Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-30 Noella Callejo Opposition Testimony Rc d att tg by 20 Dist'd Read�. _. FILE COPY Subject:Written Testimony in Opposition to Bill 147 Aloha Members of the Hawaii County Council and members of the County Planning Department, My name is Noella Callejo and I respectfully submit this written testimony in opposition to Bill 147. I was born and raised in Kona, am a third-generation resident of Hawaii, and I am a homeowner,working professional, business owner, lifetime student of hula, and mother of three children ages 21, 16, and 8. I returned to this island 12 years ago for a career opportunity in the healthcare sector. Before imposing broad restrictions,the County should clearly identify the problem it is trying to solve and tailor the solution accordingly. I support efforts to address absentee ownership, unhosted rentals,tax noncompliance, and irresponsible operators. However, I respectfully ask that the County not treat tax-paying local families who actually live on their properties, host responsibly, and contribute to this community as though we are the problem. As reported by Civil Beat, Councilmember Holeka Inaba previously questioned the purpose of requiring hosted rental operators to register, asking: "Why are we asking people to register for something and it isn't really clear what the purpose is?"That question remains central to my concern. Restrictions should not be applied so broadly that it creates confusion and removes an important supplemental income source for working families who are simply using existing space in homes they own during an already difficult economic time. My concern is that Bill 147, as proposed,takes a broad-brush approach to a problem that appears to be driven largely by absentee or part-time ownership,while restricting local resident homeowners who actually live here and rely on hosted accommodations to help meet the cost of living in Hawaii. Civil Beat reported that 54%of owners rely on rental income to cover housing costs.That data matters. It means this bill is not only affecting outside investors; it is also affecting working local families using existing space in homes they already own.The Council should be very careful that Bill 147 does not become a policy that claims to protect local communities while, in practice, pushing visitor dollars away from local home owners and back toward large resort and hotel interests. If a local homeowner responsibly welcomes guests into existing space on the property where they live, pays taxes, and has no neighbor complaints,why should that opportunity be restricted while billionaire conglomerates continue to profit from Hawaii at scale? I respectfully ask the Council to consider the following concerns: 1. Bill 147 does not adequately distinguish absentee ownership from local, hosted accommodations. The problem of absentee ownership is real.There are already ways for people who do not live here year-round to make a property appear"hosted"on paper.An owner may have a relative, representative, caretaker, or renter associated with the property,while the actual owner is not genuinely residing there or participating in the community. If preventing absentee ownership is central to the purpose of Bill 147,then the bill should clearly explain how those situations will be verified and enforced. 2. If the purpose is tax collection and accountability,the policy should be narrowly tailored to that purpose. Civil Beat reported that one driving force behind Bill 147 is Hawaii County's concern that it may be missing significant tax revenue from vacation rentals.According to the article, a county economic impact study found that approximately$12 million in Transient Accommodations Tax and $1.6 million in General Excise Tax remains unreported and uncollected, and that registration requirements could help the County collect what it is owed. If tax collection and accountability are the true concerns,then I support the County focusing directly on those issues. However, my experience in the permitting process has raised serious concerns about whether the County's stated goals and its actual administrative requirements are aligned. 3.Zoning should not become a blanket reason to restrict local families from using existing space in their own homes. I hope the Council will answer this question clearly: Why should zoning alone determine whether a local family may responsibly use existing space within the home they already own? If a family has worked for decades to purchase a home in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation, and through careful planning or changing family circumstances has an extra room, an `ohana, or existing living space available,why should the County prohibit that family from welcoming guests simply because of the zoning designation attached to the property? Children leave for college or board at Kamehameha Schools. Parents and in-laws move in and out. Family members may be temporarily off-island. Household needs change over time. Homes naturally have periods where existing space is temporarily available. When that space already exists, no new structures are being built, no demonstrable harm is occurring, it is not clear what public purpose is served by restricting a family's ability to responsibly use that space. For many working families,the ability to responsibly use an extra room, `ohana, or existing space in their own home can make the difference between remaining in Hawaii and being forced to consider leaving. My husband and I purchased our three-acre property with the intention of preserving it for future generations. My oldest child is 21, my second is 16, and very soon they will be working adults in this community,facing the same housing challenges that so many local families already face today. Our hope has always been that, after college our children will have a place here to return to and build their lives and gather our family together on this land we love. Hosting guests in the short-term until they are all career established adults gives us supplemental income that helps us afford to keep this property in our family. 6.The occupancy and public health arguments appear inconsistent and may alarm local multigenerational households. I have concerns about the way occupancy limits and public health concerns are being framed in Bill 147. For example, if the County is now suggesting that more than two people per bedroom creates a public health or infrastructure concern,then residents deserve a clear explanation: how is that health and safety concern different in a vacation rentals than it is in a long-term rental or owner-occupied home with the same number of occupants?There are entire neighborhoods with clearly more than six people living in a three bedroom home. Are they also in jeopardy of being cited or fined? If the County is not enforcing those same standards in long-term rentals or owner- occupied homes,then it raises a serious question about fairness and consistency. It also creates understandable concern among local families: is the County opening the door to regulating how many people can live in a family home?That is a dangerous precedent, and it should be addressed directly. The Council should clearly explain how it intends to put constituents'minds at ease that Bill 147 is not a step toward regulating multigenerational living, household composition, or the number of family members who may reside together in a home. Public health and safety standards must be fair, consistent, and realistically enforceable. If the County does not have the resources, authority, or intention to enforce these occupancy standards across long-term rentals and owner-occupied homes,then it should be very cautious about using that rationale selectively against STVR's. Otherwise,the policy risks appearing less like a true health and safety measure and more like a selective restriction on one category of property use. 7.There appears to be a serious policy disconnect between the County's stated regenerative tourism goals and the burden being placed on local families to justify locally hosted accommodations. Our property is not merely a rental property. It is our home, and it is also a place of stewardship, cultural practice, education, and regenerative tourism. In addition to our primary occupations,we have built a small business creating body care products that utilize botanicals grown and stewarded on our property, including mamaki. We intentionally invite guests to learn about the land they are visiting, including native plants such as 'Ohre lehua and mamaki, and the importance of preserving Hawai`i's unique ecosystems. We share the abundance of the land with guests through fruits grown on our property, including guava, avocado,tangerine, banana, and mountain apple.As stewards of this land,there is more mamaki growing on our property today because of our efforts than when we first acquired it. I am also a cultural practitioner, and over the years I have had the privilege of hosting the `uniki, or formal graduation ceremony, of 11 Kumu Hula on this property.We have hosted lei-making and welcomed Merrie Monarch participants and attendees who seek a deeper connection to the plants, setting, and cultural grounding this land provides. This is not simply a place for people to sleep. It is a place where guests and community members can develop a deeper appreciation for Hawaii And yet, despite all of this, I have had to submit permit packet applications with extensive documentation, diagrams, layout details, door locations, bathroom information, and even explanations about which rooms my family will occupy in order to justify continuing to host responsibly on the property where we live. No new buildings have been created. No forest reserve has been disturbed. No agricultural land has been misused.We have had zero neighbor complaints.We pay every tax and fee known to man—transient accommodations taxes, general excise taxes, county taxes, and income tax.We are accountable, local, resident hosts. Yet we are being grilled about what we are doing with the home we work extremely hard to afford and have shared with so many.That burden is not theoretical. It has caused real stress, sleepless nights, and serious emotional strain for my family as we face the possibility that, after doing everything we believed was responsible,we may still be forced into a position where selling and leaving Hawaii becomes the more realistic option and financially viable route.And consider who we would be selling to...more than likely an out of state resident who can afford to live here half the year, earns more in lucrative mainland job markets,treats lei makers as trespassers. That is heartbreaking, and it should concern this Council. If the County truly values regenerative tourism, cultural stewardship, agricultural education, and keeping local families rooted in Hawaii,then policies should be designed to support families like ours—not overwhelm us with administrative burdens that make it harder to stay.This is the environment Bill 147 risks creating, and I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider whether that is truly the outcome you intend. 10. Many local families may be afraid to speak publicly. I will also be candid that I hesitated to submit this testimony. I did not want to become a target simply for sharing my perspective. However, I know there are many home owners in similar situations who may also be reluctant to speak publicly. Someone needs to advocate for those of us who are genuinely trying to do the right thing— by our families, by our communities, and by the properties we have worked so hard to obtain and preserve. I respectfully ask the County to also do the right thing by advocating for the working families who live,work, and contribute to this community every day. Our voices deserve to be part of this conversation. 11. If the County wants more long-term housing, it must also reduce the risk for home owners who provide it. I also ask the Council to consider the practical reality facing local homeowners who may otherwise be willing to offer long-term housing. If there is a delinquent renter, homeowners must follow due process, even while absorbing significant financial losses upwards of$15,000-$30,000 if a delinquent tenant squats for 4- 6 months as is the documented average. For a large investor,that may be treated as a business risk. For a local family trying to hold onto one property,that kind of loss can threaten their ability to stay in their home. If the County truly wants to encourage local families to offer more long-term housing,then the County should consider policies that actually make that option more viable.That may include: • Expedited due process for clear cases of nonpayment; • County-supported mediation or rental recovery programs; • Grants,guarantees, or subsidies that help small local landlords absorb losses from delinquent tenants; • Support for mortgage or utility obligations during prolonged eviction proceedings; • Legal assistance or streamlined court navigation for small local homeowners; • Incentives for locally owned properties that convert a hosted space into long-term housing. Without these types of supports, simply restricting locally occupied, hosted accommodations does not automatically create long-term housing. Respectful Requests For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider the restrictions and language of Bill 147 as currently written. I ask that the County: • Clearly identify the specific problem Bill 147 is trying to solve before imposing broad restrictions; • If the purpose is tax collection,focus on TAT and GET compliance, platform reporting, registration accuracy, and enforcement against operators who are not paying what they owe; • Clearly outline how you determine and enforce absentee ownership vs. locally occupied, hosted accommodations; • Clearly explain why zoning alone should determine whether a resident family may responsibly use existing space within the home they already own. • Explain how the County will reassure local residents that Bill 147 will not become a precedent for regulating multigenerational households, household composition, or the number of family members who may live together in a home; • Apply any health, safety, and occupancy standards fairly, consistently, and realistically, rather than selectively enforcing them against one category of property use; • Create a clear pathway for locally occupied, hosted accommodations, including `ohana units or individual rooms,where the owner actually resides on the property and can demonstrate responsible operation,tax compliance, neighbor accountability, and alignment with community standards; • Prevent workarounds where a property is called "hosted"on paper but is not truly owner-occupied in practice; • Recognize the role locally occupied, hosted accommodations can play in helping residents remain in Hawaii; • Recognize that locally hosted stays may support, rather than conflict with,the County's stated goals around regenerative tourism, cultural education, agricultural stewardship, and more responsible visitor engagement; • Explain what measures the County is taking to reduce the financial exposure for local homeowners in offering long-term housing, and making it more attractive or comparable to STVR as a supplemental income source; • Focus enforcement on actual harms—unpaid taxes, nuisance complaints, illegal unhosted operations, parking violations, and false hosted claims—rather than broad restrictions. • And finally... Please do not make it harder for working local families to remain in Hawaii while trying to solve a problem they did not create. • Mahalo for your time, service, and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Noella Cal* Kona, Hawai'i Third-generation Hawaii resident,homeowner, working professional,business owner,cultural practitioner,and mother of three