# Probable New Hawaii Governor Wants to Start a $50 Visitor Fee in Hawaii



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

This proposal has been around awhile. Here's some information on it.









						Updated: $50 Hawaii Visitor Fee & Reducing Tourists Confirmed By Next Governor
					

With visitors in an uproar. What are your feelings about the fee proposed by Green in addition and all of the other Hawaii taxes and fees?



					beatofhawaii.com


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

I hope they double it for cruise ship passengers.

And frankly, $50 is light. They could go far higher. Considering what people are spending when they're here, they can pay an impact tax which is used to clean up existing damage, and pay for infrastructure projects to lessen the societal pain tourism creates. I was just at the market this afternoon -- mailing out the day's coffee purchases and then buying the next few meals worth of ingredients. Most of the people in the store were clearly shopping on a budget -- looking at the prices carefully. Not much boxed food. Mostly raw veg and protein. But not the loud tourist family loading their cart up with $10 a box breakfast cereal, $10 a bag potato chips, and $10 a gallon milk. (Slight exaggeration on the milk. Slight.) They're blowing more on processed corporate food for a few days than I spend in two months. So they can clearly afford impact fees. Let's start 'em out at $250 -- added to every airline and cruise ticket. And go from there.

It would be better still if this money was used like the Alaska Permanent Fund. Cut a check to every family in the state once a year. (And means-test people like me right out of the program -- this should be a hand up for people who truly need a hand up.)


----------



## Tamaradarann (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> I hope they double it for cruise ship passengers.
> 
> And frankly, $50 is light. They could go far higher. Considering what people are spending when they're here, they can pay an impact tax which is used to clean up existing damage, and pay for infrastructure projects to lessen the societal pain tourism creates. I was just at the market this afternoon -- mailing out the day's coffee purchases and then buying the next few meals worth of ingredients. Most of the people in the store were clearly shopping on a budget -- looking at the prices carefully. Not much boxed food. Mostly raw veg and protein. But not the loud tourist family loading their cart up with $10 a box breakfast cereal, $10 a bag potato chips, and $10 a gallon milk. (Slight exaggeration on the milk. Slight.) They're blowing more on processed corporate food for a few days than I spend in two months. So they can clearly afford impact fees. Let's start 'em out at $250 -- added to every airline and cruise ticket. And go from there.
> 
> It would be better still if this money was used like the Alaska Permanent Fund. Cut a check to every family in the state once a year. (And means-test people like me right out of the program -- this should be a hand up for people who truly need a hand up.)



I don't disagree with taxing the tourists more.  I don't like the idea of a special tax just on tourists.  As I said before I am for eliminating the Get on supermarket food but double it on everything else.  This would certainly target the tourists that eat most of their meals out and save the low income local people who eat or prepare most of their meals in the home.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

Tamaradarann said:


> I don't disagree with taxing the tourists more.  I don't like the idea of a special tax just on tourists.  As I said before I am for eliminating the Get on supermarket food but double it on everything else.  This would certainly target the tourists that eat most of their meals out and save the low income local people who eat or prepare most of their meals in the home.




Google the Alaska Permanent Fund. That program works. And it works for the families who need it the most.

I'd love to have the same thing here. Since we don't have oil or gold to mine, our "steel mill" is tourism. The tourists pay in. The fund pays families. And pays out a bit less than it takes in so it can invest (and reinvest dividends) to become an economic juggernaut.

And I love a special tax just on tourists. Sends a clear message.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

Personally, I don’t think $50 will do much to reduce tourism but it will generate some income.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

slip said:


> Personally, I don’t think $50 will do much to reduce tourism but it will generate some income.



1.25 million dollars per day -- minus overhead collecting and disbursing the funds.

$250 a day would pump more than $2 billion into our budget. That would be (very roughly) $5,000 per year for every family in Hawaii if we went the Alaska Permanent Fund route.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> 1.25 million dollars per day -- minus overhead collecting and disbursing the funds.
> 
> $250 a day would pump more than $2 billion into our budget. That would be (very roughly) $5,000 per year for every family in Hawaii if we went the Alaska Permanent Fund route.



That doesn't sound like it's in his plan.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 25, 2022)

I'd pay it. Happily.

We decided a few years ago to donate a reasonable fraction of the cost of each trip to community organizations on the islands, as part of the cost of visiting.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

slip said:


> That doesn't sound like it's in his plan.



Well aware. And it's a shame. Our local politicians have a serious lack of vision. We could take something which is working great elsewhere (Alaska) and implement it here. 

The worst thing about living here is the economic misery I see every day. I have a guy living in a plywood shack next door to me. He could use an extra $5K per year. It would probably make a huge difference for him. The people who visit can afford to visit. And we have loads of residents who are doing all the right things who cannot afford to live here. A permanent fund would be a godsend to all the families who struggle to get by. I see no downside.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Well aware. And it's a shame. Our local politicians have a serious lack of vision. We could take something which is working great elsewhere (Alaska) and implement it here.
> 
> The worst thing about living here is the economic misery I see every day. I have a guy living in a plywood shack next door to me. He could use an extra $5K per year. It would probably make a huge difference for him. The people who visit can afford to visit. And we have loads of residents who are doing all the right things who cannot afford to live here. A permanent fund would be a godsend to all the families who struggle to get by. I see no downside.



I have never heard of anyone running even mention anything like that.


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> I hope they double it for cruise ship passengers.
> 
> And frankly, $50 is light. They could go far higher. Considering what people are spending when they're here, they can pay an impact tax which is used to clean up existing damage, and pay for infrastructure projects to lessen the societal pain tourism creates. I was just at the market this afternoon -- mailing out the day's coffee purchases and then buying the next few meals worth of ingredients. Most of the people in the store were clearly shopping on a budget -- looking at the prices carefully. Not much boxed food. Mostly raw veg and protein. But not the loud tourist family loading their cart up with $10 a box breakfast cereal, $10 a bag potato chips, and $10 a gallon milk. (Slight exaggeration on the milk. Slight.) They're blowing more on processed corporate food for a few days than I spend in two months. So they can clearly afford impact fees. Let's start 'em out at $250 -- added to every airline and cruise ticket. And go from there.
> 
> It would be better still if this money was used like the Alaska Permanent Fund. Cut a check to every family in the state once a year. (And means-test people like me right out of the program -- this should be a hand up for people who truly need a hand up.)


Why should cruise ship passengers paid double; when they are visiting all the Islands on the NCL Cruise lines.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

slip said:


> I have never heard of anyone running even mention anything like that.



Considering how much Alaska/Hawaii overlap we have, it's amazing this isn't a thing. Alaska Permanent Fund. Google it. The only reason we don't have one here is we have a bunch of spineless representatives who are content to let tourists use this state like a two-bit [censored].


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

pedro47 said:


> Why should cruise ship passengers paid double; when they are visiting all the Islands on the NCL Cruise lines.



They cause more congestion and economic hardship when they are here. They don't buy much and they clog up the towns they visit for the entire time of the excursion. Frankly, "double" is lenient. Triple.


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Google the Alaska Permanent Fund. That program works. And it works for the families who need it the most.
> 
> I'd love to have the same thing here. Since we don't have oil or gold to mine, our "steel mill" is tourism. The tourists pay in. The fund pays families. And pays out a bit less than it takes in so it can invest (and reinvest dividends) to become an economic juggernaut.
> 
> And I love a special tax just on tourists. Sends a clear message.


When you visit the state of Washington or Calif. I feel they should charge you a fee for visiting their state. LOL


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Considering how much Alaska/Hawaii overlap we have, it's amazing this isn't a thing. Alaska Permanent Fund. Google it. The only reason we don't have one here is we have a bunch of spineless representatives who are content to let tourists use this state like a two-bit [censored].



I'll look into it if it ever happens. I doubt it ever will.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

pedro47 said:


> When you visit the state of Washington or Calif. I feel they should charge you a fee for visiting their state. LOL



Fine with me. I can pay it. 

The difference is, when I visit, nobody notices me. I'm not a blip on the infrastructure radar. And I buy an impressive amount of produce and fish directly from farmers and fishermen when I'm there.

They're free to charge me though. If it would make their lives more bearable, I'm I'll for it.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 25, 2022)

Why not just charge tourists $1000 a day, and they can all stay home, or go visit elsewhere?  Gentrify the visitor model to squeeze every dollar from the richest tourists, and keep the poor ones out.  That'll certainly show those pesky tourists who's boss!  Covid showed what happens to Hawaii without tourism, and a lot of people nearly starved.  Make it even more expensive to visit, and yes, it will certainly reduce tourism. But at what expense to those locals who rely on tourist dollars to survive? There's a reason Las Vegas is called the Ninth Island - the locals in Hawaii can't afford to live there anymore.

Taxing tourists who are there only a relative few days at a time, while not charging locals who are there year-round?  Sounds like an easy-out for fast talking politicians who are trying to milk the cash cow, without having to be held accountable.  Tourists are not the ones trashing public facilities and parks, as much as locals do.  They aren't the ones causing traffic jams.  They are not the ones making for dead-stopped rush hour traffic on the roads.  Locals need to be held accountable, too.  There has to be an equitable solution.

How about they raise the sales taxes instead, so everybody pays a fair share year-round?  Channel that extra percentage into an accountable fund, instead of the black hole current funds fall into. Have a full audit of all public funds to determine where exactly it goes.

When I applied for the "permission" permits to conduct my brother's wedding on a beach in Hawaii in 2015, I spent nearly $200 in fees to the State for permission to conduct the service - on the sand at a beach - for six people, including the bride and groom, best man and maid of honor, my husband as photographer, and me, as officiant. We were there less than 20 minutes, and we all stood for the ceremony - we didn't even have a folding chair.  The fees didn't even include the cost of the wedding license.  So tell me: Why was it so expensive, when the State invested nothing, and where did the money go?

If you charge one, you need to charge all.  Anything less is favoritism, and is probably illegal.

Dave


----------



## GoPokes! (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> I hope they double it for cruise ship passengers.
> 
> And frankly, $50 is light. They could go far higher. Considering what people are spending when they're here, they can pay an impact tax which is used to clean up existing damage, and pay for infrastructure projects to lessen the societal pain tourism creates. I was just at the market this afternoon -- mailing out the day's coffee purchases and then buying the next few meals worth of ingredients. Most of the people in the store were clearly shopping on a budget -- looking at the prices carefully. Not much boxed food. Mostly raw veg and protein. But not the loud tourist family loading their cart up with $10 a box breakfast cereal, $10 a bag potato chips, and $10 a gallon milk. (Slight exaggeration on the milk. Slight.) They're blowing more on processed corporate food for a few days than I spend in two months. So they can clearly afford impact fees. Let's start 'em out at $250 -- added to every airline and cruise ticket. And go from there.
> 
> It would be better still if this money was used like the Alaska Permanent Fund. Cut a check to every family in the state once a year. (And means-test people like me right out of the program -- this should be a hand up for people who truly need a hand up.)



An entry fee selectively applied to residents of other states would be unconstitutional, so it would need to be applied to Hawaii residents as well.

I am not sure why you have an issue with families shopping for "processed corporate food" (also known simply as "food"), but everyone has different tastes and requirements. They bought a bag of chips....the nerve. Would you critique that tourist family if they bought a bag of Kona coffee? After all, how many of those you saw "shopping on a budget" we're looking for Kona? 

Perhaps a good source of revenue would be to levy new taxes on Kona coffee. Not everyone can afford it, so with regards to those that can,  "they can clearly afford impact fees".


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

DaveNV said:


> 1)  Locals need to be held accountable, too.  There has to be an equitable solution.
> 
> 2) How about they raise the sales taxes instead, so everybody pays a fair share year-round?
> 
> 3) If you charge one, you need to charge all.  Anything less is favoritism, and is probably illegal.



Numbers added for clarity:

1) What are we going to do? Deport residents? And who do we deport? People who live here, work here, pay taxes here make this state work. We need physicians, firefighters, police, teachers and people who scoop shave ice into cones. Need 'em all. What are tourists going to do if there are no locals to host them? Punishing residents helps nobody -- especially not tourists.

2) Sales taxes hurt the poor more than anyone else. Bad idea.

3) Not favoritism, and being used all over the country -- resident vs. visitor fees for state parks, hunting permits, parking fees and similar.

Maui wants to cut numbers by a third. If you ask people on the rest of the islands, I'll bet they'd go with a 1/3 reduction as well. In the case of Maui alone, that's keeping 70,000 people every month from visiting. I think $250 will get Maui closer than $50 will.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

GoPokes! said:


> An entry fee selectively applied to residents of other states would be unconstitutional, so it would need to be applied to Hawaii residents as well.
> 
> I am not sure why you have an issue with families shopping for "processed corporate food" (also known simply as "food"), but everyone has different tastes and requirements. They bought a bag of chips....the nerve. Would you critique that tourist family if they bought a bag of Kona coffee? After all, how many of those you saw "shopping on a budget" we're looking for Kona?
> 
> Perhaps a good source of revenue would be to levy new taxes on Kona coffee. Not everyone can afford it, so with regards to those that can,  "they can clearly afford impact fees".



The state is welcome to charge whatever they want in taxes for my coffee. It's all going to sell regardless. Every single bean. I sold out this year -- I had to take my store down because I don't have product. The coffee drinker is competing with coffee drinkers who don't even think about $100/pound coffee. That's how it works in luxury markets.

That's the thing. Like coffee sales, tourists are coming regardless. Cars will be rented regardless. Rooms will be rented regardless. People will buy $10 boxes of Cap'n Crunch cereal regardless. We have a captive market. And we have a great deal of local economic and food insecurity. That is patently unfair. They're my neighbors -- not tourists' indentured servants. Tourists can pop the rivets off their wallet and pay the impact fees -- which I hope then are turned into something akin to the Alaska Permanent Fund.

That's how it works in luxury markets. We should start acting like what we offer is valuable. Because it is.


----------



## davidvel (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Considering how much Alaska/Hawaii overlap we have, it's amazing this isn't a thing. Alaska Permanent Fund. Google it. The only reason we don't have one here is we have a bunch of spineless representatives who are content to let tourists use this state like a two-bit [censored].


I Googled it. Pay people to get wasted, brilliant.

_A 2019 study found "a 14% increase in substance-abuse incidents the day after the [Alaska Permanent Fund] payment and a 10% increase over the following four weeks _


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

davidvel said:


> I Googled it. Pay people to get wasted, brilliant.
> 
> _A 2019 study found "a 14% increase in substance-abuse incidents the day after the [Alaska Permanent Fund] payment and a 10% increase over the following four weeks _



We have loads of addicts in Hawaii, too. They're going to behave foolishly, too.

But it's not 14% of the population who are spending their checks on drugs. For most people, the money goes into their bank account and pays rent/groceries for a couple months. It would be a godsend for the bulk of the residents. Poverty causes addiction. Reducing poverty will reduce addiction.

I hear a whole lot of "don't you dare charge more for MY vacation -- find some other way to raise funds."

OK. Let's charge the tax on all inbound flights. Even inter-island flights. We'll get the tourists multiple times that way. And businesses which can send their people on business trips can also afford it. There we go -- add $250 to every single ticket which lands/calls in Hawaii. Problem sorted.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Numbers added for clarity:
> 
> 1) What are we going to do? Deport residents? And who do we deport? People who live here, work here, pay taxes here make this state work. We need physicians, firefighters, police, teachers and people who scoop shave ice into cones. Need 'em all. What are tourists going to do if there are no locals to host them? Punishing residents helps nobody -- especially not tourists.
> 
> ...



You can't blame the tourists for wanting to visit, or for using the facilities Hawaii has built for them to use.  But you do have to hold Locals accountable too.  Everybody needs to pay their fair share.  It isn't about punishing anybody - it's about finding a fair and equitable solution that everybody can live with. I don't feel assessing another tax on tourists is the long term solution.

There is no need to deport residents - keep driving up the cost of living there, and they'll leave on their own. Not everyone is willing to live homeless on a beach.

To turn your statement around:  What are those Locals going to do if there are no tourists to pay them?

Dave


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

DaveNV said:


> To turn your statement around:  What are those Locals going to do if there are no tourists to pay them?



We already saw the result during the pandemic. There are a lot of people who miss those days. Make no mistake, tourism isn't a benefit for the average resident. They don't see any direct economic benefit. And "it trickles down" is a lie that nobody believes any more.

We could jack the rates to $1K or $5K per visitor, and we would still have visitors -- the kind of visitors who don't ask how much things cost. That very-well might be an improvement on the status quo.

Maui is currently leading the charge to see how they can reduce visitor numbers and still have a vibrant economy. I wish them well in their endeavor.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> We already saw the result during the pandemic. There are a lot of people who miss those days. Make no mistake, tourism isn't a benefit for the average resident. They don't see any direct economic benefit. And "it trickles down" is a lie that nobody believes any more.
> 
> We could jack the rates to $1K or $5K per visitor, and we would still have visitors -- the kind of visitors who don't ask how much things cost. That very-well might be an improvement on the status quo.
> 
> Maui is currently leading the charge to see how they can reduce visitor numbers and still have a vibrant economy. I wish them well in their endeavor.




And jacking the tourist costs is going to have a downstream effect on the dollars those tourists have to spend in the local economy. Those who will still visit, but will spend less - or have less to spend.  And that will still affect those locals who rely on tourist dollars.

There is no easy solution.  But doing something "because they can" is not the right answer.  Blaming tourism for all that is wrong in Hawaii is not the right attitude to take. Nor is taxing tourism the answer to every question. We'll see when the first antidiscrimination lawsuit drops.

But I'm getting redundant.  So I'm done with this discussion.

Dave


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

DaveNV said:


> And jacking the tourist costs is going to have a downstream effect on the dollars those tourists have to spend in the local economy. Those who will still visit, but will spend less - or have less to spend.  And that will still affect those locals who rely on tourist dollars.



There is a very large segment of the tourism market that doesn't even think about such fees. That doesn't amount "petty cash" for them. It's an ATM withdrawl, nothing more. It's not about getting people to spend less -- it's about reducing the number of "budget conscious" visitors.

There are few places quite like Hawaii which have the kind of clout to do such a thing. They could insist on "proof of more than $11 million of net worth*" and still have a lively tourist trade. Make no mistake -- tourists aren't upset about Hawaii charging more. They're upset they might not make the economic cut.

* The current net worth for being a member of the one percent.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 25, 2022)

It's approaching time to sell my "second home". My next trip to Hawaii is locked in concrete - I'll make the final decision after I get back.

I'm spending 10K for the trip. 4 weeks of good weather isn't worth 10K (to me). And 8 hours straight in an airplane - one way.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> It's not about getting people to spend less -- it's about reducing the number of "budget conscious" visitors.



No one running is saying this. The article posted quotes Dr Josh Green's website. It doesn't mention limiting "Budget Conscious Tourists". The $50 fee that the article is about may not affect Budget conscious tourists. 

According to Green’s website, that will “generate up to $350 million in annual revenue to invest in protecting our environment, addressing climate change and building affordable housing, while reducing the total number of tourists.”

If you want less "Budget Conscious tourists" you may have to run for office because I haven't heard anyone talking about that. You may have some luck since you may be the only one with that platform. But then again, you may not.

The article explains why there are no easy solutions. There are limits to how a fee can be added.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> It's approaching time to sell my "second home". My next trip to Hawaii is locked in concrete - I'll make the final decision after I get back.
> 
> I'm spending 10K for the trip. 4 weeks of good weather isn't worth 10K (to me). And 8 hours straight in an airplane - one way.



$2,500 a week for a trip to Hawaii isn't bad but there have always been cheaper places to go that have nice weather also.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

slip said:


> No one running is saying this. The article posted quotes Dr Josh Green's website. It doesn't mention limiting "Budget Conscious Tourists". The $50 fee that the article is about may not affect Budget conscious tourists.
> 
> According to Green’s website, that will “generate up to $350 million in annual revenue to invest in protecting our environment, addressing climate change and building affordable housing, while reducing the total number of tourists.”
> 
> ...



Maui wants to reduce visitor count by one third -- 70,000 people per month. It will be interesting to see how much they have to jack fees to reach their target.

You're right, nobody else is talking about means-testing tourists. But they would if they could. If we're going to reduce numbers, nobody wants to cut the people at the top. That's human nature. Cut the bottom of the tourism pyramid -- that reduces the numbers without reducing income. Frankly, it's a no-brainer.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> If we're going to reduce numbers, nobody wants to cut the people at the top. That's human nature. Cut the bottom of the tourism pyramid -- that reduces the numbers without reducing income. Frankly, it's a no-brainer.



There are plenty of people who would want to reduce people from the top. Anyone with mid-priced accommodations and the people that work for them. The don't get money from the top one percent. All the businesses cater to a certain group. It's not hard to see who would be for reducing the numbers from where. That's the no-brainer.

Maui says they want to reduce the number by one third.  I don't know if it will happen. We'll have to wait and see.

We'll have to see after the election if this $50 fee moves forward and how it will be applied.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

slip said:


> There are plenty of people who would want to reduce people from the top. Anyone with mid-priced accommodations and the people that work for them. The don't get money from the top one percent. All the businesses cater to a certain group. It's not hard to see who would be for reducing the numbers from where. That's the no-brainer.
> 
> Maui says they want to reduce the number by one third.  I don't know if it will happen. We'll have to wait and see.
> 
> We'll have to see after the election if this $50 fee moves forward and how it will be applied.



You're not thinking this through. If the "cut all the economic riff-raff out" strategy is employed, AirBnBs will suffer, big time. That's a bonus -- that means more long term housing for residents. 

People will complain that we're gentrifying tourism. Tough [excrement]. The tourists already live in much nicer accommodations, eat much nicer food, and can afford a lifestyle that is Dickensian in its unfairness. The gentrification happened without anyone benefiting. I imagine that tourists are now scared witless that they might be squeezed out. But that's what's coming. When tourism numbers are throttled, it won't be the billionaires who lose access. Welcome to reality.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> You're not thinking this through. If the "cut all the economic riff-raff out" strategy is employed, AirBnBs will suffer, big time. That's a bonus -- that means more long term housing for residents.
> 
> People will complain that we're gentrifying tourism. Tough [excrement]. The tourists already live in much nicer accommodations, eat much nicer food, and can afford a lifestyle that is Dickensian in its unfairness. The gentrification happened without anyone benefiting. I imagine that tourists are now scared witless that they might be squeezed out. But that's what's coming. When tourism numbers are throttled, it won't be the billionaires who lose access. Welcome to reality.



Scoop, your not thinking this through. Weren't you the one saying how bad it would be to limit the AirBnB's? Now you are saying it's a bonus. Remember, this thread is about the Governor and a Hawaii fee, not just Maui County. He also agrees with the Mayor of Oahu about limiting AirBnB's.

We both agree no one running is saying any of these things you are mentioning.  Are you just hoping that's what they will do or is it your opinion that what your saying is the only way?

I still say there are no easy answers and we'll have to wait and see if tourism gets reduced.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 25, 2022)

slip said:


> $2,500 a week for a trip to Hawaii isn't bad but there have always been cheaper places to go that have nice weather also.


Slip, 2019 my trip cost around $7000. Now it's 10,000+. I'm now retired, and my cash flow is down 30%, on a permanent basis. My reason was nice weather in the winter. As much as I like warm weather, I'm questioning whether or not that's worth a double digit grab of my annual cash flow. And now add a "head tax", just for the privilege? And Slip, have you seen the tourist ads on the TV? I'm paying double digits of my annual income to be shown the "joy" of planting taro, and being told that everybody should have what they need - no more, no less. (And that's an exact quote).


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Slip, 2019 my trip cost around $7000. Now it's 10,000+. I'm now retired, and my cash flow is down 30%, on a permanent basis. My reason was nice weather in the winter. As much as I like warm weather, I'm questioning whether or not that's worth a double digit grab of my annual cash flow. And now add a "head tax", just for the privilege? And Slip, have you seen the tourist ads on the TV? I'm paying double digits of my annual income to be shown the "joy" of planting taro, and being told that everybody should have what they need - no more, no less. (And that's an exact quote).



I haven't see those ads but I have heard they were comings out. That's why I said there have always been cheaper warm places to go than Hawaii. I don't blame you spending travel dollars elsewhere in the future.


----------



## Passepartout (Oct 25, 2022)

I don't think that- should this 'tax' be implemented, it won't have a great effect on tourism. $50 is not a deal killer on the thou$and$ that people regularly and gladly part with to visit Hawaii, but it won't help the perception visitors to Hawaii have that the place is 'out to separate them from their mainland money'.

If they do this, I'd encourage them to hide it in car rental or lodging fees so it doesn't seem like just a tax on tourists- which it is. Hell, if they REALLY want to piss off the tourists, make 'em produce a $50 bill to get off the plane, or send them back to from where they came.

Jim


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2022)

slip said:


> Scoop, your not thinking this through. Weren't you the one saying how bad it would be to limit the AirBnB's? Now you are saying it's a bonus. Remember, this thread is about the Governor and a Hawaii fee, not just Maui County. He also agrees with the Mayor of Oahu about limiting AirBnB's.
> 
> We both agree no one running is saying any of these things you are mentioning.  Are you just hoping that's what they will do or is it your opinion that what your saying is the only way?
> 
> I still say there are no easy answers and we'll have to wait and see if tourism gets reduced.



No, I'm not the one saying it would be bad to limit AirBnbs. It would be bad for me personally, but nobody should care about that.

And there are LOADS of easy answers. These answers suck for people who aren't obscenely wealthy. But it's dead simple to restrict access to multi-millionaires who can afford to jump through whatever hoops the government wants. 

That's not what I want. But that's what's going to happen. What do I want? Nerds -- loads of nerds. Oceanography nerds. Geology nerds. Biology nerds. And Astronomy nerds. But that isn't likely.


----------



## slip (Oct 25, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> No, I'm not the one saying it would be bad to limit AirBnbs. It would be bad for me personally, but nobody should care about that.
> 
> And there are LOADS of easy answers. These answers suck for people who aren't obscenely wealthy. But it's dead simple to restrict access to multi-millionaires who can afford to jump through whatever hoops the government wants.
> 
> That's not what I want. But that's what's going to happen. What do I want? Nerds -- loads of nerds. Oceanography nerds. Geology nerds. Biology nerds. And Astronomy nerds. But that isn't likely.



I can look for the post but you didn't want AirBnB's limited because you had friends that would be affected and people should be able to do what they want on their property. It spurred responses about zoning regulations. 

We definitely disagree on what easy answers are. Sure it's easier only the 1%ers can come to Hawaii but it not an answer because it won't happen.

You never mentioned Nerds before so I'm glad we know what you actually want now too.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

slip said:


> I can look for the post but you didn't want AirBnB's limited because you had friends that would be affected and people should be able to do what they want on their property. It spurred responses about zoning regulations.
> 
> We definitely disagree on what easy answers are. Sure it's easier only the 1%ers can come to Hawaii but it not an answer because it won't happen.
> 
> You never mentioned Nerds before so I'm glad we know what you actually want now too.



If tourist numbers are throttled, there will be consequences. People have no interest in talking about the consequences. Again, I hope Maui can find the secret sauce. I think it's unlikely. But I hope they do.

In the meantime, so long as people want numbers to go down, prices will go up. Drives me nuts that people won't acknowledge that.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> If tourist numbers are throttled, there will be consequences. People have no interest in talking about the consequences. Again, I hope Maui can find the secret sauce. I think it's unlikely. But I hope they do.
> 
> In the meantime, so long as people want numbers to go down, prices will go up. Drives me nuts that people won't acknowledge that.



Hopefully you won't have to commit yourself because I don't see this being solved any time soon.


----------



## davidvel (Oct 26, 2022)

This thread is utter comedy.


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 26, 2022)

Without tourism and the U S military presence their would be no progress in Hawaii.


----------



## x3 skier (Oct 26, 2022)

Went to Hawaii once. It was sufficient. 

Cheers


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 26, 2022)

They will need to create this carefully or else it may conflict with interstate commerce laws.


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> I hope they double it for cruise ship passengers.
> 
> And frankly, $50 is light. They could go far higher. Considering what people are spending when they're here, they can pay an impact tax which is used to clean up existing damage, and pay for infrastructure projects to lessen the societal pain tourism creates. I was just at the market this afternoon -- mailing out the day's coffee purchases and then buying the next few meals worth of ingredients. Most of the people in the store were clearly shopping on a budget -- looking at the prices carefully. Not much boxed food. Mostly raw veg and protein. But not the loud tourist family loading their cart up with $10 a box breakfast cereal, $10 a bag potato chips, and $10 a gallon milk. (Slight exaggeration on the milk. Slight.) They're blowing more on processed corporate food for a few days than I spend in two months. So they can clearly afford impact fees. Let's start 'em out at $250 -- added to every airline and cruise ticket. And go from there.
> 
> It would be better still if this money was used like the Alaska Permanent Fund. Cut a check to every family in the state once a year. (And means-test people like me right out of the program -- this should be a hand up for people who truly need a hand up.)



Have you ever visited The Bahamas or other islands that have even more expensive food costs?

I also find it somewhat interesting that you write about one family and not the many others that travel on a budget. Of course you also don’t know if that family is ultimately saving considerably on their trip by buying at the inflated grocery pricing and not eating out as many of us do. Making decisions based on random observations at the supermarket is a poor recipe.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

slip said:


> I can look for the post but you didn't want AirBnB's limited because you had friends that would be affected and people should be able to do what they want on their property. It spurred responses about zoning regulations.
> 
> We definitely disagree on what easy answers are. Sure it's easier only the 1%ers can come to Hawaii but it not an answer because it won't happen.
> 
> You never mentioned Nerds before so I'm glad we know what you actually want now too.



Yes, in general I think people should be able to do what they want with their property. Also, our housing problem is caused by a lack of building and a planning office which takes years -- literal years -- to approve housing projects. 

If it were up to me, we'd take a wrecking ball to (or convert back into residential) one third of the hotels and resorts. If I was tasked to reduce tourism by one-third, that's how I'd go about it. 

I think visitor fees are surely coming -- and they'll be hugely unpopular. But let's face facts. The average tourist is vaingloriously-blind to the poverty which exists in this state. Residents have been squeezed out -- both financially and from a lack of housing. The tourists always ask "what will Hawaii do without tourism?" That's binary thinking. What they should be asking is, "what will Hawaii do with less tourism?" (And they should also ask, "What would tourists do without Hawaiians?")

Because that's the goal -- less tourism. Not "no tourism."

I have a feeling that if this tax is implemented, a large number of visitors will instantly become indignant and vow to "take my money to Lake Havasu where I will be appreciated." It won't be enough to lower numbers by a third. But it's a start.

I especially like Jim's suggestion to hide the tax in rental car fees -- rentals are through the roof already. And one of the biggest local gripes about too many tourists is too much traffic on roads which cannot be straightened and widened.

I think one thing everyone can agree on is that having more tourists than residents isn't working. Something needs to change. And being Hawaii, they're going to sling policy pizzas at the wall and hope that something sticks.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

Ken555 said:


> Have you ever visited The Bahamas or other islands that have even more expensive food costs?
> 
> I also find it somewhat interesting that you write about one family and not the many others that travel on a budget. Of course you also don’t know if that family is ultimately saving considerably on their trip by buying at the inflated grocery pricing and not eating out as many of us do. Making decisions based on random observations at the supermarket is a poor recipe.



Even the budget travelers can afford to come here. I know plenty of residents who cannot afford to vacation. They're barely holding on as it is. Tourists don't see the food banks -- not a stop on the Roberts Hawaii tour.

Yes, we could cook $250 in taxes to visitors and cut an annual check to every household in Hawaii. And then means-test the top third of households (based on property taxes) out of the system. That would instantly do something about chronic poverty. People would lose their minds that "poor Hawaiians are spending my tax money on drugs." But most families wouldn't do that -- they'd spend it on the electric bill, rent and groceries. That would equal more than a month of expenses and would make a big difference to the people who are treading water.


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Even the budget travelers can afford to come here. I know plenty of residents who cannot afford to vacation. They're barely holding on as it is. Tourists don't see the food banks -- not a stop on the Roberts Hawaii tour.
> 
> Yes, we could cook $250 in taxes to visitors and cut an annual check to every household in Hawaii. And then means-test the top third of households (based on property taxes) out of the system. That would instantly do something about chronic poverty. People would lose their minds that "poor Hawaiians are spending my tax money on drugs." But most families wouldn't do that -- they'd spend it on the electric bill, rent and groceries. That would equal more than a month of expenses and would make a big difference to the people who are treading water.



I’m not yet convinced the goals you obviously have are the same with the rest of the Hawaii. 

Your references to neighbors, friends, food banks and more…combined with your other comments seem to indicate that you expect tourists to solve all the problems. Every state has these issues, some more, some less, but I don’t know any other that expect tourists to solve it. I think you need other facts to justify large increases in the already high tourist tax…but then, I don’t vote in Hawaii in any way other than with my money. Perhaps you should try to convince locals who vote instead? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

Let's look at another vacation destination: Las Vegas.

Gaming revenue taxes account for the lion's share of the Nevada budget. Residents enjoy very low taxes because resorts make one third of the entire state budget. In that way, it's very much like the Alaska Permanent Fund (which is oil-revenue based). A piece of every nickel spent in Las Vegas ends up in the state budget -- and the lions share of that money is spent by tourists and conventioneers. Without tourism, Lake Tahoe is the only thing that would survive in Nevada.

Hawaii doesn't really have an industry other than tourism. (And being of vital strategic importance.) Tourism is our "steel mill." Taxing tourists the way Las Vegas taxes tourists is the way to go. People don't gripe about how much they're paying in Las Vegas because they don't see it. Gaming quietly hoovers up their money and funnels a great deal of it into the state coffers. Low taxes and a low cost of living make it one of the easiest places to "make the numbers work."

Hawaii needs to do the same thing -- and they should be smart about it, like Alaska was. That fund is now self sustaining. It could be the same way with the Hawaiian Permanent Fund.


----------



## optimist (Oct 26, 2022)

The  good will about Hawaii and it's people which the State has nurtured all these years by promoting Aloha is not infinite.  
I have an almost pathological love of the place and even I am beginning to  lose the warm and fuzzies with all these conversations about how to keep us out.


----------



## davidvel (Oct 26, 2022)

optimist said:


> The  good will about Hawaii and it's people which the State has nurtured all these years by promoting Aloha is not infinite.
> I have an almost pathological love of the place and even I am beginning to  lose the warm and fuzzies with all these conversations about how to keep us out.


The phrase "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" comes to mind.


----------



## MdRef (Oct 26, 2022)

Ken555 said:


> I’m not yet convinced the goals you obviously have are the same with the rest of the Hawaii.
> 
> Your references to neighbors, friends, food banks and more…combined with your other comments seem to indicate that you expect tourists to solve all the problems. Every state has these issues, some more, some less, but I don’t know any other that expect tourists to solve it. I think you need other facts to justify large increases in the already high tourist tax…but then, I don’t vote in Hawaii in any way other than with my money. Perhaps you should try to convince locals who vote instead?
> 
> ...



Word on the street is, he has an eye on David Arakawa's position.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> We already saw the result during the pandemic. There are a lot of people who miss those days. Make no mistake, tourism isn't a benefit for the average resident. They don't see any direct economic benefit. And "it trickles down" is a lie that nobody believes any more.
> 
> We could jack the rates to $1K or $5K per visitor, and we would still have visitors -- the kind of visitors who don't ask how much things cost. That very-well might be an improvement on the status quo.
> 
> Maui is currently leading the charge to see how they can reduce visitor numbers and still have a vibrant economy. I wish them well in their endeavor.



A plan to tax tourists is not very Aloha and is contrary to the image that Hawaii wants to give visitors.  You are correct that other states have fees to go to beaches and parks for out of state people that are not for locals.  Implementing those fees will probably go over without issue since tourists can choose to go or not go but will still be here to spend money on accomodations, restaurants and other items.  Charging a fee to tourists to come by plane is a whole new system that would need to be set up that is not present elsewhere in the US.  I do agree with taxing the cruise ships/passengers since they are basically floating hotels and restaurants so they get to visit Hawaii without spending money here like plane visitors do.  I don't know much about cruises but I believe that port fees are charged so they certainly could be raised substantially.  

You don't seem to want to raise the GET on everything but unprepared food to collect more from tourists.  The sales tax on Long Island is double what it is in Hawaii, but unprepared food is exempt.  Tourists would pay the higher GET without question since it would be built into every sales receipt.  

 I totally agree with you that the cost of living in Hawaii is too expensive that is one of the reasons why I favor eliminating the GET on unprepared food which is essental for living.  The minimum wages is increasing over the next few years which should make working in Hawaii more profitable for low income working people. 

Your general approach is taxing tourists smacks of punishing the tourists and is without Aloha.  It is important that whatever Hawaii does to collect more taxes that they do it reasonably to not turn off the golden tourist goose.  While you don't beleive it those that rely on the tourist dollar would be hurt if there was a significant reduction in tourists.  Don't speak for them.  I just heard on the news that since international visitors have not come back in droves to Hawaii, Oahu has lower number of tourists than before the pandemic and the county may be hurting income wise.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

Tamaradarann said:


> Your general approach is taxing tourists smacks of punishing the tourists and is without Aloha.  It is important that whatever Hawaii does to collect more taxes that they do it reasonably to not turn off the golden tourist goose.  While you don't beleive it those that rely on the tourist dollar would be hurt if there was a significant reduction in tourists.  Don't speak for them.  I just heard on the news that since international visitors have not come back in droves to Hawaii, Oahu has lower number of tourists than before the pandemic and the county may be hurting income wise.



"The golden tourist goose." A crock. More tourism is not better. Every place on Earth has carrying capacity. Hawaiians believe their carrying capacity has been exceeded. 

It isn't "aloha" to have more visitors than residents -- each visitor straining an already unworkable housing and cost of living situation. "Aloha" also doesn't mean, "continue to bend over and take it." Visitors already get the best real estate, they're using all the parks and resources the entire time they're here (they don't have to work on vacation after all). So, yes, they can be expected to pay more in taxes. Visitors basically use Hawaii like a theme park -- with a bunch of unpaid local "cast members" providing free entertainment. If Hawaii is going to be treated like a theme park, it should charge like one. 

I'm just fine with exempting groceries from the general excise tax. But that isn't going to solve the cost of living problem. The 5% (rounded) tax isn't breaking anyone -- it's the fact that most foods are so much more expensive than elsewhere. And that doesn't address wages and housing. There is no possible way to fix all of Hawaii's problems with a minor tax cut on groceries. 

Residents aren't buying the idea of "trickle down tourism." There is no golden goose for them. All these proposals are the result. Quality of life improved during the pandemic -- thanks to less tourism. And businesses that cater to tourists are having massive staffing problems -- at least they are here. No idea what's happening in Honolulu because I never go there. The reason they're having massive staffing problems is that residents don't want to work at these places. They're over it. If I felt like going to work at a restaurant (I don't), they would pay me $1,000. There are businesses offering application bonuses -- they're paying for resumes. They're offering signing bonuses and that still isn't enough. 

That tells me everything I need to know about how people feel about more tourism.


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 26, 2022)

If they want to tax tourists but not poor locals the obvious answer would be to change the GET. Right now it is charged on residential rent (==necessity) and groceries (==necessity). If you eliminated those charges that would be an ~4% drop in the cost of living on two big items for poor people.

I suspect to be revenue neutral they'd need to come close to doubling it on other stuff, much more of which is purchased by tourists.

If they do a visitor tax I think the only way they could legally charge other US citizens (as opposed to foreigners like me) would be to make it a tax on airplane arrivals. If they excluded inter-island that would shield most locals (especially the lower income ones) while generating plenty of revenue from tourists.

I doubt any of that would go back to the people Alaska style though. Too many "priorities" would come first.


----------



## clifffaith (Oct 26, 2022)

x3 skier said:


> Went to Hawaii once. It was sufficient.
> 
> Cheers


We live in coastal Southern California. We have water, sand and palm trees. For years we said “why would we go to Hawaii?” Then in 2007 we hit three islands over the course of two weeks and we understood why. We went back to various islands once or twice a year (quickly realizing two islands at a time was our limit for moving around) until the pandemic hit. We just returned from “our last trip to Hawaii” (famous last words). We officially feel we have been there, done that.


----------



## Soccer Canada (Oct 26, 2022)

Getting lost in this thread and just thinking simple trickle down economics, and I could be wrong wading into the fire here. If there are fewer tourists no matter how much those tourists pay does that not mean less employment? When there is less employment doesn't that mean that the poverty level goes up, not down? Does anyone really think that if the example is Maui reduces visitors by 1/3, the commensurate employment level will decrease in the appropriate direction as well? Is the Government going to get involved then and regulate employment levels? Force the Tourist industry not to just collect their profits and pad their pockets? Seems like a way larger issue then just a $50 or $1000 Tourist fee...  Hawaii already has the 3rd highest Tourist Taxes of any State (https://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-lodging-taxes.aspx).
I don't have a dog in the fight, we have been too Oahu X 2 and the Big Island X 1. It was a lovely trip but I know our Tourist dollars already go much further in many different areas, if Hawaii becomes a haven for just those with Private Planes then we just wouldn't go again.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 26, 2022)

optimist said:


> The good will about Hawaii and it's people which the State has nurtured all these years by promoting Aloha is not infinite.


I don't get the same sense at all, but that might be because I see that good will as a two-way street. It's not just "we really want you to come here and will go out of our way to be welcoming." It also places expectations on my own behavior and how I approach the islands when I visit. I try to be mindful of how I spend my time and money, intentionally choosing many small-family-owned businesses. I try hard to respect the local folkways and mores--written and unwritten--and that means asking someone when I am not sure. I sometimes get to hear stories about the _haole_ when I do that, but the thing to remember is that I am not being lumped in with them--if I were, I'd've never heard that story in the first place.

The shortest way to explain it: I try to be a traveler, not a tourist. The former are much more welcome than the latter, whether we are talking Hawaii or Paris. France is as (in)famous for being unfriendly as Hawaii is friendly, but my experiences there have always been great.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

Soccer Canada said:


> Getting lost in this thread and just thinking simple trickle down economics, and I could be wrong wading into the fire here. If there are fewer tourists no matter how much those tourists pay does that not mean less employment?



Businesses can't retain employees. How are they going to add employees when they're woefully understaffed with an even longer line out the door? There are hospitality businesses which are failing because they can't retain employees. Employees have broken from the hospitality industry for good. It's a messy divorce, playing out all over the country -- but particularly here.

"Low wages, rely on tips, deal with demanding guests, work my [posterior] off and still not have enough to pay the bills." -- Unsurprisingly, people aren't signing up for that.

My local librarian worked in hospitality until the pandemic. "There is no amount of money that could get me back into a dining room. The best thing about working at the library is I never see tourists." People who were formerly servers or cooks are dusting off their degrees, going back to school, and finding work in another field. Burnout is almost as bad in hospitality as it is in nursing and teaching. The resort closest to me is running with half the staff they need. They're paying loads of overtime because they can't find people willing to work in a resort -- any resort. It's only a matter of time before guests notice the precipitous drop in quality. 

That's what tourists are up against. They've worn out their welcome. And now they're upset about the consequences.


----------



## Soccer Canada (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Businesses can't retain employees


This is something that isn't unique to Hawaii, and isn't unique to the Tourist Sector either.. None of what you describe is actually unique to anywhere specific or any specific sector currently. At least in my understanding I don't see places like California, Florida etc running to "deter" travel to their states. No different then I don't see anyone in Canada trying to deter travel to Banff, Whistler, Vancouver Island. I'll agree with several posts in this thread that you can find "Hawaii" in other locations that are happy to have tourists/travelers, I know personally I would never visit a place where I would walk into a local shop and be told I'm not welcome.
I will agree with BNoble that certainly folks need to be Travellers/Vistors, not Tourists, and the pandemic has done absolutely nothing for the general publics courteousness. Unfortunately just like in the real world you have people you like to do business with, and people you don't. If you only did business with the good ones you probably wouldn't have a business to do business with anyone.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

Soccer Canada said:


> This is something that isn't unique to Hawaii, and isn't unique to the Tourist Sector either.. None of what you describe is actually unique to anywhere specific or any specific sector currently. At least in my understanding I don't see places like California, Florida etc running to "deter" travel to their states.



I will cheerfully deter the Ironman competition here. Cheerfully. Those people are the absolute worst. They're rude. They're stingy. They litter. And they think they're god's gift to the Big Island because they "keep this place afloat." Frankly, I don't care what they bring to the island -- because mostly, they bring headaches. They're free to find another island just as fast as they can. I recommend Iceland. Maybe the Icelanders will put up with them. But probably not.

And I'll cheerfully tell them that. "I shut myself in for the two weeks prior to your triathlon and never leave. I would prefer it if you held your event literally anywhere else."

Everything is booked for a couple weeks prior to the races. But only the resort owners make any money. None of the athletes tip (they don't believe in tipping). Good luck getting anything done while they're here. And forget going anywhere. Because they're clogging every uphill, winding, two-lane road and tossing aside plastic tubes which once held some sort of nutritional goop.

Just like tourists can "vote with their wallets," so can Hawaiians. And they're getting out of the hospitality industry -- mainly because of what I just described.


----------



## easyrider (Oct 26, 2022)

I'm for enforcement of current laws, more regulating and taxing Hawaiian businesses for the funds needed in Hawaii. I bet 70% of Hawaii's labor force is under the table. The worst offenders are farmers, construction work and businesses that cater to tourists. It really is an underground economy in Hawaii. I bet Hawaii looses a billion or more a year in tax revenue.

Taking money from tourists as a fee for entry is fine but is doesn't fix much. 

Bill


----------



## goaliedave (Oct 26, 2022)

Yes, the tourist fee is gaining popularity, $200/day Sustainability fee now in Bhutan https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/bhutan-daily-tourist-fee-increase

Probably Hawaii can't charge it to USA residents though, so best to just increase the room tax to catch all tourists. $100/night would be fair


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

I'll just wait and see what actually happens. At the moment it seems like some type $50 fee but that hasn't happened yet.


----------



## SteveinHNL (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> I hope they double it for cruise ship passengers.
> 
> And frankly, $50 is light. They could go far higher. Considering what people are spending when they're here, they can pay an impact tax which is used to clean up existing damage, and pay for infrastructure projects to lessen the societal pain tourism creates. I was just at the market this afternoon -- mailing out the day's coffee purchases and then buying the next few meals worth of ingredients. Most of the people in the store were clearly shopping on a budget -- looking at the prices carefully. Not much boxed food. Mostly raw veg and protein. But not the loud tourist family loading their cart up with $10 a box breakfast cereal, $10 a bag potato chips, and $10 a gallon milk. (Slight exaggeration on the milk. Slight.) They're blowing more on processed corporate food for a few days than I spend in two months. So they can clearly afford impact fees. Let's start 'em out at $250 -- added to every airline and cruise ticket. And go from there.
> 
> It would be better still if this money was used like the Alaska Permanent Fund. Cut a check to every family in the state once a year. (And means-test people like me right out of the program -- this should be a hand up for people who truly need a hand up.)



Why does it make sense to impose a tax just because they can "clearly afford" it?  BTW, what people spend is not always an indicator of what people can afford.  I lived in Hawaii for about 50 years, and we are taxed to death there.  The 4.712% general excise tax on every commercial transaction from buying food, medicine, or paying a doctor and everything (literally everything) in between takes a huge toll and hits the $10 cereal, potato chip, and milk buyer commensurately harder.  Visitors already pay a lot in taxes, as do residents.  More taxes is not the answer, but in some States (like Hawaii, sadly), the government is addicted to taxes and spending.  But they can't keep the potholes out of the road.  I love Hawaii, but mostly because of what it was, not so much for what it is today.


----------



## SteveinHNL (Oct 26, 2022)

slip said:


> No one running is saying this. The article posted quotes Dr Josh Green's website. It doesn't mention limiting "Budget Conscious Tourists". The $50 fee that the article is about may not affect Budget conscious tourists.
> 
> According to Green’s website, that will “generate up to $350 million in annual revenue to invest in protecting our environment, addressing climate change and building affordable housing, while reducing the total number of tourists.”
> 
> ...



The thing is, Hawaii government is notoriously bad about using the money they have in a wise way.  When you have someone who can't budget and spend wisely, giving them more money is rarely the answer.


----------



## alexadeparis (Oct 26, 2022)

I can see points on both sides. The reality is that there will probably never NOT be some tourists, no matter how much Hawaii discourages it. But, I think generally, Hawaii's coffers will suffer if tourism takes a major dip. I already pay a gratuitous nightly fee to stay there in the timeshare, so adding $50 wouldn't kill me, unless it was for each island. However, now that i have seen all the islands, this trip next summer may be my last. I don't want to be in any space, anywhere, where there is an open hostility towards my kind, whether that is in a tourism sense, a racial sense, or a class sense. I would rather remove myself from the space that is making me uncomfortable. So while i understand the desire to reduce tourism for environmental reasons, or economic reasons, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth the way they seem to be going about it.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

SteveinHNL said:


> The thing is, Hawaii government is notoriously bad about using the money they have in a wise way.  When you have someone who can't budget and spend wisely, giving them more money is rarely the answer.



I just posted about a possible upcoming fee. I'm not saying it's wrong or right.  I'm just saying there are no easy answers. Unless, of course, you want to listen to Scoops easy answers.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 26, 2022)

If they add the fee and thus reduce visitors, that will result in lower revenue from other taxes. Seems like a wash to me. If any new revenue is actually generated, will it just disappear into the abyss like most other new revenues?


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

SteveinHNL said:


> I love Hawaii, but mostly because of what it was, not so much for what it is today.



When you loved it, it was less visited. When commercial airline service to Hawaii started, fares were $5,500 (adjusted for inflation). Fast forward to "the golden age of flying," and tickets were still expensive -- roughly five times today's cost. Tourism was self-limiting because only the wealthy could afford it. As much as I'd prefer an egalitarian solution, that isn't going to happen.

Now that basically anyone can visit, they do. Any time I talk to an old auntie about "back in the day," that's what they talk about -- fewer visitors who spent more time here and spent more money. Mass tourism is reducing quality of life -- and it's doing so for both residents and visitors. _Tourists_ are complaining about tourist numbers. And people are losing their cool -- in both directions. I see visitors scream at locals. And locals scream at visitors. And people aren't having as much fun as they once did. Why? Overcrowding.

I'm glad I don't live anywhere near the road to Hana. Because some days, "parking lot to Hana" is more accurate. Who knows what Maui's actual carrying capacity is? But we're clearly over it now.

Nobody is going to be overjoyed at any of the solutions government cooks up to limit tourism. But voters are voting for rein-in-the-crazy candidates. Eventually, they'll start delivering on their campaign promises. And any solution will raise prices -- necessarily. Demand is constant. Supply is reduced. Prices go up.

They can bake fees into tickets, rental cars, room taxes, and alcohol. And they probably will, eventually.

They could also eminent domain resorts -- and either turn them into parks or back into residential housing -- and accomplish the same goal. Prices will still go up.

They could limit airline landings (with FAA approval) and cruise ship visits. Prices will still go up.

They could hold a visitor lottery. Prices will still go up.

The easiest way is taxation -- doesn't require asking the FAA's permission, operating a tourist lottery or facing resort owners in court. So that's the route they'll take.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> When you loved it, it was less visited. When commercial airline service to Hawaii started, fares were $5,500 (adjusted for inflation). Fast forward to "the golden age of flying," and tickets were still expensive -- roughly five times today's cost. Tourism was self-limiting because only the wealthy could afford it. As much as I'd prefer an egalitarian solution, that isn't going to happen.
> 
> Now that basically anyone can visit, they do. Any time I talk to an old auntie about "back in the day," that's what they talk about -- fewer visitors who spent more time here and spent more money. Mass tourism is reducing quality of life -- and it's doing so for both residents and visitors. _Tourists_ are complaining about tourist numbers. And people are losing their cool -- in both directions. I see visitors scream at locals. And locals scream at visitors. And people aren't having as much fun as they once did. Why? Overcrowding.
> 
> ...



This fee idea has been around a long time and it still hasn't happened. Josh Green is far from a rein-in-the-crazy candidate.  There were candidates with a much harder line on tourism and they didn't win.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

slip said:


> This fee idea has been around a long time and it still hasn't happened. Josh Green is far from a rein-in-the-crazy candidate.  There were candidates with a much harder line on tourism and they didn't win.



I think it's safe to say that Green isn't going to accomplish even a fraction of what he says -- which, frankly, is a whole lot of rosy pictures without any nuts and bolts. It's one thing to say "everyone deserves a place to live." And it's quite another to say, "I'm going to the counties' planning offices with a pair of rusty pliers and a blowtorch and I'm going to watch them start approving residential projects with lightning speed -- or I'm going medieval on their [posteriors]."

We've already passed the point where locals can't afford any new buildings which are going up -- but its the mansions which do finally get a green light. There isn't as much money to be made doing right by the residents. 

And then, investors snapping up any real estate exacerbates the problem. That's one I have zero solutions for. If someone offers $100,000 over list, the seller would be a fool to say, "No, I'm going to sell for a local family for less. It's the right thing to do."

When I bought this place, everyone just assumed I was going to turn it into twenty or so parcels and sell them off. Keep the nicest one and then light cigars with $100 bills until I pop a rivet. Because that's what's happening with what little fee simple land is left within easy driving distance of Kailua-Kona.

One thing is certain, we really have to put a thumb on the scale to make sure that residential projects aren't only for tourist development. I'd propose a hard-coded ratio. "For every resort room/mansion, there must be X affordable housing permits issued first." And then watch developers lean on the county to issue more affordable housing for a change. There's plenty of parcels on the side of Hualalai that could fill this void.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> When I bought this place, everyone just assumed I was going to turn it into twenty or so parcels and sell them off. Keep the nicest one and then light cigars with $100 bills until I pop a rivet. Because that's what's happening with what little fee simple land is left within easy driving distance of Kailua-Kona.



With that opportunity how many people were you bidding against? I hope you weren't one of those who paid $100,000 over asking.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

slip said:


> With that opportunity how many people were you bidding against? I hope you weren't one of those who paid $100,000 over asking.



Thankfully, the 2018 eruption scared off all the mainlanders. The previous owners wanted to subdivide -- but the cost of cleaning the property up for making a new housing tract was prohibitive. So between that and the volcano, I'm now a farmer.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Thankfully, the 2018 eruption scared off all the mainlanders. The previous owners wanted to subdivide -- but the cost of cleaning the property up for making a new housing tract was prohibitive. So between that and the volcano, I'm now a farmer.



Sounds like there was one mainlander who wasn't scared away.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> . . . . .
> The easiest way is taxation -- doesn't require asking the FAA's permission, operating a tourist lottery or facing resort owners in court. So that's the route they'll take.


The _quickest_ way to achieve at least part of the desired result would be to_ immediately_ terminate the short-term rental market.  That would _Immediately_ reduce the number of visitors and would _immediately _increase the amount of housing available for locals.  Okay, by "_immediately_", I mean with reservations within the next year honored.

But this would reduce property values.  

It's definitely easier to tax tourists.  But enacting new tourist taxes will neither reduce the number of tourists nor create affordable housing for locals.


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 26, 2022)

If you want the cost of something to go down (like say, housing) you can either increase the supply or decrease the demand. 

They've eliminated any new properties getting vacation rental status basically everywhere in HI, and already tax second home owners more than locals. Tough to reduce demand further.

So adding supply is likely the way to go. There are tons of landowners who would love to build and have been trying to get planning permission for years. Start granting permission to build more housing.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 26, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> If you want the cost of something to go down (like say, housing) you can either increase the supply or decrease the demand.
> 
> They've eliminated any new properties getting vacation rental status basically everywhere in HI, and  upalready tax second home owners more than locals. Tough to reduce demand further.
> 
> So adding supply is likely the way to go. There are tons of landowners who would love to build and have been trying to get planning permission for years. Start granting permission to build more housing.


There is a significant portion of the housing market that is operating as AirBnB/VRBO vacation rentals without permits, meaning illegally. The reason there continues to be so many operating illegally is that enforcement is pretty much nonexistent. If enforcement were handled properly, that would result in a significant number of homes added on the supply side. Also, while some are locals renting out an extra bedroom for supplemental income so they can afford mortgages, most of those illegal rentals are owned by investors, who can afford to outbid (by far) local families, therefore driving housing costs up further. If enforcement were happening and they knew they wouldn't be able to reap those profits, they would stop bidding for and driving up the cost of housing, again helping to make it more affordable for locals.

On the permitting side for new builds, part of the problem is that new builds, at least on O'ahu, often end up being for high-end condos that are often bought by non-locals as second/vacation homes. You'll see this at all the swanky buildings that went up in the Kaka'ako/Ala Moana area over the last decade+. Meanwhile actual affordable-for-locals condos/apartments have been few and far between. As for single-family homes, there is only so much space to build on without cementing over agricultural or watershed land. Most of the suitable non-agricultural land on O'ahu has already been built on. Plus it would be a shame to see the entire island become concrete jungle with no actual jungle left. The other islands aren't as highly populated, so they may have more building room, but eventually you still run into those same constraints, and how close do you really want them to get to O'ahu-style crowding?


----------



## 1Kflyerguy (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Let's look at another vacation destination: Las Vegas.
> 
> Gaming revenue taxes account for the lion's share of the Nevada budget. Residents enjoy very low taxes because resorts make one third of the entire state budget. In that way, it's very much like the Alaska Permanent Fund (which is oil-revenue based). A piece of every nickel spent in Las Vegas ends up in the state budget -- and the lions share of that money is spent by tourists and conventioneers. Without tourism, Lake Tahoe is the only thing that would survive in Nevada.
> 
> ...



With gambling taxes, they get money from anyone that gambles, residents and tourists from out of state... 

Its seems like the state of Hawaii gets a piece of everything i spend there with the existing taxes already....

While i agree the state probably does need to do something i am not sure a $50 fee on just tourists is going fly legally..


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> There is a significant portion of the housing market that is operating as AirBnB/VRBO vacation rentals without permits, meaning illegally. The reason there continues to be so many operating illegally is that enforcement is pretty much nonexistent. If enforcement were handled properly, that would result in a significant number of homes added on the supply side. Also, while some are locals renting out an extra bedroom for supplemental income so they can afford mortgages, most of those illegal rentals are owned by investors, who can afford to outbid (by far) local families, therefore driving housing costs up further. If enforcement were happening and they knew they wouldn't be able to reap those profits, they would stop bidding for and driving up the cost of housing, again helping to make it more affordable for locals.
> 
> On the permitting side for new builds, part of the problem is that new builds, at least on O'ahu, often end up being for high-end condos that are often bought by non-locals as second/vacation homes. You'll see this at all the swanky buildings that went up in the Kaka'ako/Ala Moana area over the last decade+. Meanwhile actual affordable-for-locals condos/apartments have been few and far between. As for single-family homes, there is only so much space to build on without cementing over agricultural or watershed land. Most of the suitable non-agricultural land on O'ahu has already been built on. Plus it would be a shame to see the entire island become concrete jungle with no actual jungle left. The other islands aren't as highly populated, so they may have more building room, but eventually you still run into those same constraints, and how close do you really want them to get to O'ahu-style crowding?




On the AirBnB front, landlords will simply stop renting. These units are vacation/eventual retirement homes. Let's say the owners want to spend the holidays and half the summer in their vacation home. They block that time for themselves and rent the house out the rest of the year. There are a dozen companies in my vicinity that manage these illegal Airbnbs. The reason Hawaii isn't enforcing the law is that it's pointless -- it won't have the desired effect, and an awful lot of money goes directly into the hands of property managers, maid services and renovators. The one company I talked to promised "you don't lift a finger -- we do everything and send you your money (minus our cut)." The problem is deep-pockets can (and do) offer considerably more than list price -- they know the market will catch up to them. And getting in early is better than waiting.

Permits is fixable -- restrict high end permits until enough low-income housing has been built to counteract. There is all kinds of buildable land on the slope of Hualalai. And much of it is owned by the Bishop Trust. This is a way to flex their muscle in a positive way -- they build (and own) apartments, duplexes, and SFR developments. And then they collect rent. The trustees got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And this would be a dandy way to both strengthen the trust and help Hawaiians. And nobody will bat an eye over preferential treatment for natives.




vacationtime1 said:


> The _quickest_ way to achieve at least part of the desired result would be to_ immediately_ terminate the short-term rental market.  That would _Immediately_ reduce the number of visitors and would _immediately _increase the amount of housing available for locals.  Okay, by "_immediately_", I mean with reservations within the next year honored.
> 
> But this would reduce property values.
> 
> It's definitely easier to tax tourists.  But enacting new tourist taxes will neither reduce the number of tourists nor create affordable housing for locals.



It wouldn't increase the amount of long-term rentals by all that much. The owners bought the property to enjoy for themselves -- and turn a profit when they're not enjoying it. They can't rent "Feb. through May; and then September through mid December." That's what many of them are doing with their AirBnbs. And then you have the people who rent out a spare room or an ohana (mother-in-law unit) to pay the bills. They're the ones who will suffer the most. The professional investors can sit on their property until they decide they want to flip it. Mere mortals can't afford these houses on hospitality-industry pay.





slip said:


> Sounds like there was one mainlander who wasn't scared away.



I've found it's a reliable strategy to see what the average person is doing, and do the opposite. I sold when people were buying. I bought when people were strategically defaulting. And I'm in the process of selling again. (I'd be "sold" if not for my wife. We don't do anything unless it's unanimous.) Going against the herd is the easiest way to time any market. I didn't even come up with the strategy. Warren Buffett was saying this before I was born.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> On the AirBnB front, landlords will simply stop renting. These units are vacation/eventual retirement homes. Let's say the owners want to spend the holidays and half the summer in their vacation home. They block that time for themselves and rent the house out the rest of the year. There are a dozen companies in my vicinity that manage these illegal Airbnbs. The reason Hawaii isn't enforcing the law is that it's pointless -- it won't have the desired effect, and an awful lot of money goes directly into the hands of property managers, maid services and renovators. The one company I talked to promised "you don't lift a finger -- we do everything and send you your money (minus our cut)." The problem is deep-pockets can (and do) offer considerably more than list price -- they know the market will catch up to them. And getting in early is better than waiting.
> 
> Permits is fixable -- restrict high end permits until enough low-income housing has been built to counteract. There is all kinds of buildable land on the slope of Hualalai. And much of it is owned by the Bishop Trust. This is a way to flex their muscle in a positive way -- they build (and own) apartments, duplexes, and SFR developments. And then they collect rent. The trustees got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And this would be a dandy way to both strengthen the trust and help Hawaiians. And nobody will bat an eye over preferential treatment for natives.
> 
> ...



A few years ago when Maui County cracked down on short-term rentals outside of the short term rental zone, many houses throughout Molokai hit the market and many went into foreclosure.  Many people buy with plans to rent and count on that rental income to pay the bills. Now you only see rentals in the few short-term rental zones here on Molokai. 

Even people that owned in the short-term rental zones had problems during COVID. Many units went into foreclosure throughout the island. 

Molokai is definitely it's unique self but we are in Maui County.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 26, 2022)

I would pay it, and I would like to see them put all of my "donation" toward a food bank for locals who really need basic food supplies.  We donate already to local church food banks during our visits.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

slip said:


> A few years ago when Maui County cracked down on short-term rentals outside of the short term rental zone, many houses throughout Molokai hit the market and many went into foreclosure.  Many people buy with plans to rent and count on that rental income to pay the bills. Now you only see rentals in the few short-term rental zones here on Molokai.
> 
> Even people that owned in the short-term rental zones had problems during COVID. Many units went into foreclosure throughout the island.
> 
> Molokai is definitely it's unique self but we are in Maui County.



Go to AirBnB, search in the area around Captain Cook, and use a range from Dec. 1 to Jan 30 -- a person who wants to rent two months during the height of season. Have a look at the prices -- those houses aren't ever going to be "residential housing." They're getting five (and six!) figures per month on these rentals. A neighboring farm is making $18K per month on the AirBnBs on their property. They're making more as amateur hoteliers than they are as farmers. (They also have a beautiful farm. Much nicer than mine. But I'm working on it.)

If the owners of these high-end properties get busted by the rental police, they're not going to turn around and rent to Joey Pakalolo the Bartender. They're not worried about the rental income. They paid cash. Rental police snare the people who actually need the rental income to stay afloat. Doesn't do a thing about these palaces for rent. Exactly the wrong sort of people suffer thanks to enforcement -- the small timers who built an ohana.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Go to AirBnB, search in the area around Captain Cook, and use a range from Dec. 1 to Jan 30 -- a person who wants to rent two months during the height of season. Have a look at the prices -- those houses aren't ever going to be "residential housing." They're getting five (and six!) figures per month on these rentals. A neighboring farm is making $18K per month on the AirBnBs on their property. They're making more as amateur hoteliers than they are as farmers. (They also have a beautiful farm. Much nicer than mine. But I'm working on it.)
> 
> If the owners of these high-end properties get busted by the rental police, they're not going to turn around and rent to Joey Pakalolo the Bartender. They're not worried about the rental income. They paid cash. Rental police snare the people who actually need the rental income to stay afloat. Doesn't do a thing about these palaces for rent. Exactly the wrong sort of people suffer thanks to enforcement -- the small timers who built an ohana.



Your in a different county so I don't know if things are changing there. The Oahu mayor funded enforcement officers when they made changes recently on Oahu. On Oahu violators are being turned in now. I heard on the news they received about 200 tips. 

We'll see how it goes. It might even reach the Big Island.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Go to AirBnB, search in the area around Captain Cook, and use a range from Dec. 1 to Jan 30 -- a person who wants to rent two months during the height of season. Have a look at the prices -- those houses aren't ever going to be "residential housing." They're getting five (and six!) figures per month on these rentals. A neighboring farm is making $18K per month on the AirBnBs on their property. They're making more as amateur hoteliers than they are as farmers. (They also have a beautiful farm. Much nicer than mine. But I'm working on it.)
> 
> If the owners of these high-end properties get busted by the rental police, they're not going to turn around and rent to Joey Pakalolo the Bartender. They're not worried about the rental income. They paid cash. Rental police snare the people who actually need the rental income to stay afloat. Doesn't do a thing about these palaces for rent. Exactly the wrong sort of people suffer thanks to enforcement -- the small timers who built an ohana.



I took look at AirBnb for Captain Cook on those dates. It reminded me I don’t like AirBnb.   

Anyway, when I looked at those really expensive listings and went to reserve, the calenders were wide open. No booked dates. It makes me wonder what their occupancy rates are. 

Some were condos at Royal Sea cliff for over $8,000 a month. I have been in there and wouldn't pay that. Surprisingly, those calenders were wide open too. I think your neighboring farm friends are doing better than some of these high prices listings.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 26, 2022)

slip said:


> We'll see how it goes. It might even reach the Big Island.



It might. But my point stands that enforcement is hitting the small-timer with a spare room or an ohana more than the professional real estate investor with a million-dollar property.

There's also a whole lot of "focus on these guys here! They're gaming the system and causing the over-tourism problem with their illegal ohana!" But don't pay attention to the full resorts, empty rental car lots, and plane-fulls of tourists arriving daily.

There are more than 11,000 timeshare units in the state. And they're occupied 90% of the time. So even if that's NOTHING but single travelers with no family, that means 514,000 visitors per year, driving slightly less than 514,000 rental cars. And timeshares are just a small piece of the total pie.

The most recent solid numbers I could find are pre-pandemic. So they're not 100% accurate today. But it's going to be pretty close:

"Nearly half of Hawaii’s visitor accommodation units are on Oahu (47.9%), with the majority in Waikiki. Maui has the second-highest percentage of units (26.5%), followed by the island of Hawaii (14.0%) and Kauai (11.0%). Molokai and Lanai combined for the fewest units (0.6%)."

At least Waikiki has some capacity. Maui is taking it in the teeth. Imagine if you were dealing with Maui's numbers, or even a third of Maui's numbers on Molokai. I think it is likely you'd be pulling your hair out.

Tourism doesn't really affect me here. Ironman is annoying, and I hope they find a new venue the year after next. But other than that, it's not that big a deal for me. But we have considerably more space here and a little more than half of what Maui is pulling. I think a little empathy for our neighbors is in order. If tourist numbers here doubled, life would be significantly less pleasant. And imagine 30 visitors for every resident -- all the time -- in Molokai. You'll have to extrapolate how that'd be. I think it would mean a fairly meager existence.


----------



## slip (Oct 26, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> It might. But my point stands that enforcement is hitting the small-timer with a spare room or an ohana more than the professional real estate investor with a million-dollar property.
> 
> There's also a whole lot of "focus on these guys here! They're gaming the system and causing the over-tourism problem with their illegal ohana!" But don't pay attention to the full resorts, empty rental car lots, and plane-fulls of tourists arriving daily.
> 
> ...



One thing I am not worried about in all of this is Molokai.  People rarely come now and nothing is close to being on the horizon to change that.  

With the rest, I'll do what I have been saying all along in this thread. I'll wait and see what is implemented. As of right now, it looks like some parking fees on Maui, maybe a $50 visitor fee will try to be introduced for all of Hawaii and Oahu has started enforcing Short-Term Rental violations. We'll see how it all shakes out.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 27, 2022)

slip said:


> One thing I am not worried about in all of this is Molokai.  People rarely come now and nothing is close to being on the horizon to change that.
> 
> With the rest, I'll do what I have been saying all along in this thread. I'll wait and see what is implemented. As of right now, it looks like some parking fees on Maui, maybe a $50 visitor fee will try to be introduced for all of Hawaii and Oahu has started enforcing Short-Term Rental violations. We'll see how it all shakes out.



I'm not worried about Molokai, either. Molokai doesn't have too many visitors spoiling life for the residents. If it did, you would likely be singing a different tune.

As I have said dozens of times in each of these "Maui seeks to throttle visitor numbers" stories, I wish them well and I wish them luck. I hope they find the secret sauce of "less tourists, higher quality of life, vibrant economy." Maui was too freakin' crowded for me to ever want to live there -- 10 years ago. It's worse today. I've selected a spot where tourism doesn't really affect me -- one way or the other. I don't make much money from tourism (I sell direct to consumer, mostly to Japan). Tourism isn't particularly annoying, either. Except during Ironman -- those people can pound sand. But I pay attention to what's happening elsewhere in the state. And wow do we have loads of pampered princess Karens who need to be booted from Maui -- send them to Lake Havasu or Cabo or Cozumel. There's a reason all the "throttle tourism" initiatives start on Maui. If I had to deal with that daily, my pitchfork would already be sharpened and I'd have a sack of torches for the county offices. I'm truly glad I don't live there. And I think that island is absolutely beautiful. But it's like finding a beautiful person with serious personality issues -- the beauty ceases to matter in a matter of days.


----------



## lynne (Oct 27, 2022)

slip said:


> Your in a different county so I don't know if things are changing there. The Oahu mayor funded enforcement officers when they made changes recently on Oahu. On Oahu violators are being turned in now. I heard on the news they received about 200 tips.
> 
> We'll see how it goes. It might even reach the Big Island.


Hawaii County has absolutiely no enforcement for illegal short term rentals.  All of the other counties have an online listing of all of the permitted short term vacation rentals and a form for violators within the non-resort areas.  When I contacted our county about providing the same information, they bascially said they do not have the staff or capability to provide legal rental status.  Our county is run by developer friendly officaials.  In fact, the director of Planning has a company that sued the state to overturn the ruling diallowing  illegal rentals on agricultural land.  The county and state won the case, but one of the judges in Kona overturned it making it a free for all for these illegal rentals operating as mini resorts within the agriculural zoning (5 bedrooms, private pools, tennis courts and lots of parting noise).  I dislike stating the obvious, but our polictial represntatives are corrupt and favor big business instead of residents.


----------



## slip (Oct 27, 2022)

lynne said:


> Hawaii County has absolutiely no enforcement for illegal short term rentals.  All of the other counties have an online listing of all of the permitted short term vacation rentals and a form for violators within the non-resort areas.  When I contacted our county about providing the same information, they bascially said they do not have the staff or capability to provide legal rental status.  Our county is run by developer friendly officaials.  In fact, the director of Planning has a company that sued the state to overturn the ruling diallowing  illegal rentals on agricultural land.  The county and state won the case, but one of the judges in Kona overturned it making it a free for all for these illegal rentals operating as mini resorts within the agriculural zoning (5 bedrooms, private pools, tennis courts and lots of parting noise).  I dislike stating the obvious, but our polictial represntatives are corrupt and favor big business instead of residents.



Governors usually try to work with the Mayor's so we'll see if anything changes for Big Island under a new administration. Plans right now aren't very aggressive though.


----------



## slip (Oct 27, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> I'm not worried about Molokai, either. Molokai doesn't have too many visitors spoiling life for the residents. If it did, you would likely be singing a different tune.



My take is probaby much different. I am a local but I also know I am a visitor.  I have lived on Oahu for 3 years and I'm working on a year on Molokai. I don't get too excited about things i don't control and I know I am not going to change anything with any of the decisions that are going to be made. So I will wait and see what is decided.

One thing I know is that all the locals and even the native Hawaiians don't agree on what could/should be done. Even here on Molokai where they have kept development at bay, there is division.  I have heard both sides from born and raised on Molokai residents. Allow no development and the youth will leave for better opportunities and the island will slowly die. Allow some development and the island changes and the identity dies. This is what I hear here. There is no mandate for either side.

I heard the same thing about tourism while living on Oahu. Some want more tourists and others don't. There is no one unified voice. I talked to my fellow workers on all the islands and it was the same. 

It's funny, I worked for a Food Distributor that is on all the islands. I often went out on deliveries to our customers and I talked to servers on the Big Island and they all mentioned that Ironman was their favorite time of year because they all made more money In hours and tips. On Big Island, I talked to about 30 servers, all the same answer. What does that mean, nothing much at all.

I'll be going to Maui in April and I see how the parking charges affect me. Then we'll see if any of the proposals go through and if anything new comes on the horizon. 

Then I go to Big Island in May. Who knows what will happen by then. One thing I do know is that you Scoop will be running your chain saw clearing your farm.


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 27, 2022)

slip said:


> I talked to servers on the Big Island and they all mentioned that Ironman was their favorite time of year because they all made more money In hours and tips.



Well, so much for the one-sided perspective we have read so far in this thread. 

At this point I think it’s clear to most that there are no simple solutions to complex problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 27, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> On the AirBnB front, landlords will simply stop renting. These units are vacation/eventual retirement homes. Let's say the owners want to spend the holidays and half the summer in their vacation home. They block that time for themselves and rent the house out the rest of the year.


Maybe on the Big Island it really is that way. From what I saw growing up and spending most of my adult life on O'ahu (near Kailua, which is the worst of the illegal rental explosion), it is not "vacation/eventual retirement homes." It really is by far mostly investment companies specifically buying to convert homes into AirBnBs. And not nearly as much of that money as you think goes into local hands. I have a lot of friends and family still in the area, some of which are in real estate and have their pulse on the local market, some of which are in construction, local maid service companies, etc. The ones who are lucky enough to still be able to (barely) afford living in the Kailua area have seen the residential character of the area change to an almost spring break party atmosphere.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 27, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> Maybe on the Big Island it really is that way. From what I saw growing up and spending most of my adult life on O'ahu (near Kailua, which is the worst of the illegal rental explosion), it is not "vacation/eventual retirement homes." It really is by far mostly investment companies specifically buying to convert homes into AirBnBs.



We don't have many condos here. There are four varieties of illegal AirBnBs. 1) An ohana rented out to help pay the bills; 2) A $1.2 million vacation/retirement house rented out when not in use; 3) palaces; 4) AirBnBs on ag land.

If we close down all AirBnBs, as suggested so many times, we will hurt everyone category 1. Category 2 will close their doors. Category 3 doesn't care because they already own everything. And it will just make farming harder for category 4. There are exceptions -- actual condos in Kailua-Kona. But if those are taken off the market, locals still can't afford them.

Hop on AirBnB, type Captain Cook in the search field, and check by-the-week/fortnight/month prices for Dec.-Jan. Most of these houses aren't ever going to be long-term rentals. The big picture problem here is that residents can't compete with out-of-state real estate investors. A house goes up for sale; five local families offer list; maybe two can obtain the financing. Or the seller can take the much-larger cash offer, deposited into escrow tomorrow, no waiting around on the bank to approve a mortgage. I get unsolicited cash offers on my farm. Happens every few months. 

That's why Big Island has no housing -- any nice house becomes a vacation/retirement/investment property combo. We need to build low-income housing which investors don't want -- and that's where using the Bishop Estate Trust and the county planning office could actually put a dent in the problem.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 27, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> We don't have many condos here. There are four varieties of illegal AirBnBs. 1) An ohana rented out to help pay the bills; 2) A $1.2 million vacation/retirement house rented out when not in use; 3) palaces; 4) AirBnBs on ag land.
> 
> If we close down all AirBnBs, as suggested so many times, we will hurt everyone category 1. Category 2 will close their doors. Category 3 doesn't care because they already own everything. And it will just make farming harder for category 4. There are exceptions -- actual condos in Kailua-Kona. But if those are taken off the market, locals still can't afford them.
> 
> ...


The AirBnBs in Kailua are NOT condos. They are single family homes by far, and were not previously vacation/retirement houses rented out when not it use. Also, any 'palaces' there were previously normal single family homes that were purchased by investment companies, torn down, and rebuilt with the specific intent of renting via AirBnB, VRBO, etc. Not a whole lot of ag land AirBnBs on O'ahu, and definitely not in the Kailua area. These were previously vibrant residential COMMUNITIES that are now basically just Waikiki in smaller hotels with a few local families holding on for dear life in between. Your experience on the Big Island may be different, but it is not the experience everywhere, or even throughout the state of Hawaii.

*Edited to add:

Closing down the illegal AirBnBs would make a dent. Before that became a thing, there were a LOT of local families that could afford to live in Kailua. But once that pandora's box was opened, prices skyrocketed because investors knew they would get that money back in spades. Remove that incentive, they will no longer come around to outbid actual families just trying to find a place to live.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 27, 2022)

Ken555 said:


> Well, so much for the one-sided perspective we have read so far in this thread.



Ironman has become an international competition with the kind of nationalism on display which we see at the Olympics. I'm willing to bet that Jim visited when Ironman was mainly a US event and not nearly as big as it is today.

Servers told me they were getting economics lessons from Europeans instead of tips. "You should go work a better job if you don't like it." And the town of Kailua-Kona was essentially shut for a week. There were 5,500 competitors last time, and their families/helpers, the press, TV crews and similar. 

People really need to come to grips with the idea that just because some tourism is good, unlimited tourism must be better. I was looking for an excellent article by a triathlete, condemning the way many triathletes behave when they are here. Couldn't find it. But it's something everyone sees -- even the competitors.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 27, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> The AirBnBs in Kailua are NOT condos. They are single family homes by far, and were not previously vacation/retirement houses rented out when not it use. Also, any 'palaces' there were previously normal single family homes that were purchased by investment companies, torn down, and rebuilt with the specific intent of renting via AirBnB, VRBO, etc. Not a whole lot of ag land AirBnBs on O'ahu, and definitely not in the Kailua area. These were previously vibrant residential COMMUNITIES that are now basically just Waikiki in smaller hotels with a few local families holding on for dear life in between. Your experience on the Big Island may be different, but it is not the experience everywhere, or even throughout the state of Hawaii.



I didn't say they were. Kailua is different than Kailua-Kona. Two different places on two different islands with two different problems. There are AirBnbs here in Kailua-Kona. Most of them are condos which may as well be timeshare units. They have the same look and feel. And mostly they're owned by part-time residents.

I did make it very clear I'm talking about Kailua-Kona, Hawaii and not Kailua, Oahu.

Most of the AirBnBs are south of Kailua-Kona, in the area around Kealakekua and Captain Cook -- especially the gated communities close to the water in Captain Cook. Residents can't afford anything there. Those are the part-time owners I speak of.


----------



## slip (Oct 27, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Ironman has become an international competition with the kind of nationalism on display which we see at the Olympics. I'm willing to bet that Jim visited when Ironman was mainly a US event and not nearly as big as it is today.



If your referring to me, you would lose that bet. I worked in Hawaii from 2019 to 2022. After 2019 the comments were about hoping the event returned.  Like I said, it means nothing, just as much as the servers you talked to. My point is, you paint with a very wide brush. Not everyone hates Ironman and not everyone loves Ironman. Like everything, it's somewhere in the middle.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 27, 2022)

slip said:


> If your referring to me, you would lose that bet. I worked in Hawaii from 2019 to 2022. After 2019 the comments were about hoping the event returned.  Like I said, it means nothing, just as much as the servers you talked to. My point is, you paint with a very wide brush. Not everyone hates Ironman and not everyone loves Ironman. Like everything, it's somewhere in the middle.



Here you go. Some light reading. I was forced to go into the maelstrom a couple times for coffee related issues. Servers, waiters, cooks, truck drivers, pretty much everyone was unequivocal. Some AirBnB owners just LOVE Ironman. But that's about it -- most people (the vast majority) don't see any extra money because of the event. Just more work and more headaches.

There are NFSW comments in this reddit thread:


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/BigIsland/comments/xu2voc


----------



## slip (Oct 27, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Here you go. Some light reading. I was forced to go into the maelstrom a couple times for coffee related issues. Servers, waiters, cooks, truck drivers, pretty much everyone was unequivocal. Some AirBnB owners just LOVE Ironman. But that's about it -- most people (the vast majority) don't see any extra money because of the event. Just more work and more headaches.
> 
> There are NFSW comments in this reddit thread:
> 
> ...



It's just more opinions just like what you said before. I can't see how you believe no one wants Ironman.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 27, 2022)

slip said:


> It's just more opinions just like what you said before. I can't see how you believe no one wants Ironman.



Binary thinking. I never said no one wants Ironman. The vast majority of the people who are affected by Ironman don't want Ironman. I also don't want Ironman. But I absolutely recognize that rental companies, hotels, timeshares, short-term landlords, and sponsors want Ironman.

It is not as beloved as you suggest. For most people, it is their least-favorite time of year. Me included. I will vote for any county mayoral candidate who promises to rid this island of Ironman.


----------



## slip (Oct 27, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> Binary thinking. I never said no one wants Ironman. The vast majority of the people who are effected by Ironman don't want Ironman. I also don't want Ironman. But I absolutely recognize that rental companies, hotels, timeshares, short-term landlords, and sponsors want Ironman.
> 
> It is not beloved as you suggest. For most people, it is their least-favorite time of year. Me included. I will vote for any county mayoral candidate who promises to rid this island of Ironman.



Beloved as I suggest? I said it's somewhere in the middle. 

I would include restaurants in your in favor list and that would include some servers. Many people actually like watching the event and many enjoy volunteering for the event also.

We'll see how big of an issue it is in the 2024 Mayoral race.


----------



## slip (Nov 2, 2022)

This article mentions a protest at Kalapaki Beach on Kauai.









						Visitors Confused: Kauai Beach Protests + Maui Beach Rules And Fees
					

Visitors and residents want their share of Hawaii's beaches. What just happened on Kauai and how that contrasts with the latest Maui beach plans.



					beatofhawaii.com


----------



## lynne (Nov 5, 2022)

From the attached article, an example of Maui real estate being purchased by non-residents who do not live there full time:

"In 2016, about 50% of homes were sold to people who didn’t plan to live in them full time, a figure that soared to 70% by 2020, according to a recent analysis by a researcher from Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. Today, the typical price of a home stands at nearly $1.15 million — a massive jump from the start of 2020 when the typical price for a home stood around $777,500."









						Maui Looks To Crack Down On Companies Selling Shares Of Second Homes
					

A County Council measure would expand the definition of timeshare to include stays of up to 180 days to try to limit multiple owners from buying into vacation homes.




					www.civilbeat.org


----------



## slip (Nov 5, 2022)

lynne said:


> From the attached article, an example of Maui real estate being purchased by non-residents who do not live there full time:
> 
> "In 2016, about 50% of homes were sold to people who didn’t plan to live in them full time, a figure that soared to 70% by 2020, according to a recent analysis by a researcher from Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. Today, the typical price of a home stands at nearly $1.15 million — a massive jump from the start of 2020 when the typical price for a home stood around $777,500."
> 
> ...



As if $777,500 wasn't bad enough. I wonder if the out of state owner number fluctuates much. It's certainly a huge problem. 

I was watching a video from a Maui realtor yesterday and he said there are no condos on Maui listed under $700,000 at this time. Wow.


----------



## ScoopKona (Nov 5, 2022)

slip said:


> As if $777,500 wasn't bad enough. I wonder if the out of state owner number fluctuates much. It's certainly a huge problem.
> 
> I was watching a video video from a Maui realtor yesterday and he said there are no condos on Maui listed under $700,000 at this time. Wow.



People on the Big Island complain about out of state buyers constantly. I can't think of a solution to this problem.

Investors/vacation-home buyers pay cash, offer more than list price, and make the transaction easy for the seller. Locals take months to get financing in order. It's really a no-brainer for the seller -- more money and a fast, easy sale. The counties need to build housing which_ isn't_ attractive to investors. And they need to do so right now. Because locals are being squeezed out. The county takes months/years to issue permits, and what they're permitting is just going to be snapped up by investors.


----------



## amycurl (Nov 5, 2022)

There is a way to solve this problem: local housing trusts, which can provide affordable, local workforce housing; the financial benefits of ownership; *and*, just like the conservation trusts they are modeled after, have restrictive covenants that ensure that the housing stock is available for local workers when some one sells (and they can usually sell at a modest--but not insane--profit.) This is one way that Mount Desert Island (where almost 50% of the island is national park) has tackled the affordable housing crisis; they still need more, but it is a start. Here's more about how they work, and where they've popped up.



			Community Land Trusts and Stable Affordable Housing | HUD USER
		










						Cities Support Community Land Trusts to Protect Affordable Housing
					

Nonprofits aim to prevent developers from scooping up properties.




					www.pewtrusts.org


----------



## lynne (Nov 5, 2022)

ScoopKona said:


> People on the Big Island complain about out of state buyers constantly. I can't think of a solution to this problem.
> 
> Investors/vacation-home buyers pay cash, offer more than list price, and make the transaction easy for the seller. Locals take months to get financing in order. It's really a no-brainer for the seller -- more money and a fast, easy sale. The counties need to build housing which_ isn't_ attractive to investors. And they need to do so right now. Because locals are being squeezed out. The county takes months/years to issue permits, and what they're permitting is just going to be snapped up by investors.


Two Bigh Island housing developments have been recently approved or about to be approved.  One is a development taking over a 9 hole golf course at the Waikoloa Beach Resort which will build 229 units and one in Honokaa approved for 40 units.  

The kicker for the Waikoloa Beach development is that the developer has approval to also build a 900 - 1200 unit timeshare within Waikoloa Beach.  This will add density at a minimum of 1000 vehicles/per day within a very small footprint.

*Affordable housing project advances: Council panel agrees with exemptions for 229-unit project*
An affordable housing project in Waikoloa got nine thumbs up Tuesday, signaling an easy approval when the County Council meets later this month to take a final vote on the plan.

The council Planning Committee gave unanimous consent to developers of the proposed Hoomalu at Waikoloa affordable housing project for exemptions from three development requirements. Resolution 599 exempts the project from the zoning density cap of 142 units to allow construction of 229 units. It also exempts project developer Stanford Carr Development LLC from fees for plan review and building permits.

“We don’t just build buildings or projects or apartments,” Carr told the committee. “We build communities.”

Support came from community members as well, with 107 people signing a petition and submitting letters of support. Support also came from the construction trade and business groups.

“We believe this workforce development and housing project will improve the well-being of the community,” said Nathan Lowry, testifying via Zoom. “We feel this development is the right development at the right place at the right time.”

The Hoomalu at Waikoloa project is envisioned to target a wide range of household incomes, with 161 units available to those households making $20,101 annually, which is 30% of the median area income. The one-bedroom apartment in that category would have a monthly rent of $535.

The remaining 68 units will be for those up to 100% AMI. For example, 50% AMI is an income of $38,100 for two people. The one-bedroom apartment in that category would cost $893. A family of three making up to $51,420 (the 60% AMI) would qualify for a two-bedroom apartment for $1,285. And a four-person household making $95,200 — or 100% AMI — could get a three-bedroom apartment for $2,476. Developers pledged to keep the units affordable for at least 65 years.

The proposed development will also include a community center, childcare center and recreation facilities. The 25.8-acre site is part of the Waikoloa Beach Resort with proposed access off Queen Kaahumanu Highway via Waikoloa Beach Drive; a private roadway.

The community center will host a function room, a recreation deck with a playground, BBQ areas and a swimming pool as well as a gym, restrooms, mail center and administration offices for management and services. Komohale Services, Stanford Carr Development’s nonprofit service connector, will coordinate outside wellness, finance and job training service providers to the residents.

In addition, a childcare facility, open to residents and the community at large, will be located in the community center complex. Four classrooms and up to 100 preschool children will have a licensed childcare provider operating with all required amenities, developers said.





*Council OKs zoning applications for Honokaa housing development*
A proposed new housing development in Honokaa received support from County Council members and residents on Wednesday.

Lehua Villages is a pair of planned subdivisions in Honokaa which together would offer 40 new lots for single-family housing, half of which would be available at the county’s affordable housing rates.

Back in August, the Windward Planning Commission approved zoning applications for the project, which were brought to the full County Council for final reading Wednesday.

The council approved the applications — which would change the zoning for both 7-acre subdivision sites to allow for reduced maximum housing density — with little discussion, although one member of the public raised some concerns.

“I live on Lehua Street (where the subdivision will be built),” said Honokaa resident Richard Bidleman at the meeting. “And all the people who live on Lehua Street, we are very much in favor of the proposed subdivisions. But what we have a lot of difficulty with is the lack of infrastructure.”

Bidleman said there are already other local projects expanding onto Lehua Street, including the Ko Education Center and the Hamakua-Kohala Health Center, but there is not enough infrastructure on the street to support the increased use of the road. Events at nearby parks funnel hundreds of cars down Lehua Street, but there are no sidewalks on the road.

While the project plan includes pedestrian paths connecting Lehua Street to internal subdivision roads, it does not include actual sidewalks, which Bidleman said is unacceptable considering the subdivision likely will host up to 80 cars or more traveling in and out daily.

Hamakua Councilwoman Heather Kimball acknowledged Bidleman’s concerns with the project and said she likely will return to the council with a solution for those concerns in the future. She said she was hoping to present a cost estimate for more walking paths in the area, but was unable to have that available in time for the meeting.

The full project is being financed through private fundraising and is expected to cost somewhere between $3 million and $4 million, although the current volatility of construction costs may change that estimate.

Roger Meeker, manager of Lehua Village Partners, said in August that the lots should be completed no later than 2027.


----------



## slip (Nov 15, 2022)

An update on the news today.


----------



## daviator (Nov 16, 2022)

slip said:


> An update on the news today.


I can’t believe Joe Moore is still the KHON anchor, he's been there since the early 80s, at least!  His face is plumper than it used to be but still instantly recognizable, lol.


----------

