR owners
operate only one rental unit, 54 percent rely on the income to cover
housing-related costs, and only 20 percent view their property as a pure
investment. In other words, the majority of operators are not large-scale
investors. They are individual households with a direct personal and
financial stake in the property and community.
The same study also found that if STVRs were restricted, only 4 percent of
owners and operators said they would definitely convert their units to long-
term rentals, while 68 percent said they would not. The study specifically
concluded that the likelihood of STVRs converting into long-term resident
housing is minimal.
That finding is extremely important. If the goal is to create more housing,
the County should be very cautious about harming local families and
responsible operators in exchange for a housing benefit that its own study
suggests may be very limited.
To me, the more logical solution is much simpler: if the County is
concerned that future affordable housing, future additions, or newly created
units could be converted into short-term rentals, then restrict that future use
clearly — especially for non-primary-residence and non-owner-occupied
situations.
That approach would directly address the concern without punishing local
residents who have already built a compliant, responsible, tax-paying
operation around their primary residence and property.
This is consistent with the basic principle already present in the County’s
earlier short-term rental framework: distinguish between existing uses,
future uses, hosted/owner-occupied situations, and nonconforming or
unhosted vacation rentals. The County does not need to treat every situation
as if it carries the same risk.
I am also asking the County to recognize the real anxiety that uncertainty
creates for compliant operators. For more than a year, many local families
have been trying to understand what exactly will be required of them.
There have been major discussions, proposed rules, deadlines, penalties,
and fees — but the practical implementation guidance has not been clear
enough for the people who are actually eager to comply.
For those of us who are already operating responsibly, paying taxes,
maintaining our properties, and trying to follow the rules, unclear
implementation does not help the community. It creates stress and
uncertainty for households who depend on this income and who want to
remain in good standing.
The visitor economy is part of the backbone of Hawaiʻi Island. The vast
majority of local owner-operators I know are not trying to avoid
responsibility. They are trying to do things correctly. They are respectful of
neighbors, responsive to problems, and dependent on this income to keep
their households stable.
That type of operator should be rewarded, not punished.
In my opinion, the County should create clear preferential treatment,
protection, a fast-track compliance pathway, or grandfathering protection
for:
Primary-residence and owner-occupied properties
Local owner-operators who live on island
Operators with a clean complaint history
Hosts with documented tax compliance
Longstanding responsible operators who have already proven they can
coexist peacefully with their neighborhoods
After over five years of hosting, contributing to the community,
maintaining our properties, paying taxes, and operating without
neighborhood complaints, it feels deeply unfair and illogical for responsible
local hosts to be placed at risk by rules intended to address a different
problem.
The County’s own study recommends continuing to enable STVRs while
improving monitoring, achieving full registration compliance, and
balancing economic benefits with community well-being and neighborhood
integrity. That is exactly the kind of balanced approach I am asking the
Council to follow.
Please do not design policy around the worst operators while ignoring the
local families who have already proven that responsible hosting can work.
Regulation should raise the standard, not punish the people already meeting
it.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Andrew Perero & Ohana
Hawaiʻi Island Resident and Local Host