2024-04-16 Bill 121 Alayna Wiley

Home

From: Alayna Wiley To: LPCtestimony Subject: Oppose Bill 121(Proposed Changes to STVR/TAR) Date: Tuesday,April 16,2024 11:16:27 AM As a full time resident and homeowner I STRONGLY oppose a-3 in Section 25-4-16.1 (Owner-hosted transient accommodation rentals).This item states"The owner shall live in a single-family dwelling on the building site of the home and not live in a guesthouse or a detached bedroom of a single family dwelling." I attended the following meetings regarding this topic: 1. STRV Informational Session 11/21 (11/21/22) 2. TAR Meeting(1/20/23) 3. Proposed Transient Accommodation Rental Regulations(11/6/23) 4. County Council(1/23/24) When I asked WHY this provision was included during the November 6th meeting,Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow had a confusing answer inspired by circular logic(provided at 1:36:21 which can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIF 1 G8gD 1 aY&t=5779s)_ This answer seems to indicate this item was added to discourage illegal kitchens.If they are already illegal why do we need additional legislation?Why is a homeowner prevented from living in their detached bedroom or guesthouse (that is built to code)if they use other methods of food preparation(like grilling)to cook their meals?Personally I don't bake but my husband does.If he dies before me and I need to rent part of our house short term(to be able to afford living here as a widow),why would you force me to live in an area of my property that has an oven? Per the website hawaiicountyrtar.com the stated goals of Bill 121, 122& 123 are to: 1. "ensure that all TARS in the county are operating safely,legally,and in adherence to the same set of operational standards" 2. "preserve the character of our residential and agricultural areas while reducing speculative investment in properties within these markets" 3. "aim to address housing affordability for residents by keeping more housing in the long-term rental market, reducing the inflationary pressure TARS have on long-term rental rates,while at the same time making it very easy to build accessory dwellings(`ohanas)for family or long-term rentals" Goal number 1 is reasonable but appears to be a"foot in the door'to pursuing legislation that unnecessarily and inappropriately infringes on the rights of homeowners. Goal number 2 sounds nice but where are the actual complaints that indicate existing*hosted*rentals are actually changing the character of residential and agricultural areas on Big Island?Where is the research that shows that *hosted*rentals are increasing speculative investment on Big Island?The Hawai'i Appleseed report(March 2018) cited on hawaiicountyrtar.com seems far from impartial.It indicates 1 in 3 Lahaina homes were vacation rental units but the link from the tourism authority that is cited is not valid so it's not possible to verify this seemingly high ratio. It seems dubious to cite this report given the age of the report,the lack of specifics regarding the Big Island,and that some citations can't be accessed.Goal number 2 sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Regarding goal number 3,there simply *is not*a direct line between short term rentals and long term rentals. Reducing the supply of short term rentals*will not*guarantee an increase in long term rental inventory.Regulating homeowners use of their primary home is not the solution to slow building permit approvals(resulting in poor inventory)and landlord/tenant law that causes homeowners to fear the extreme risks of taking on a long term tenant. The county needs to make it easier to build additional housing inventory of all types.The Ohana portion of this legislation(Bill 123)is a step in the right direction but that bill should stand on its own.