It is a foregone conclusion that the next Hawaii governor will be current Lt. Gov. Josh Green. He previously proffered the idea of a $50 visitor fee on arrival. That’s right, a $50 “green fee” by Green. Now his plan has been confirmed, and it goes like this.
“As governor, I will propose a $50 impact fee for visitors.” (Josh Green)
According to Green’s website, that will “generate up to $350 million in annual revenue to invest in protecting our environment, addressing climate change and building affordable housing, while reducing the total number of tourists.”
Visitors are in an uproar.
We’ve already had a huge number of comments from visitors upset about both the idea and impact of yet one more fee in Hawaii.
The Hawaii universal tourist fee details.
This gets confusing even for us. Earlier this summer, Hawaii’s semi-defunct marketing arm, HVCB, said the universal visitor fee is “dead on arrival,” per the state legislature. Yet the individual about to become governor says the fee is clearly on.
A Hawaii tourist fee has been thrown around for over fifty years.
As long ago as 1970, the state legislature first discussed a tax system to offset visitors’ impact with some fee. HVCB would have been responsible for implementing the fee Green has proposed had their contract not been pulled and likely handed over to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA).
After HVCB announced that the universal Hawaii visitor fee idea was dead, gubernatorial certain Lt. Gov. Josh Green said in an interview that he would like to implement what he then called a “climate impact fee” of $50 per person. It then became formalized at some point on his political website.
That fee would apply to all Hawaii visitors on arrival in the state. Green first said such a fee would raise an additional $500+ million annually but has since downgraded that amount. He said the fee is aligned with estimates of how much money is needed to help reduce environmental issues resulting from tourism.
Where will the $50 tourist fee go exactly?
One of the things that most rankles Hawaii residents and visitors alike, and they can agree on, is the state seems to have a complete lack of accountability for the money it takes in, whether earmarked or not. And that has been the case for as long as we can remember. Heck, we can’t even get park and beach restrooms and roads repaired for a seeming lack of money. And how many of you have asked where the 18% tax you already pay on accommodations is going?
Moreover, we have never heard how the state would allocate such funds or whether they might even end up in the sinkhole general fund. The more we think about this, the more questions it raises.
Will a universal Hawaii visitor fee be deemed legal?
Such a fee might be seen as interfering with the right to inter-state travel. It could discriminate against Hawaii visitors such that it would conflict with laws and the U.S. Constitution. With green fees in other states, they seem to be enforced on both residents and visitors in order to avoid this problem.
Perhaps there is another way to do this, but that path is unclear. Honolulu has been working on some form of “green fee” for several years. Plans were for a $20 per guest fee for each visitor’s accommodation. In that case, the money raised was also to support environmental goals.
That also makes us wonder if there could be both island-based visitor fees and a statewide fee. And then what happens to all of the other new fees?
Other global destinations with green fees.
Countries with green fees include the Pacific island country of Palau, where a $100 visitor fee was implemented. The Galapagos Islands also has a $100 fee which was due to rise and then didn’t. That fee, we understand, is collected by the airlines. But those are foreign countries and not a state.
Should both visitors and residents pay?
Many believe it is better to implement a universal fee for environmental remediation that both visitors and residents pay. It’s worth noting that when residents travel and stay at accommodations in Hawaii, they pay as much as visitors in terms of taxes.
A further complication to a universal fee is that while visitors may only visit Hawaii once yearly, locals may have multiple trips to and from the mainland in a calendar year. This means a universal fee collected at the airport for everyone may have more burden on residents.
At the same time, you’ll recall that a federal court ruling permitted there to be Hanauma Bay visitor-only fees. So a way to collect a green fee could be implemented at places like that and not through the airlines or the airport.
What do you think Hawaii should do?
When we first raised this in Controversial $50 Hawaii Visitor Fee Plan Returns, you were most outspoken in your comments.
Disclosure: We receive a small commission on purchases from some of the links on Beat of Hawaii. These links cost you nothing and provide income necessary to offer our website to you. Mahalo! Privacy Policy and Disclosures.
Missionblue says
Americans just don’t go to Hawaii. There are cheaper and nicer islands to go to.
Skip S says
Can’t believe this policy is constitutional.
Sure a long ways from trying hard to get people to choose Hawaii as their vacation spot.
Hal M says
Had a question to ask about how this will be applied. Currently, the colleges and universities in Hawaii compete in various sports. As such, the visiting team flies over for the competitions. Will each team be charged the fee for each member? That added cost might keep teams from coming over, especially the larger squads. Would this fee also apply to folks whose job requires them to travel to Hawaii for meetings or other work. Not asking about conventions but day to day work.
Justin S says
That is a solid and fair question Hal. A football team travels with at least 50 people. But in all reality, a couple thousand dollars to a D1 school is not a big deal.
Hal M says
The team is 50 players but you add in coaches, trainers, band, and fans. While the elite D1 schools may find this chump change the smaller FCS schools do count pennies.
Randy R. says
My youngest was on the Arizona Teams from ’96 thru ’98, I know they brought everyone, 80-90 Players, 25 Coaches and Trainers, that’s pretty much a full Charter. I think this is still a Tax that violates Inter-State Commerce.
Randy R. says
Again, agree, the PAC-12, no problem, but Hawaii is in the Mountain West, I think, and even Schools like UTEP, NMSU, UNM may have pause to bring all.
Hal M says
They are in the Big West for other sports and I think budgets are even more important there. Might be that the conference would reduce the number of trips there to every other time.
Randy R. says
Great point, I’m sure the Bureacracy of Hawaii hasn’t thought that one out. On the Business side, as one who covered Hawaii from 1986-2014, as many as 5X/Yr., I’m sure Employers would become weary, as belt tightening measures constrict Sales, with the Zoom mentality, not the solution.
Rick S. says
One of the early stories on this subject said that one of the purposes was to eliminate or reduce the “low end” visitor to Hawaii. Is this fair? In other word, you can’t visit Hawaii unless you are rich??
Joerg H. says
Or you can look at it the other way around. Does anyone have a “right” to go on vacation to Hawaii? Should others support the cost of your vacation? For example, I want to drive a Ferrari, but can’t afford one, so should Ferrari be forced to reduce it’s prices? Or should the people of Italy subsidize Ferrari to the point where I can now afford one?
Justin S says
We are not subsidizing your trip to Hawai’i, rather Uncle Josh wants to tax you for coming here and crossing an imagi ary line. Your comparison is of two different concepts that are not equivalent. And interstate travel is protected whereas purchasing a car, subsidized or not, is not.
PegM says
I believe we’ll see very soon what SCOTUS thinks about interstate travel.
Joerg H says
I think you misunderstood my point, sorry I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t referring to just the tax, but I was responding to the comment that Hawaii is trying to reduce the “low end” traveller. The implication in that post is that Hawaii should cater to those kinds of travelers by making a trip there “affordable”. In effect, subsidizing that trip for those with limited money to spend.
Jim E says
The Interstate Commerce Act and subsequent US SUpreme Court decisions expressly prohibits any state attempting to unreasonably interfere with any US citizen the freedom to travel between any of the united states. See the 1999 US Supreme Court decision known as Saedz vs Roe which reaffirmed the prohibition of any state interfering with interstate travel adding that a stare may do so only if public health is endangered.
patrick says
Yes but how do you define “unreasonably” or “interfere”? Ones person’s reasonable may not be for someone else.
Jim E says
The Supreme court in explaining its decision said the only exception to its travel non-interference order would be travel that would endanger public health. Otherwise the Court said no state may impede or otherwise restrict interstate travel. I suggest that anyone interested – particularly Hawaiian government leadership read the Supreme Court’s decision and implied directives in this case.
David B says
Pandering politicians propose passing unconstitutional laws all the time. Legislatures pass unconstitutional laws. That’s how we get SCOTUS decisions that strike down those laws. Green surely knows his proposal is unconstitutional. He does not care. He is appealing to emotion. “If elected, I will blah blah blah.”
The beauty of this way of governing is that, until a court says otherwise, Green can still enforce his unconstitutional law. Then he can blame the court for taking it away. Public outrage at the court, and not at the legislature who passed it.
Jim E says
If and when any government would overtly enact any provision interfering with state-to-state travel, any person on entity with “standing” may file suit (usually in federal district court) to enjoin or negate the provision. That is normal procedure for challenging a blatant violation of a Supreme Court decision.
Joerg H. says
So does that mean that any tax in a visitor would also be struck down? For example the tax on hotel rooms? In other words, it seems to me that suggesting that ANY fee or tax that’s only on visitors (parking fees?) is a “restraint” by your reading of the Supreme Court ruling. I’ve said this before, and I know that some people will hate me for it. But, it’s the eighth of entitlement to expect a “cheap” Hawaii vacation. I want to drive a Ferrari, but can’t afford to. I’m not advocating for the government to force Ferrari to reduce the price of their car so that anyone can afford one.
patrick says
I think the difference is that for hotels you don’t need to be a “visitor” to pay those fees and taxes. Everyone gets stuck paying those. Now if the do institute the $50 “visitor” fee to Hawaii and don’t charge everyone, then there probably will be an issue. Plenty of fees on the mainland for parking and hotels, etc that apply to everyone.
One parking fee I know about that locals don’t get charged is in Laguna Beach. Residents can get a sticker that allows for free parking. But that’s just the city.
Joerg H says
But you’re making an assumption that a “fee” or tax would be an “unreasonable” interference. The question is, would the court look at it that way? A $50 addition to a $4k vacation seems to me like a not much in the way of interference, not does it seem unreasonable.
DavidMatlock B says
Hawaii has all manner of taxes, including hotel taxes (transient accommodations tax). So do most all states/counties/cites. And they can (and do) tax rental cars. But everyone has to pay, not just the people from out of state.
Jim E says
No- The only issue in this SC decision was the attenpt by any state to prohibit interstate travel except in cases where public health is in jeopardy. Rather than debate the issue anyone interested shpuld first read the actual SC decision. See the case caption in my earlier comment.
patrick says
Define “impede” Is a $50 fee impeding? Can you apply that to airfare in general? Especially when it gets really high?
David B says
Impede is somewhat subjective. But, the airline fee would be perfectly legal so long as everyone has to pay it, not just non-residents. We already pay taxes/fees on airline tickets. This is just a question of how much to pay.
Jim E says
My only suggestion to Mr. Green is do your homework before developing illegal proposals.
Paul L says
First and foremost, it is not a “foregone conclusion” that Green will be the governor. The ballots have not been cast yet and you are already declaring something that has not happened.
I declare that Green will not be the next governor and that the “Green Fee” will not come to fruition.
john b. says
they should be ready for lawsuits. as far as I know it’s illegal to restrict free tracel within the united states for citizens. I know it’s a supposed green fee put when i come and pay the 50 dollars i would send a few emails to several law firms who do class action suits and I have a feeling some would be interested. I’m sure visitors who come wouldn’t mind paying a fee, just think it may be unconstitutional without being voluntary. I left hawaii as a resident after almost 30 years living there and i like to visit friends but each time i return it gets more depressing seeing what has happened to my beautiful island since i left 10 years ago.
PegM says
If the comments here are any indication the fee is working. The numbers seem to be back to what they were pre-covid and visitors from Japan are not nearly what they were before.
Thanks for keeping us apprised of this changing situation. We’re looking forward to our next visit!
Catherine S says
Green’s proposal seems short-sighted to me. I understand why Hawaii wants to cut back its tourism industry. I’ve seen myself how tourism hurts the islands’ ecosystems, housing market, and income distribution. But what will replace the lost jobs and revenue? The state’s government should focus on diversifying its economy; not less tourism, but more of other types of business. That’s also more consistent with the wonderful Hawaiian traditions of aloha and hospitality.
Charles H says
I’ll gladly pay a small extra fee. Least we can do for stealing Hawaii away and then building a naval port where Hawaiians had built aquaculture for seaweed and fish that made them sustainable for hundreds of years. And I’ll gladly pay more to gracious Hawaiians who welcome those who deserve to be welcomed and who take the brunt of ungrateful tourists from the mainland. I’ll gladly accept those who don’t wanna go. Stay away.
Linda K. says
Aloha. It’s nice to see there’s such a grateful person as you. I’ve already given my opinion, but after 130 plus years I don’t hold myself responsible/guilty for what greedy people did then. The Hawaiian islands are beautiful, and we truly enjoy the ohana feeling while we visit. We pay what we need to. The “Concessionaire’s fee” for rental cars about tripled in recent years. We buy local foods, not always big box stores. We volunteer when we visit. Although, after 10 visits, the island prices are exorbitant. I figure 2023 is our last, and you can go ahead and pay. Aloha!
Mark says
Agree , 2023 last .
Phillip V says
So, maybe Las Vegas should charge a $50 entrance fee for every Hawaii resident that visits.
Randy R says
Seems only fair, given the grift that it is!
Charles H says
Lost Vegas needs a lot more than $50.
Trudy C says
It seems two things are obvious from the comments being posted. It looks like the $50 fee proposal may indeed be effective as so many visitors are saying enough all ready, they are not coming back. I think they mean it as they have reached their max with additional fees. The other thing that is glaring obvious is that the residents have no confidence that the powers that be will use these fees to address environmental, climate or affordable housing. There is a deep mistrust of accountability for these funds
Cynthia R says
This really affects those with low income and seems really extreme. Does this replace the $25-35 daily resort fee charged almost everywhere?
All these changes are understandable. But will someone be policing how the money is spent?
Ingrid C says
Perhaps those pesky tourists should take their
hard earned vacation dollars to another destination and let the Hawaiian residents support their state in another manner. Gone are the sugar cane and pineapple fields of past years. What will you peddle? And when they, the hard working Hawaiians, decide to vacation away from their own soil, perhaps a fee should apply to their travels as well. Sounds fair to me. Resort fees, excess taxes and now a purposed $50 green fee is biting the hand that feeds you! Enough already!
charles h says
It’s not just Hawaiians who don’t want pesky tourists. All of my clients who travel to Hawaii prefer less of those pesky tourists too. They give a bad name to the rest of the respectful travelers unlike people like you who leave a trail of trash and trashiness.
Jack K. says
Tourists dont leave old cars and refrigerators along side the road. Current taxes are not pumping the porta potties or picking up said refrigerators.
Liam G says
25 to 35 is getting off cheap. I saw someone on the news there that runs one of the hotels talking about you get so much with the resort fees parking, bottled water, free breakfast, etc. umm no you don’t that’s extra also.
Real P says
Residents of hawaii pay enough fees just living here. Visitors should have been paying a fee a long time ago! I agree . Eliminate the thought of universal fee🙄🥱
Ann J says
I am a relatively frequent Hawaii visitor and think the free is a good idea to continue to maintain the coral and natural environment. One could see the benefits during covid on the environment.
However, ensuring the money is utilized appropriately is always a concern.
David S says
Yea, let’s rob the people of more money. To support your agenda. I hope Green doesn’t get in. His whole idea is about Money. Nothing else.