Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-09 Diamond Parking Opposition Testimony From: Shylah Hales To:Planning WPC Testimony Subject: Testimony for BILL154 (S. Hales) Date: Thursday, July 9, 2026 1:58:03 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image004.png Bill 154 Testimony S. Hales.pdf To: Hawai‘i County Council 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway , Building A Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 July 8th, 2026 RE: Opposition to Bill 154: Regulation of Private Parking Facilities in Kailua Village Dear Council Members, I am writing to formally express strong opposition to Bill 154, which proposes to regulate pricing and operations of private parking facilities in Kailua Village. While the intent to address community concerns is understood, the bill, as currently drafted, represents a significant overreach into private property rights and imposes a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework on a highly complex and diverse market. Bill 154 seeks to impose uniform rate caps, mandatory free parking periods, and operational restrictions on all private parking facilities, without regard to the substantial differences in ownership structures, financial obligations, property conditions, and business objectives. Private properties are not all the same. They vary widely in terms of acquisition costs, lease structures, maintenance burdens, and reinvestment needs. A blanket regulatory approach fails to account for these realities and places an inequitable burden on property owners who rely on parking revenue to sustain and improve their assets. Of particular concern is the economic impact this legislation will have on both private stakeholders and the County itself. By artificially capping parking rates and mandating free parking periods, the bill will materially reduce parking revenue across the district. This reduction will directly impact tax revenues derived from parking operations, including general excise tax and other related economic activity. In effect, the County and State risk diminishing their own tax base while simultaneously restricting the ability of private property owners to generate income necessary for property maintenance, compliance, and capital improvements. Moreover, this legislation creates a troubling inconsistency in governance. The County is seeking to regulate private parking operations while its own municipal parking facilities remain, by its own acknowledgment, under-managed and inconsistently enforced. Imposing strict regulatory controls on private operators, while public facilities lack comparable oversight or effectiveness, raises serious concerns regarding fairness, equity, and administrative justification. From a legal and policy standpoint, Bill 154 raises significant concerns regarding regulatory overreach. While governments may enact reasonable consumer protection measures, the imposition of strict price controls on private property ventures into an area that may be construed as excessive interference with lawful business operations. The proposed restrictions do not appear to be narrowly tailored and instead broadly limit the ability of property owners to determine how their assets are utilized and monetized. The unintended consequences of this legislation are substantial. These include: A reduction in reinvestment into private properties, particularly those requiring significant capital improvements or remediation Financial harm to small and locally owned property holders who depend on parking revenue to offset rising costs Distortion of market dynamics, leading to decreased availability of managed parking and potential underutilization of private assets Broader negative economic impacts to the Kailua Village area, including reduced business viability and diminished visitor experience Importantly, the issues cited as justification for this bill, such as storefront vacancies and community dissatisfaction, are multifaceted and cannot be attributed solely, or even primarily, to parking practices. Addressing these concerns requires a comprehensive and data-driven approach, not a singular regulatory mandate applied uniformly across all private properties. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider Bill 154 and to consider the diverse economic realities faced by property owners in Kailua Village. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Best, Shylah Hales, PTMP Regional Manager | San Diego DIAMOND PARKING SERVICES Direct: (808) 329-3103 100+ Years of Parking Smarter! Regional Offices USA : Alaska, California, Hawaii Islands, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington Regional Offices Canada : Alberta, British Columbia Help us be Green! Please do not print unless necessary. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments from all computers without reading or saving the same in any matter whatsoever. Hawai‘i County Council 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway Building A Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 July 8th, 2026 RE: Opposition to Bill 154: Regulation of Private Parking Facilities in Kailua Village Dear Council Members, I am writing to formally express strong opposition to Bill 154, which proposes to regulate pricing and operations of private parking facilities in Kailua Village. While the intent to address community concerns is understood, the bill, as currently drafted, represents a significant overreach into private property rights and imposes a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework on a highly complex and diverse market. Bill 154 seeks to impose uniform rate caps, mandatory free parking periods, and operational restrictions on all private parking facilities, without regard to the substantial diƯerences in ownership structures, financial obligations, property conditions, and business objectives. Private properties are not all the same. They vary widely in terms of acquisition costs, lease structures, maintenance burdens, and reinvestment needs. A blanket regulatory approach fails to account for these realities and places an inequitable burden on property owners who rely on parking revenue to sustain and improve their assets. Of particular concern is the economic impact this legislation will have on both private stakeholders and the County itself. By artificially capping parking rates and mandating free parking periods, the bill will materially reduce parking revenue across the district. This reduction will directly impact tax revenues derived from parking operations, including general excise tax and other related economic activity. In eƯect, the County and State risk diminishing their own tax base while simultaneously restricting the ability of private property owners to generate income necessary for property maintenance, compliance, and capital improvements. Moreover, this legislation creates a troubling inconsistency in governance. The County is seeking to regulate private parking operations while its own municipal parking facilities remain, by its own acknowledgment, under-managed and inconsistently enforced. Imposing strict regulatory controls on private operators, while public facilities lack comparable oversight or eƯectiveness, raises serious concerns regarding fairness, equity, and administrative justification. From a legal and policy standpoint, Bill 154 raises significant concerns regarding regulatory overreach. While governments may enact reasonable consumer protection measures, the imposition of strict price controls on private property ventures into an area that may be construed as excessive interference with lawful business operations. The proposed restrictions do not appear to be narrowly tailored and instead broadly limit the ability of property owners to determine how their assets are utilized and monetized. The unintended consequences of this legislation are substantial. These include:  A reduction in reinvestment into private properties, particularly those requiring significant capital improvements or remediation  Financial harm to small and locally owned property holders who depend on parking revenue to oƯset rising costs  Distortion of market dynamics, leading to decreased availability of managed parking and potential underutilization of private assets  Broader negative economic impacts to the Kailua Village area, including reduced business viability and diminished visitor experience Importantly, the issues cited as justification for this bill, such as storefront vacancies and community dissatisfaction, are multifaceted and cannot be attributed solely, or even primarily, to parking practices. Addressing these concerns requires a comprehensive and data-driven approach, not a singular regulatory mandate applied uniformly across all private properties. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider Bill 154 and to consider the diverse economic realities faced by property owners in Kailua Village. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Best Regards, Shylah Hales Regional Manager Diamond Parking Services, LLC shylah.hales@diamondparking.com | (808) 329-3103