The Hawaii vacation rental market faces major transformation with this controversial plan. Set to help address housing shortages, it will without doubt stir significant debate among residents, Hawaii visitors, and industry stakeholders.
Leave a Comment
230 thoughts on “Updated: Hawaii Vacation Rental Legislation: Governor Says He’ll Sign Ban Approval”
What about Exchange homes where people from different places trade homes for vacations – sometimes with multiple people for longer vacations?
I think home exchange is exempt from most STR concerns, because there is no money trading hands.
The idea of the Average Joe making $$ is what always seems to enrage certain people (and governments).
France, Canada, SF…….STR banning, restrictions…..
Dump it all from residential zoning:
“In France the annual limit is 120 nights and in some cases council approval is required; in San Francisco there’s a 90-night limit and strict compliance rules, while in Canada – particularly some parts of Quebec, including Montreal – there are selective complete bans on short lets. I could go on, because almost all western countries now have restrictions. You get the picture, I’m sure. So while the UK’s short let clampdown pledged by Gove and his government looks of a piece with the rest of their restrictions on other forms of landlordism, on this occasion it’s part of a bigger global picture.”
Global:
“And then, of course, there’s New York. Officially the city has long had regulations effectively outlawing short lets, but this was rarely – some say never – enforced until the passage of Local Law 18, which strengthened existing legislation, beefed up enforcement and required mandatory host registration. NY short let registrations plummeted from approximately 13,500 listings in August last year to under 3,000 in December. Australia is curbing short lets too, most vociferously in Western Australia which is introducing limits similar to those proposed here by Gove. It wants new short lets to require planning consent, some exemptions for long-standing existing hosts, and a 90-night limit.”
This is happening globally:
“The Italian city of Florence – by density, the country’s most heavily touristic city – has banned new short-term listings by property owners in its historic centre, and is offering three years of tax breaks to landlords of existing short lets if they switch to ordinary long-term letting. In Iceland you can let out your home, or part thereof, for no more than 90 nights per year and there is an annual income cap on how much a host can receive. In Tokyo – where the annual limit is 180 nights – hosts must either live and remain in the property that’s let, or have an administrator employed to do the same.”
This bill seems to be a direct result of the exposed “Pay to Play” system that our Hawaiian Legislature is using. Big Hotel interests are more than willing to foot the bill to drive away their competition and scapegoat the small individual owners that are managing the STVRs.
Each county will have the power to ban all STRs or phase them out. Maui’s mayor is anti tourism. Hopefully, he goes after the illegal STRs first, then residential. There are condos in hotel zones that are STRs. Then there is the bill to re zone ag, residential and hotel zones. Why would they want to be able to re-zone? Look at the big picture. Look at how little the hotels pay in taxes, like 1/10 of the STRs and there are more hotel rooms. How can this be? Who will benefit? Corruption was just exposed. The reason we have STRs is not only the mainlanders wanting to get rich but locals trying to survive our high cost of living. This will hurt so many. While we are at it, someone audit where all the money given to Lahaina Strong went.
With this legislation, the state is shamelessly admitting that they are incapable of solving this problem, so let’s pass the buck to the counties. Perhaps it’s better that Maui can take matters into their own hands. What isn’t clear to me is what happens to those of us who currently own VR’s? Unless I’ve missed it, none of the articles I’ve read on this legislation ever mentions who this potential ban will impact. Is this a ban only on future VR entrants, or could the counties try to force current VR’s into strictly long term rentals, or both?
Removing existing, legal property rights is what is called a “taking”, which is illegal. This has been the message from courts all over the country, a recent example being what happened in Oahu. Oahu introduced legislation banning 30-89 day rentals, and the bill actually passed. Of course they were sued, and the courts promptly rescinded the law, citing 4 different Hawaii and US Constitutional rights.
Governments can pass any kind of laws willy-nilly, but it’s a different ballgame once it gets to the judicial level.
Obviously, the lesson here is that those hurt need to band together and sue to protect their existing property rights. There are several STR organizations you can join to make sure this happens.
Thank you Pat! Even those of that don’t own STRs are against rights being stomped on. Many of us are organizing. We won’t have a choice.
I’ve noticed that suddenly many people have found the words “passive’ and ‘income’ go together, do they understand what it means? Do they understand that ownership has its own disadvantages as well? Doubtful. It’s all Roses and Wine to them. Try investing your own money. Don’t have enough? Don’t blame those who do!
You don’t think that those of us with passive incomes made the investment that allowed us to reach that goal or do you just plan to work until you drop dead with no opportunity to enjoy the fruits of your labor with family or children?
Ownership has responsibilities that only hard working responsible people seem to understand. We all have the opportunity to get an education, work hard, save and invest in our future. We each have priorities and choose our lives. We are not victims unless you choose to be one. Grow up and take responsibility instead blaming others and telling yourselves that you are entitled to be a burden on others. Thank you Ernie. I could hug you!
A short-term rental ban is not constitutional. It is convenient for the state to pass the issue off to the counties. If a county tries to ban STRs they will be shooting themselves in the foot twice once because they will be killing their economy and twice when taxpayers have to pay the ligation costs and the resulting liability. It is not a smart move.
I guess, as a famous person once said “we’ll see”. I predict a major clusterf***.
I’m really slack jawed listening to some of the things Josh Green says. I thought doctors were supposed to be intelligent.
“People will be able to get housing again”. What gives Mr. Green the idea that eliminating short-term rentals will magically create long-term housing? Thousands of owners on various sites have confirmed that eliminating short-term rentals will only cause them to keep their units for themselves, and that they will absolutely not rent long-term. Renting long-term, especially in a state with constant eviction moratoriums, is something most owners won’t touch with a 10-foot pole.
I can’t wait to see the uproar when eliminating short-term rentals makes zero difference in solving Hawaii’s housing needs.
Exactly! I have seen and been a victim of the eviction moratoriums. My dad had the problem, I have clients that just had the problem. The issue then is that they have lost thousand of dollars to squatters. I will never rent long term again
I grew up respecting those that held public office such as our President etc.. I never thought I would see so much ignorance, greed and corruption. I am embarrassed of our officials and ashamed at the behavior and sense of entitlement that I am seeing from our people. I pray that there is a Karma. I thank those that are speaking up. This bill will pass but it won’t last. Let’s hope they don’t screw up our economy to badly or for too long before intervention comes.