If you think Hawaii vacations are expensive now, here’s what could happen if Senate Bill 2919 passes.
Leave a Comment
188 thoughts on “Clash Over Hawaii Vacation Rentals Includes Tourists, Residents, Special Interests”
If you think Hawaii vacations are expensive now, here’s what could happen if Senate Bill 2919 passes.
My husband and I have owned a condo in West Maui for 38 years. As is true of many buildings, it is nearly 50 years old. Just as Kaanapali Alii and Whaler have had major projects in recent years, I know of at least 4 properties that have major upcoming projects — plumbing, roof replacement, spalling repairs, etc. Every such major project usually ends up with a special assessment to the owners. Our upcoming project is costing us $63,000+. I have quite a few friends among resident Hawaiians. None of them could afford to live in our building even if a condo were given to them free. The maintenance, reserve, utility and project fees alone would be prohibitive.
I’m going to Hilo in May and was planning to use points from a hotel loyalty program to pay for a room, but that company does not have a property in Hilo so I am using points on a short term rental. Not what I would normally do, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Depending on where you get your facts, there’s a lot of misinformation regarding STVRs.
That said, according to HB1838, the Bill states that only 5% of all available residential housing is operated by STVR’s
Meaning, 95% of All Of Hawaii Housing Is Available For Long Term Use
This 5% cannot and will not solve any housing crisis in Hawaii
Can we extrapolate that the hotels account for the other 95% of the market share that lodge visitors of Hawaii?
By allowing the counties the illegal and unconstitutional ability to remove the remaining 5% of STVR’s, tourists visiting Hawaii will not have a true Hawaiian Experience, they will have a mainland or international Hotel Experience.
We would not return to Hawaii without short term vacation rentals being affordable. We would not stay in a hotel. Mary and John D
Ban all short term rentals. If it deters visitors from coming to Hawaii, goo. Without the ban, local born residents will risk being homeless at a faster rate. The colonizing of Hawaii has been more detrimental than spoken of. With all that has been gained of these STR properties, how much of it is returned to enhance the quality of Native Hawaiian culture and rights. It’s unbelievable how land/property can be taken from Hawaiians in the blink of an eye, but when it comes to out of state investors…it’s not the same approach. Ban short term rentals and make Hawaii liveable for it’s native/born locals.
These short term rentals only benefit the greedy, not the needy.
Placing a ban on short term rentals will not magically reduce the cost of housing for locals. Why should someone just give away a property at a low cost rate because someone can’t afford it. I’ve seen what happens when you try to accommodate people in more affordable housing – they don’t take care of it and the landlord is out thousands of dollars having to fix it after someone trashed it. I see it almost every day.
As I’ve said before, STRs are not the problem in HI. They are just an easy target. The owners are not taking away available housing from locals. The problem is, the locals can’t Afford to buy, or even rent them. Simple, people, supply and demand! Too many people, too little housing. Look at SoCal, the cost of housing there is almost as bad. And no contractor is going to build livable homes (3-4 bedroom family) and sell them for the price the locals are able to pay for them (which could easily be below their cost!). There is no easy answer, but don’t blame the tourists. Locals love them (money spent) and hate them (for various reasons). You can’t have it both ways.
I seriously doubt HI legislators are reading BOH. With over a million readers worldwide I don’t believe there is a much louder voice for the vacationer than BOH. While the stat “27% of owners have more than 20 units” say ban tourism. It’s the corporate greed and elite buying and holding potential visitors hostage. No tourism = return HI to its pristine state. Then come back in 20!years when your greed takes a hit
Meanwhile on the Big Island, according to West Hawaii Today, 70 acres to be developed including “600 residential units, two hotels comprising 150 hotel rooms, 220,900 square feet of commercial use, and a variety of open space features”. No mention of how much those residential units will cost or if they are condos or homes, but also no mention of affordable housing either. Looks like the $6 million investment from the hotel lobbyists is paying for itself. Follow the money…who got that 6 million from the hotel lobby? Disgusting.
Cruise around Kona and take a look at all of the old and new empty retail and commercial properties. They are everywhere. Most of the huge Kmart area, the old Safeway area, the brand new Safeway area is surrounded by new and empty buildings just sitting there for years, lots of empty retail mixed in shopping centers, empty office space everywhere. Just look around, over built and empty. Commercial real estate is in the early stages of a big crash.
I think they are in the process of doing this very thing. It’s a mess right now but they will probably eventually sort it out. See here:
washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/22/maui-fires-hawaii-housing/
Let’s hope these temporary homes alleviate some of the pressure and put a roof over the heads of those who have lost everything.
If STVR’s are gone, we will most likely not return to Hawaii. The comfort and convenience of these over Hotels is considerable in our minds, not to mention the price.
We do not like hotels, especially when they aren’t located where we want to be, away from tourists.
Therefore if our Puna (Moku, o Keawe) vacation rental is forced to shut down, we wont be returning.
We come to enjoy and support the local economy on the island, not line the corporate pocket of mainland hotel chains.
It’s ironic, the government is concerned about “offshore” vacation rental ownership…who do they think owns the big hotel chains????
Typical self centered politicians, only acting on behalf of those who fund their re-election.
We have been traveling to Hawaii on a yearly basis for the last 10 years & now bring our adult kids as well as our grandchildren. With the exception of our first trip, we have always stayed in a vacation rental normally 10 days at a time. If the vacation rentals are no longer available, we would find another vacation location where rentals are available for 9 people.
Instead of forcing short term rentals out why not build tiny homes for those misplaced by the recent Lahina fires? When the mainland was hit with hurricanes FEMA built tiny homes and also placed mobile homes in various states to assist those that lost their homes. Why can’t this be done in Hawaii? The government in Hawaii is so very liberal that the first thing they think about is confiscating legally owned properties from hard working people.. How about Governor Green and his merry band of Robin Hood thieves get off their butts and figure out how to solve the housing problem without robbing those they consider rich. Not everyone that owns a vacation rental is wealthy. Most have worked hard for the money to afford one.
In the process of doing that now, both for homeless and now Maui fire victims. The homes are an easy build. Establishing infrastructure takes time.
So apparently the government is taking a smart, multi pronged approach. If you lived here or followed current events, you would know that.
Would not visit if an exorbitantly priced hotel were the only option.
I come to Hawaii, North Shore, for a month every year. That’s my days off and vacation combined. I infuse the economy with roughly 25k, while I am there. With everyone who comes with me. And I am just one person for one month. Should this not be available, I will not be returning. That would be very sad as I really love the North Shore.
Residential areas aren’t right for STVRs & aren’t zoned for it. Many buildings, neighborhoods, towns, and counties prohibit STVRs and/or have requirements for occupancy which is smart regulation in high-demand neighborhood as it keeps property values within reach. I was in Kauai in Oct and 100% of shop & store owners told me finding help post-COVID has been terrible, in a large part because so many moved away and nobody can afford to move back. Yes, there are existing property owners who followed the rules and should be allowed to phase out and/or be grandfathered in.
Finding any kind of help, in any desirable area in the nation, is a terrible dilemma.
The isolation of Hawaii causes it to believe that it is unique in the worker/consumer imbalance. It is not.
The only way Hawaii is unique economically is in its complete and utter reliance on the Tourism industry. That has been the case at least as long as Hawaii has been a state, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. It is too economically isolated to make the numbers work any other way.
Complete and utter reliance is not an apt description of the Hawaii economy. While occupying a large chunk of GDP, tourism accounts for ~25% of annual GDP.
GDP is not what you should be looking at – the effects of tourism are much more far-reaching than that. For instance, here is what our County of Maui says about Maui:
“The visitor industry serves as Maui County’s economic engine, generating more than 80 percent of the County’s economic activity. Tourism also provides 75 percent of all private sector jobs on Maui and contributes approximately 40 percent of real property tax collections.”
The above is directly from the Maui County General Plan document here:
mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/84679/Chapter-4#:~:text=The%20visitor%20industry%20serves%20as,of%20real%20property%20tax%20collections.
Like I said, complete and utter reliance.
Good for you to find the Maui exception. Maui is indeed ultra-dependent on tourism, but overall the state islands (think Oahu) housing the most residents and other islands (think BI) less visited are not as dependent.
Again, complete and utter is an overreach.
I’m just one person, but I’m spending a huge amount of money in the south pacific this year instead of in maui, and the main reason is uncertainty over STRs. I have no desire to stay in overpriced, crowded hotels.
We just sold our timeshare weeks, but still plan to return to Maui every other year, at least. If it is just my husband and myself we would prefer a vacation home but we could live with a hotel. But if family wants to come I don’t see us renting hotel rooms if we can’t get a vacation rental. We would just go elsewhere.
I would be Definitely less interested in coming to Hawaii if short-term vacation rentals are limited. There are many other tropical areas to visit, and Hawaii is going to find fewer and fewer visitors if they continue on this path.
Do they think that if nobody is allowed to rent the condos that are being used for short term rentals, that suddenly the people who are unhoused at the moment are going to be able to rent or buy them. If the government is willing to pay 8,000.00 per month to rent a 1 bdm., plus cover the property taxes, why can’t they just get a shovel in the ground and start building affordable apartments. So unorganized with all the money that has been donated. No central organized plan at all and it’s being wasted.
The state will pay up to $5,000 per month for a one-bedroom home, not $8,000. They have to offer that amount and more just to get the owners of a STR to rent to a victim of the fire. That’s pretty much double what a normal rental would be but unfortunately no one is willing to offer their property unless they make a lot of money…
It shouldn’t be compared to what a normal renter would pay. Short term rentals are typically in upscale or commercial areas, with mortgages, HOAs and taxes that don’t come near allowing for any kind of significant profit. The main reason owners have purchased these units is so that they can afford to visit Maui themselves once in a while, usually once a year.
5-7K is what most owners pay in expenses every month. Is this anywhere near what a resident can pay? No, of course not. Therefore, short-term rentals are not viable as long-term rentals, and the revenue shouldn’t be compared as such.
well said, PatG
What you are pointing to are indeed the bulk of STVR, resort zones where most hotels are also located. The main beef that most in Hawaii have about STVR are those illegal units and in areas where residents live. In many of those areas, especially the ones near, but well outside the main towns, the local rental market is squeezed by apartments, second units and ohanas that rent only short term.
There is a difference.
6 million dollars paid out by hotel lobbyists to legislators to wipe out STVRs–then blame STVRs for lack of housing in Hawaii–never heard of a more ridiculous farce than this! Why not convert those hotels into affordable housing since they are no longer attractive and catered to by tourists?
That is Exactly what i was thinking.STVRs should only be allowed by Hawaii Residents and Native Hawaiians and Ownership of STVRs be Limited to Max 2 VRs.
I think you put this under the wrong person’s comment.
That being said, why do you think that STRs “Should only be allowed by Hawaii Residents and Native Hawaiians”? Are you a member of one of those groups?
2 points here:
1) Wanting only one race to benefit from something is racist.
2) Anyone in the US can own property anywhere else in the US. That’s just the way it is.
Hawaii residents come in all shapes, sizes, colors and races. Native Hawaiians are generally of Polynesian/Asian decent. As for ownership regulations, as another has already posted, many states and countries place limitations on ownership and usage. New York is the biggest example.
While unfortunately we can’t restrict ownership, I don’t see why we couldn’t limit the granting of permits to operate short-term rentals to native Hawaiians, with a cap on the number each permit holder could operate. Then people could feel better that their vacation dollars were going to improve the lives of native Hawaiians, many of whom have been forced to move out of the state. This might give some a chance to come back to their ancestral home. (Note: I would not benefit from this directly, except to the extent that it frees up more housing for sale and rent.)