Many Maui visitors return to the same condo year after year. The location works, the layout is familiar, and availability has felt predictable even as prices rose and rules tightened elsewhere. As of today, December 15, predictability will change for some travelers.
The Maui County Council votes today on Bill 9, a measure expected to pass following a 5–3 first reading. The bill does not remove vacation rentals overnight and does not apply to most visitor accommodations on the island. What it does do is place more than 6,000 long-standing vacation rentals into a formal phase-out process. For travelers who rely on specific condo properties, the immediate question is whether their place is one of them.
What is happening today.
Bill 9 applies to vacation rentals operating in apartment-zoned areas. These are not hotels and not resort-zoned condos built specifically for visitors. They are units that have operated legally as short-term rentals for years under prior county rules. This makes it confusing.
If approved today, Bill 9 begins the phase-out of 6,208 such units. Nothing disappears immediately. What changes today is the long-term status of those rentals and the certainty surrounding their future use.
Where the phase-out applies and the timeline.
The phase-out timeline depends on location. In West Maui, affected rentals convert within three years. In South Maui, the timeline extends to five years.
Around 60% of the affected units are in South Maui, with 36% in West Maui. These are areas many repeat visitors favor, especially for longer trips and family travel. That concentration explains why some travelers will feel this shift more than others, even though most Maui rentals will remain unaffected.
There is no automatic removal in 2026 or 2027. Any earlier changes would come from owner decisions or financing constraints, not from the phase-out clock itself. Still, once that clock starts, as we have already seen, behavior often changes ahead of deadlines.
What remains unaffected.
Most Maui vacation rentals aren’t affected by this vote. More than 12,500 legal vacation rentals continue operating under existing rules, including resort-zoned condos and hotels. Many travelers will keep booking Maui as they always have, without encountering Bill 9 at all.
The story here is not the end of vacation rentals on Maui. It is an intentional narrowing of where certain rentals can operate over time.
What this means for your booking.
For travelers, the biggest change is confidence. Some owners may keep renting for years, while others might exit early, stop accepting long-term bookings, or convert ahead of schedule. That will become part of the story.
That uncertainty may show up quietly. Listings that once accepted reservations two years out may shorten booking windows. Familiar units may disappear from booking platforms without explanation. The bill does not in any way require these outcomes, but they are not uncommon when long-term use becomes uncertain.
If you’ve booked the same Maui condo year after year, its simply that availability is no longer guaranteed in perpetuity.
Where uncertainty enters.
Legal challenges are expected after Bill 9 passes. Lawsuits could delay timelines or place some properties in limbo. Financing adds another layer of uncertainty, as rentals facing phase-out could encounter lending restrictions that influence owner decisions even before deadlines arrive.
For travelers, this does not mean cancellations. It does mean that some bookings may become harder to secure far in advance and that familiar options may be less predictable than they were before today.
The practical takeaway.
Bill 9 doesn’t change where most Maui visitors stay or remove thousands of rentals overnight. Instead, it puts a defined and large subset of long-standing vacation rentals on a clock.
If you’ve been booking the same Maui condo for years, now is the time to start checking if it’s among the 6,208 affected. If it’s not, little may change even in the long run. And even if it is, the timeline may still stretch years into the future, but the certainty that once existed no longer does.
That is what today’s vote means for Maui travelers.
Maui County maintains the official list of apartment-zoned properties affected by Bill 9.
If your condo appears on this list, it falls within the phase-out timeline. The County itself, however, notes this list may not be complete.
240725TVRList_WEB_202407252055590080Photo Credit: © Beat of Hawaii on Kamaole Beach on Maui.
Get Breaking Hawaii Travel News
Bill 9 is a social justice decision untethered from sound economic or housing analysis. It is driven by hostility toward short-term rentals, not by evidence that this policy will meaningfully increase affordable housing.
The Maui County Council chose to target legally operating properties that complied with existing statutes and constitutional protections. These units were lawfully purchased, permitted, financed, and taxed under government rules. Retroactively restricting their use is not housing reform, it is selective punishment based on how property is used.
Many of these units were built and long operated as condo hotels. Zoning changed later as surrounding areas grew, not because their intended use changed.
This bill is special-interest driven and rooted in resentment, not data. The economic impact will be severe: job losses, harm to local businesses, reduced tax revenue, and more residents forced to leave Maui because they can no longer make a living here.
A well written and researched article. It’s not gloom and doom like the special interests from the mainland make it out to be. Residential areas should not be used for str’s period. They have taken away 30 percent of residential houses. These people have also driven up property prices. Maui did the right thing.. they were too generous with this bill if you ask me
Want to know why housing is so unaffordable in Hawaii? Read this article about the utter incompetence and chaos of Hawaiian Homelands fiasco. Some in the government program have waited for up to 20 years to get a lease to a home.
oregonlive.com/native-american-news/2025/12/hawaii-is-reviving-a-risky-play-to-get-hawaiians-into-homes.html
I hope Beat of Hawaii will do a feature story on this and related bureaucratic nightmares that deny Hawaiian residents the ability to own a home. It’s not STRs, It’s government incompetence writ large.
I appreciate the article but the emphasis should be on the fact that there will be no changes for at least three and possibly five years. People are fine to rent in 2026, 2027 and even 2028 and that’s on West Maui. In South Maui it’s 2029 and 2030. Visitors will have no problems renting units at least until then and many of us feel that there will be a settlement of the issue (whether by court or by future Council action) that will un-do much of the damage done by Bill 9. In the meantime, people need to keep coming and support the folks who have had their property values decimated by this action.
Regarding your Dec. 15 Bill 9 article, the list you state are to be phased out is not accurate. The last 3 pages of the list are “Non-Apartments” and are not A-1 or A-2 which the Bill specifically applies to.
Looks like I should buy stock in Hilton properties and Maui should prepare for abandoned condo buildings that nobody can afford to rent.
I cant believe you passed this, The people of Maui are having a hard enough time getting by, this is going to make life on Maui very very hard for the Hawaiian people, its going to drive up rental cost for visitors and we are just going to go somewhere else. Then what are you going to do… this is a Tourist driven economy.
Lisa J
We used to be West Maui hotel guests until we discovered condos nearby. They are half-the-price with more in-room amenities that make the stay even more enjoyable. For many years I wondered how the hotels felt about this. Now I know.
Aloha also means goodbye and my heart swells with gratitude to bid so many of you a sincere aloha indeed. You thought gentrifying a Hawaiian neighborhood as an absentee owner was a good investment? Gloating to your family and friends about job creation so locals can clean your empty units and still live broke? Let’s be frank: you made a bad investment based on values that aren’t part of our community. A working democracy advocates for laws that support it’s community, so cry all you want about the law, but the law is working as it should. Next time, I suggest keeping your monopoly money and manifest destiny out of Hawaii!
Your comment is ignorant and terrible. Most of the condos on the Minatoya List were built 40 years ago or more even before there were neighborhoods in South Maui in particular. We did not gentrify anyone’s neighborhoods. The neighborhoods came after the condos were built in resort areas. Our buildings were built as vacation rentals from day one not as apartments for families. The properties in question have overwhelmingly one bedroom one bath units with a smaller percentage two bedroom two bath units and even fewer (or none) with three bedrooms. I really resent the accusation that my condo took anything away from anyone. There are still thousands of homes in Lahaina that have not been rebuilt and don’t have building permits approved. Thousands. Why are we not building homes for people instead of forcing them into 600 square foot condos intended for another purpose and purchased as such?
You might want to rethink your opinion that you live in a “working democracy”. Maui’s housing shortage has very little to do with STRs…it was caused by the working democracy that you voted for.
Housing shortages are everywhere especially in areas that are more desirable to live. Getting rid of these residential area strs will bring back 30% of housing back to the market. Democracy is working just fine as evidenced by the passage of this bill. The majority want these gone.
Housing shortages existing elsewhere does not make policies that reduce housing supply locally any less harmful. That point is a deflection, not an argument.
The claim that eliminating residential STRs will return “30% of housing” to the market is unsupported by data. There is no credible analysis showing that percentage converting to long-term, affordable housing. Many units will be sold, remain vacant, or priced far beyond local incomes. There are no mechanisms ensuring affordability or actual occupancy.
A bill passing does not prove it is good policy. Democracy determines what passes, not whether it is economically sound or effective. Bad laws pass democratically all the time and are often reversed once the consequences become clear.
Emotion and majority frustration do not change housing math. Reducing existing inventory without replacement housing online worsens shortages in the short and medium term, regardless of intent.
Who decides how someone may use lawfully owned private property? Owning property in more than one place does not negate constitutional rights or disqualify anyone from owning property in Maui.
The claim that STRs removed “30 percent” of residential housing is unsupported and false. No credible data backs it. Repeating an invented number does not make it reality.
STRs did not drive up property values. Prices rose because housing supply has been constrained for decades by zoning limits, restricted permit issuance, and the County’s failure to build or approve housing. That shortage has worsened due to delays in issuing rebuild permits after the fires.
This argument is driven by politics of envy, not facts. Frustration over affordability does not justify punishing legal property owners or rewriting property rights. Blaming STRs is emotionally convenient, but it avoids accountability for the policy failures that caused Maui’s housing crisis.
No mystery here the measure was backed by both hotel industry and the longshoremen’s union that represent hotel workers. The hotel workers union organized and had several members testify for the end of STR’s to support their members wages. The union claimed without evidence that Maui hotels have been at 60 percent capacity ending STR’s would raise capacity to 90 percent. Which would raise members pay making housing more affordable.
Thank you for stating clearly and explicitly that many, many vacation rentals will remain legal and available on into the future.
What you need to research and ask is, “Is this condo ‘hotel zoned’?”
Bill 9 was passed today.
Next comes lawsuits and efforts to get rezoned into a hotel district. Apparently, more than 4,000 of these units may qualify, leaving only 1,500 to actually be converted. This kerfuffle is going to end up costing the county (taxpayers) a fortune without helping anyone while severely damaging the tourist industry.
We are being led by fools, and possibly thieves!
They are trying to help their donors – this is how they are doing it.
Even if total tourist arrivals, spending, etc goes down, if they can greatly reduce the number of STR’s, it will only help their hotel donors.
If hundreds / thousands of families leave Maui because their jobs at the STR’s went away, that is an acceptable result.
If struggling people leave Maui, then the pressure on affordable housing will be reduced.
Even if the ban is overturned in a year or two, the damage will already have been done.
The politicians leading this effort know what they are causing.
If the Mayor thinks this will solve his housing problems, he’s wrong, it’ll make it worse.
For a person that metaphorically owns the Maui permit and planning divisions, use the resources at hand. Come up with real solutions, not try to pickpocket existing property owners.
We’re still coming next year. After that, who knows. I guess that’s the honest answer until more is revealed.
We’re reading this while sitting in the condo we’ve rented for the last ten Decembers. It’s strange to think this place might not always be an option.
I’m not even sure why this is making me emotional, but it is. We don’t own anything. We just have a place we love and memories tied to it.
I’ve been coming to Maui since the 1980s and every decade there’s a new “this will change everything” moment. Most of the time, it doesn’t.
Lahaina Strong thinks they won the battle, but they really haven’t won very much if anything. They didn’t get affordable housing, they lost jobs, they lost the revenue to build affordable housing!
And there still aren’t any homes rebuilt in Lahaina (let alone businesses) which doesn’t make Lahaina strong at all after more than two years. There are hundreds of building permits waiting for approval that are sitting and nothing is being done to approve them.
Lahaina Strong and the City Council have latched onto STRs as the cause of Maui’s problems, but that claim is a classic straw-man argument. It simplifies a complex crisis by blaming a single, politically convenient group while ignoring government failures in permitting, zoning, and rebuilding.
Scapegoating legal property owners may feel satisfying, but it does nothing to solve housing shortages or speed recovery. History shows that when governments blame a targeted group instead of fixing broken systems, the real problems only get worse.
Everyone loses under this approach, residents, workers, local businesses, and the community it claims to protect.
So sad.
How can one locate the final list?
Google
Less tourist, more unemployment, lots of lawsuits!
Bill 9 looks like gov’t overreach dressed up as a housing fix. The law wipes out decades of established property rights by shutting down roughly 7k legally operating STRs, with no just compensation. Classic Fifth Amendment taking. Hawaii courts have been clear that lawful, preexisting uses are vested rights that zoning changes can’t simply erase, affirmed in Ferris Trust in 2016. The 2022 federal injunction blocking Honolulu’s similar ban reinforced the same point. Eliminating STR rights triggers a constitutional taking and requires compensation. Bill 9 ignores that reality entirely. The county could face litigation exposure exceeding $1b, while also eliminating one of its largest property tax revenue streams, more than $76m a year. That revenue currently helps fund the affordable housing programs this bill claims to support. Legal challenges are inevitable, and the county’s position is weak. The amortization period does not fix the underlying constitutional issue or liability.
Many cities have short-term rental restrictions. These STRs, affecting popular tourist spots like New York City, Honolulu, Maui, Boston, Miami Beach, Seattle, and San Diego manage to get away with these restrictions. I guess Maui is somehow different. 😁
All of your listed cities didn’t have a explicit acknowledgement of short term rentals for Decades. The Montoya list is over 40 years old. These listed condominiums didn’t become short term rentals after the advent of Airbnb. Airbnb is just the latest venue they’re on.
This is a rezoning under the law and the county will lose, the bill struck down and all legal bills and valuation losses will be payed by the taxpayers.
This communities have other industries that provide employment and bring outside dollars into the community.
Maui has one industry – tourism. By voting to significantly reduce the size of that industry the Maui Council has voted to lower wages,.shrink it’s tax base and make it’s citizens poorer.
Less money does not mean more housing. It means fewer jobs for locals, less affordability for locals and…..ironically……creates a huge opportunity for rich mainlanders to purchase a second home on Maui. They will then leave it empty 50 weeks a year.
The bill was carefully crafted to withstand those types of lawsuits. Not only will owners who file such lawsuits have little likelihood of success, but ironically will make their own properties harder to sell while litigation is active – and therefore less valuable as a result of their own legal action.
Fred, nobody here is buying what you are selling, and your post makes me wonder if you are a hotel lobbyist. To suggest that this bill was “carefully crafted” is laughable. It is strictly “shoot from the hip” and full of holes.
Your feeble attempt to scare homeowners into not suing is futile. Property values have already tanked.
False. The bill was sweeping in its attack on legally operating units that were built as vacation rentals from day one and permitted as such from day one and excluded from rules that limited future STRs. Delaying the taking by 3 or 5 years doesn’t turn the taking into anything other than a taking. Maui County will lose on this and lose tens of millions of dollars in property taxes alone each year let alone the other taxes and fees collected on STRs and their guests.
This is only going to hurt Maui
I’m reading this less as “things are ending” and more as “things are going to be harder to plan.” That alone changes how appealing Maui feels. Is that largely the point anyway?
Does anyone actually know how renters are supposed to check if their unit is affected, or is this just guesswork right now?
We own a unit on the list, located in Kihei. The simple answer is absolutely nothing will change for many years. A class action suit will be filed and drag this out even more years. Please continue to come to Maui, rent the unit you love. A whole on-island industry (property managers, gardeners, handymen, housekeeping) is counting on it.
We’ve stayed in the same South Maui condo since the early 1990s. It never crossed my mind that it might actually not always be there until this vote today.
We’re booked for next winter, but we’re watching closely. If our place gets pulled or restricted, we’ll probably just look elsewhere. That’s just the reality of the situation.
I understand the housing arguments, but what strikes me is how much uncertainty this creates for people like us who plan their trips years in advance. Hawaii used to reward loyalty. That feels completely the opposite now.
As someone who owns a Minatoya-listed unit, I’m less worried about the timeline than the endless back and forth legal limbo ahead. If lawsuits drag on for years, does anyone really know what the implications will be in the meantime?
This is exactly why we switched to hotels a year ago fully knowing this was coming. Condos used to be our predictable go to. Now every trip feels like that is more uncertain.
This is Exactly what the hotel industry has been angling (bribing?) for. They are now skimming off many of the visitors who prefer a condo, but are afraid of uncertainty, even though a final decision is many years, and lawsuits away.
I own a condo that is not on the Minatoya list, and even so, this vote makes me uneasy. Once uncertainty creeps in, renters, lenders and insurers start changing their behavior, and that affects everyone, not just the properties being phased out.
We’ve stayed in the same Kihei condo for nearly 20 years. It’s not fancy, but it’s ours. Seeing this vote today feels like the first real crack in something we always assumed would just keep going despite the rhetoric.
My building is “on the list” to transition to Long Term Rentals. All this will do is drive the property values down further, and they are now down about 40%. After the fire, the building filled up with local people. Many of them parked multiple vehicles here even though we literally have one parking space per condo. Our swimming pool soon resembled a public pool with dozens of regular “visitors”.
These units will never be affordable even at a lower price. With $1500 per month HOA dues, mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and utilities, it would cost about $4,000 per month for one small bedroom.
Meanwhile, the condo properties on either side of us have 1, 2, and 3-bedroom family units, but aren’t “on the list”. How does this make sense?
This is more about “feelings” Alex, since math seems to be a hard concept here, especially for politicians. Ironically, most of this housing crisis is from them and lack for foresight to make it easier for builders to build. The real irony is the amount of “me” and corruption here – the state of “aloha”.
The loud few are all Bissen seems to hear, but that will more than likely come back to bite him in the butt come reelection. (I’m already hearing it)
And this is complete nonsense, since reductions in staffing were related to Covid, not STRs existing for 30 + years. Who’s really in bed with who?
“Emmanuel Baltazar, a hotel worker and ILWU officer, told the council that vacation rentals in apartment districts are reducing shifts for union members…”
Hello removal of vacation term rentals. Hello lawsuits. Removing a source of income from owners setup as businesses is a real issue. Destroying your largest home industry. Hawaii taxpayers will paying for its defense. I predict unemployment as a result and loss of income for many Hawaii residents. That’s not the the way to fix the housing issue. There are so many better alternatives.
This seems to be a reasonable and fair outcome. Reinstating apartments into the housing stock that are not in a resort area makes sense.
You do realize that doesn’t mean the places, normally small for more than 2 people to live in, will still have the same high taxes, HOA’s and prices, right? People who own them from the mainland, have to pay all of those things, plus repairs, etc….
Except the plan will never work, especially the Wailea and South Kihei units. Between the HOA fees and taxes none of these properties can generate the amount of rent needed to break even, let alone make the owner any profit.
Alfred, on paper this might sound “reasonable and fair” but is it really?
Most of the oceanfront properties like mine were built and sold in the 1960s and 1970s as vacation rentals. Mainlanders bought the units to afford themselves an annual Maui vacation, with the ability to rent them out the rest of the year to cover their expenses and eventually become their retirement homes. (Much like condos in vacation destinations worldwide.)
The condos will not be “reinstated to the housing stock” because they never were “housing stock”.
A couple of years ago, our leaders raised the property tax rates so high that many of my neighbors were forced to sell. Overnight, their taxes jumped from $3,000 per year to more than $12,000 per year. Now we are facing another disaster.
For many of my neighbors, their condo was to provide retirement income as well as being their nest egg. Now after 50+ years, that is being taken away.
Does that really seem “reasonable and fair”?
Well said, thank you, Alex. Our condo has been a short term rental for 56 years, continuously, since it was built. We are the second owner.
These units Are in the resort areas. They were built as vacation rentals. We aren’t talking about condos in neighborhoods where people are living.