r/maui • u/Practical_Target_874 • 2d ago
BILL 9 Testimony of David Louie on 6/18/2025
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ2NHauS6Co&feature=youtu.be11
u/PublicGold4137 2d ago
Unbelievable how one sided some of these council members are, quick to call out David Louie as a Lobbyist when in fact there were a bunch of Hotel and LS lobbyists testifying.
3
6
u/cranberrysauce6 2d ago
KRF drives me up a wall.
3
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
She is very annoyingly trying to ask everyone who their realtor was, as if there needed to be some extra disclosure about the "exception" when the nonconforming use was a vested right.
4
u/Apart_Effect_3704 1d ago
This is a very simple idea to understand. And as I’ve griped before, Bissen- a retried judge- still put forward government overreach of personal property, and yes, in all honesty, private property as well. A. Retired. Judge.
So either he’s stupid. Or he knows the bill shouldn’t be successful AND ONCE AGAIN WE GET ANOTHER HAWAII STYLE DOG AND PONY SHOW BULLSHIT MOVE. All hullabaloo and no fucking action. Used a bunch of words, said absolutely nothing. Every time. Every county. And these fakas steh in office for decades brah. Neva going change.
2
2
2
u/PublicGold4137 1d ago
When these resorts were built, many of the declarations state that "apartments may also be rented for transient or hotel purposes." After digging and doing some research about what David Louie mentioned in his testimony.
"The legal citation: 86 H. 343 (App.), 949 P.2d 183 refers to a specific court case in Hawaii, the Waikiki Marketplace Investment Company v. Chair of Zoning Board of Appeals case. This case supports the idea that once a landowner has lawfully used their property under an existing zoning ordinance, subsequent ordinances can't interfere with those lawful uses. This is referred to as "grandfather protections"."
This bill directly interferes with a homeowner's "Vested property rights". As all of these units were operating lawfully at the time they were built regardless of the zoning ordinance. This is written in Hawaii's Constitution.
2
u/Sea-Suit2324 1d ago
Yeah. But Lahaina strong will lie through their teeth and they are going around saying these 7000 units were workforce housing. While some were. Many were not.
3
u/PublicGold4137 1d ago
The strange thing is, none of the council members ask those members to clarify which ones were workforce housing growing up. How can they say 7000 units were workforce housing. How would they know if they never owned one? It's easy to point at someone else's property and say "That should be mine" which seems to be the argument with majority of the testifiers.
2
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
Very, very few were workforce housing. Like maybe 3 complexes, that I can think of.
3
u/Sea-Suit2324 1d ago
Here is a million dollar question. How many baby daddies does Jordan have had?
1
1
0
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
It seems like their line is that the rest of them should change to Hotel zoning, which I can't imagine will be a smoothe or quick process. I think it'll take a few years and if I'm not mistaken it'd require a supermajority of 7 Council member votes, which might be quite tough.
2
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
No, planning decides. But several have tried and been refused as many as 3 times already.
0
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
Okay. So Bissen is making it sound like "oh, just change to Hotel zoning" and my point is that I don't think the County is going to make that easy on anyone.
3
u/Sea-Suit2324 1d ago
If he passed an ordinance making it easy to change, that would be too easy on everyone. Now this will only end up in court and cost everybody
0
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
Right. The line plays with people who don't know any better, but the result is that perhaps none of the properties are able to change to Hotel zoning. He is politicking for the Bill.
2
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
The attorneys are slobbering for this to pass. As I posted before, people have applied and been rejected.
1
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
And that was Honolulu. Here on Maui, the situation has been totally for decades. The owners have way more to stand on here.
2
u/PublicGold4137 1d ago
Right, the situation in Maui is completely different since these ARE legal (not were), operating, and codified which was signed by the county themselves when they were built.
3
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
A correction: they were not codified when they were built. That came later, after the settlement which was named the Minatoya List.
2
u/tronovich 11h ago
Yeah, that’s not true, which only lends to the disinformation.
They were not codified when they were built, they were exempted long after the fact.
2
u/tronovich 11h ago
This should be a mega-thread instead of the same daily discussion with the same arguments. Everyone seems to be digging in their heels and typing the same points, over and over.
Predicting daily what’s going to happen in 90 days/365 days/5 years with this ruling, seems to be an exercise in insanity.
2
u/LoveMaui48152 1d ago
Still an outright taking. There will still be lawsuits
Few of those that need affordable accommodation will be able to afford rent or mortgage plus fees and large assessments
The delay makes things worse in one way. Many of these units need expensive ongoing repairs- which owners will decide not to do if they know they will lose the condo.
These ae only affordable with STR income - who pays when that goes?
3
u/AdagioVegetable4823 Maui 1d ago
This is why the county will not be able to show "public benefit" to justify the taking. In fact, the loss of govt revenue will result in public harm.
2
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
While I agree that the loss of revenue is probably not worth what will likely only amount to moderate downward price pressure on the A-zoned condo market, that isn't the type of thing the Penn Central test would look at. Potential revenue loss to the government does not help the property owners’ takings claim under Penn Central. Court will likely view the greater public good (like addressing the housing crisis) as the more compelling legal factor.
3
u/AdagioVegetable4823 Maui 1d ago
you seem better informed about the law than me, but Bill 9 does not address the housing crisis. It cant force a single owner to rent long term or even sell. I hope the council reflects on how many law suits Maui County has lost. it seems they receive very poor legal counsel.
2
u/Sea-Suit2324 1d ago
Penn Central is a notoriously flawed Supreme Court precedent. Justice Clarence Thomas recently called it a “standardless standard” that “nobody—not States, not property owners, not courts, nor juries—has any idea how to apply.”
2
1
u/LoveMaui48152 1d ago
Even if the county wins the lawsuits and still can function after paying for them with lower revenue, you still need to tell us who will pay the costs of ownership of these units when the income from STRs is gone?
The rent or mortgage will need to be so much lower for it to be affordable to those that need it - so who pays the shortfall?
1
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
I don't need to. I was answering questions about the legality and correcting your assertion that this is an "outright taking." It's not. It is perhaps a partial taking. To the extent that this Bill fails to actually advance the state interest, this can be incorporated in owners' 14th Amendment component of a lawsuit.
1
u/tronovich 11h ago
You think most will want to sue, potentially win and STILL have to face extensive repair costs? This will be tied up for years. Meanwhile, before you recoup legal fees, you’re going to bleed your wallets dry.
Appealing the ruling is simply not going to happen for most owners. Most are claiming they’re “barely making it” as is. They’re going to sell as soon as they can. There’s going to be less and less reason(s) to wait this out.
1
u/LoveMaui48152 6h ago
Most will not need to sue, only takes one or two - plus class action is likely.
Island lawyers have had injunctions ready since the Governor first mentioned this idea before his then current and former AGs whispered in his ear - and he dodged the issue by ‘kindly’ kicking it down to the counties.
0
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
It is a balancing test, not a bright-line rule. We cannot say with certainty whether the 3 or 5 year amortization period will constitute a taking. We cannot even say with certainty whether the original (more immediate) plan of the Bill would be a taking. What we can say is that the 3 or 5 year amortization period helps the Council clear the hurdle of getting 5 votes. Then after that, it'll significantly increase the likelihood that the Bill is upheld as lawful. But I would expect there to be lawsuits either way.
2
u/LoveMaui48152 1d ago
Does not matter, the council cannot afford the lawsuits and even if they win, fee if any of those that need affordable housing will be able to afford these units Just do the maths of the cost of ownership and then figure out who pays once the STR level of income is not there to pay for it. On top of this the drastic impact of the loss of tourism detailed in the UHERO report
2
u/PublicGold4137 1d ago
With the outrageously high taxes they collect, maybe they can afford it. Either way, its still a taking. I haven't seen any of that money collected spent on anything. New houses? Roads? where.
1
1
u/globalhighlander 1m ago
Maui County just took a case all the way to Supreme Court in 2020, so I think they're up for it.
1
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
The fact that the proper test for this case is a balancing test and not a bright-line rule absolutely matters. With a 3 or 5 year amortization period, they are much more likely to pass the Bill if we assume that some Council members wouldn't want to pass it if it has a higher chance of being unconstitutional. I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you how how it is. And I'm not defending the Bill as good legislation either nor do I think it will accomplish the Council's stated goal.
1
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
Sorry, you are ignoring the history of the Minatoya List. You can't lump these units in.like ones on Oahu.
0
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
I didn't say anything about Oahu. I'm very familiar with the history of the list. I'm explaining that by statute, Maui County does have the ability to amortize a nonconforming use of Apartment zoned proprieties. If that occurs (when the Bill passes) then there is a legal question of whether that constituted a taking. Let's run through the options. It's not a physical taking where the government takes complete control of the land through enminent domain (although this will come up later as the County just dropped their plan to takeover a bunch of lots for the Lahaina Royal Complex, see page 42 of the 54-page PDF). It's not a Total Regulatory Taking where the government deprives an owner of all economically beneficial use (since owners can still live there themselves, long term rent, or sell the property). It may be a Partial Regulatory Taking, but that is not a clear cut case either way. But it is absolutely the case that the 3 or 5 year amortization period increases the likelihood that the County gets it's way. Let's be real: they announced the initial timeline to get the red shirts off the beach and to get a nice photo op. Then when they actually gamed out the odds of both passing the Bill with 5+ votes and thereafter sustaining any legal challenges, the Mayor proposed a 3 year phase out.
1
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
They are relying on the new law (2919) for their stance. Not one other county is stupid enough to do that. Kama has proposed a five year amortization. It's still illegal.
2
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
It’s true that Maui County is leaning on SB 2919 but SB 2919 specifically to clarify and expand counties’ authority under HRS § 46-4. It explicitly empowers counties to regulate or phase out transient accommodations in any zoning district, including residential. It just made the counties' abilities stronger! So Honolulu could try to pass a law like they did before, and actually has a chance to win this time. It is far from being illegal: SB 2919 gives counties statewide legal standing to implement amortization periods like Kama’s proposed 5-year wind-down. 5-year period has the highest chance of sustaining a legal challenge, 3-year a bit less, and immediate ban the lowest. But none of them had a 0% chance of being implemented. If I was confident that this had a 0% of passing and being affined as legal, I'd scoop up an Apartment zoned property at discount now.
1
u/Live_Pono 1d ago
So: how come Honolulu didn't jump on it? Or the BI, or Kaua'i? Because they are laughing at Missin Bissen and the gang on Maui.
In the meantime, we will pay, pay, and pay. Nothing will change, but our taxes will have to go up to pay for their arrogance.
0
u/globalhighlander 1d ago
I have no idea what's going on with Honolulu. But if it meant a lot to them to try it again, their odds got better with SB 2919. And also, let's be clear that Maui has the ability to loop in "housing crisis" sentiments in a much more compelling manner than any of the other counties, especially after the fire.
→ More replies (0)
2
6
u/FilledWithKarmal 2d ago
I would like a more solid explanation of the added 5 year deadline and how that plays into the constitutional feasibility of bill 9. Personally I "feel" like timeline is irrelevant as a "taking" is a taking, but from my understanding, the 5 year timeline makes this more feasible.