Bill 88

A longtime Maui small-business owner supported the bill as clarity and modernization for decades-lawful visitor accommodations.

Alapai opposed the bill, arguing the county should evaluate each property individually, make true hotels into hotels, and claw back the rest for housing, warning of voter disillusionment.

An owner at Maui Kamaole described losing $225,000 trying to sell since Bill 9, saying the units aren't set up for local living and she's had no local buyer interest.

Gilbert opposed the bill, arguing the county should instead zone land for housing and either drop the effort or convert all STRs at once, calling the process property-taking.

Banks supported the bill as clarity and a good compromise, echoing the Mayor's testimony.

Bence from Kula opposed the bill in strong terms, citing the planning commissions' denials and warning the new zoning could open 'a rabbit hole of hotels everywhere.'

Rego presented updated Minatoya property analysis: most original declarations showed no transient/hotel intent, and most properties don't operate like hotels; she urged case-by-case upzoning under strict hotel standards instead.

West supported the bill but only with caveats: hotel-level staffing, security, front desk, housekeeping, and sustainable wages like ILWU contracts provide.

A testifier giving her first name supported the bill, walking through the 1989 ordinance history and arguing H-3/H-4 is the appropriate low-rise alternative to H-1/H-2.

Croly argued upzoning to H-1/H-2 is effectively impossible for pre-1989 buildings, cited the unused RU rural districts as a cautionary parallel, and supported the bill.

A Pukalani resident opposed the bill, supporting case-by-case rezoning instead, and connected property-rights claims to Hawaiian sovereignty and land-back movements.

Nakoa opposed the bill in pointed terms, urging the bill's maker to talk story in Lahaina, noting the planning commissions' denial, and asking the council to let Bill 9 take effect.

Smart supported the bill as a promised companion to Bill 9, quoting councilmembers' commitments on the record and citing thousands of new housing units in the pipeline.

A Kīhei resident briefly asked the committee to recommend passage of a clean Bill 88.

Hogan argued Bill 9 passed with a council commitment to create H-3/H-4 zoning and disputed the planning commissions' denials, saying commissioners misunderstood the bill.

A Māʻalaea Kai condo owner supported the bill, saying it modernizes zoning to match real-world uses and would help mitigate litigation exposure and economic losses forecast by UHERO.

Speaking for Lahaina Strong, Kiakona opposed the bill, fearing H-3/H-4 would be used incrementally, property by property, to undo Bill 9, and urged conditions against expansion instead.

Minn testified for the Realtors Association in strong support, arguing many listed properties aren't financially viable as housing and already function as hotels.

Keefe testified with frustration in opposition, defending the planning commissions' denial, disputing the 'looks like a hotel' framing, and calling for a shoreline-setback conversation.

Ruidas described on-the-ground visits to nearly every Minatoya property, found only about ten operating like hotels, and urged rejecting blanket zoning in favor of strict, targeted upzoning with hotel-level standards.

McKim supported the bill as zoning modernization, arguing disregarding it after Bill 9 would feel like a bait-and-switch.

The Chamber president supported the bill, disputed the commissions' rationale, and questioned the sea-level-rise argument for denying properties to visitors rather than residents.

SK B supported the bill as a fair compromise from the TIG process and cautioned against over-defining 'hotel' versus existing declarations.

A Wailea condo owner called H-3/H-4 a fair compromise that preserves affordable visitor lodging while letting typical apartment units return to local housing.

Miller testified for the MVRA in support as written, framing the bill as zoning modernization, not expansion of visitor accommodations.

Fleming supported the bill, disputed claims of broad community support for Bill 9, urged honoring the promises made when it passed, and pushed back on 'people over profits' framing.

A born-and-raised Kīhei nurse living near the Minatoya properties opposed the bill, saying the STRs employ no workers and residents' kuleana should come first.

The Mayor testified in strong support, calling Bill 88 a transparent framework that doesn't undo Bill 9 but creates a pathway for properties historically used as visitor accommodations.

A Maui Sands I owner urged passage, arguing his leasehold property fails affordability criteria and asking to be included on the Exhibit 2 list for future rezoning.

Liggett opposed the bill, arguing rezoning noncompliant oceanfront properties signals safety to tourists that isn't real, and urged more vetting and referral to the Water Authority.

Rylsky asked why existing H-1/H-2 zoning isn't sufficient, noted all three planning commissions rejected the bill, and raised tax-revenue and shoreline-access concerns.

Nishiki urged a sunset provision for shoreline-parcel H-3/H-4 zoning tied to the adopted erosion hazard line, arguing zoning should align with coastal reality and planning for managed retreat.

Reilly spoke in wide-ranging terms about water investment, historical stewardship, and sovereignty as the framework for evaluating land-use choices.

A developed-of large projects said he's confused by the end goal, predicted litigation either way, and asked where workforce housing is amid West Maui resort development.