Green Fees for Visitors are again on the table

[lynne]

Advocates Say It's No Longer Whether Hawaii Should Charge A Green Fee, But How - Honolulu Civil Beat

Hawaii's new governor supports a visitor-impact fee, and supporters say they're more organized than ever. But it will be up to state legislators to decide.

www.civilbeat.org

 

[lynne]

Most recent proposal

Bills would expand fees to access Hawaii state parks, trails

Jan. 30—Visitor "green fees " are already in limited use at state parks—most notably at the popular Diamond Head State Monument—but there's renewed interest in the state Legislature this session to expand the concept to generate revenue to help protect Hawaii's environment. Visitor "green fees "...

news.yahoo.com

Governor’s ‘green fee’ plan scaled back to target park, trail and beach users

Governor Josh Green has changed his proposal for a fee on every incoming visitor making it likely more acceptable to the industry and lawmakers. Green had proposed charging every adult visitor a $50 fee to deal with impacts of climate change as well as mitigate the impact of the visitors on...

www.hawaiinewsnow.com

 

[dioxide45]

Are the fees for revenue generation or to try to keep people away? I doubt much of it will go toward anything meaningful regarding the environment. The fees will just go into the general fund.

I also notice “When they are a guest in our house, they should treat our home like they would hope we treat their home when we visit.” So Hawaiians are willing to pay more fees and taxes when they visit the mainland?

 

[SmithOp]

Phew, for a second there I thought it was targeted at golfers.

 

[mjm1]

….

I also notice “When they are a guest in our house, they should treat our home like they would hope we treat their home when we visit.” So Hawaiians are willing to pay more fees and taxes when they visit the mainland?

We live on the “9th Island” as Las Vegas is referred to, since there are a lot of people from Hawaii who have moved here and it is a favorite vacation spot for islanders.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I doubt any visitor would be happy paying a fee to visit. That said, I know the city added some small percentage to the room tax rate to help cover funds provided toward the development of the Raiders football stadium.

At the end of the day people will still travel to a location if they really want to even if they have to pay extra for it. However, they may find other ways to reduce their expenses during the trip or even make less trips to the location.

Best regards.

Mike

 

[cowboy]

One day they, the government, will succeed in killing the goose. Timeshare owners pay property taxes which are a part of the maintenance fees plus 18% transient tax each for staying in the unit that they own. Now the government wants to charge us just to enter the islands. Wish we had a vote.

 

[lynne]

One day they, the government, will succeed in killing the goose. Timeshare owners pay property taxes which are a part of the maintenance fees plus 18% transient tax each for staying in the unit that they own. Now the government wants to charge us just to enter the islands. Wish we had a vote.

The current proposal is to charge age 15 and older a fee for access to state parks and beaches. It would have a year expiration.

 

[geist1223]

You do have a Vote. Do not go.

 

[ScoopKona]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I doubt any visitor would be happy paying a fee to visit. That said, I know the city added some small percentage to the room tax rate to help cover funds provided toward the development of the Raiders football stadium.

The fees start the minute the tourist lands, and doesn't end until the minute they leave. Room taxes, gaming taxes, parking fees, resort fees, sales tax on everything they buy -- it's all cooked into the bill so the tourist doesn't notice.

That's why Clark County homeowners pay such low property taxes -- everything is subsidized by the resorts. The trick is to make the fees just a few pennies less than the market will bear and make them invisible.

Hawaii will likely go the "sledgehammer over the head" route with fees. Because they want to decrease visitor numbers.
I would much rather have one visitor who spends $1 billion than 250,000 visitors who spend $4,000 each. No traffic jams, less stress on the reef and much less litter that way.

 

[slip]

The fees start the minute the tourist lands, and doesn't end until the minute they leave. Room taxes, gaming taxes, parking fees, resort fees, sales tax on everything they buy -- it's all cooked into the bill so the tourist doesn't notice.

That's why Clark County homeowners pay such low property taxes -- everything is subsidized by the resorts. The trick is to make the fees just a few pennies less than the market will bear and make them invisible.

Hawaii will likely go the "sledgehammer over the head" route with fees. Because they want to decrease visitor numbers.
I would much rather have one visitor who spends $1 billion than 250,000 visitors who spend $4,000 each. No traffic jams, less stress on the reef and much less litter that way.

I don't know where you are getting that Hawaii will likely go with "the Sledgehammer over the head" approach?

All the proposals are a $50 annual fee/license. That's a pretty small sledgehammer.

 

[ScoopKona]

I don't know where you are getting that Hawaii will likely go with "the Sledgehammer over the head" approach?

All the proposals are a $50 annual fee/license. That's a pretty small sledgehammer.

Watch people lose their minds over it. They can visit Las Vegas and pay FAR more. But they never see the fees tacked on. So they don't [snivel with a capital B] about it.

The current proposals are about as subtle as being shot in the face with rock salt. Indignant tourists will stop visiting "out of principal." And that's fine. It's one of the reasons they're enacting the fees. We could stand to have far fewer indignant tourists.

 

[slip]

Watch people lose their minds over it. They can visit Las Vegas and pay FAR more. But they never see the fees tacked on. So they don't [snivel with a capital B] about it.

The current proposals are about as subtle as being shot in the face with rock salt. Indignant tourists will stop visiting "out of principal." And that's fine. It's one of the reasons they're enacting the fees. We could stand to have far fewer indignant tourists.

It seems like the main thing that needs to be decided is how it will be applied. I don't think $50 will stop visitors much. Especially if it is added to something that it will be hard to see.

To me, $50 will just generate more revenue and not address the visitor numbers but I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[ScoopKona]

To me, $50 will just generate more revenue and not address the visitor numbers but I guess we will have to wait and see.

I don't consider $50 time 900,000 visitors in December to be all that much money. I wouldn't turn my nose up at a $45 million payday. But $45 million per month isn't going to accomplish diddly-squat. (And this is the busy time of the year.)

Now, $50 per day. Now we're talking. And more for cruise ship tourists.

I can see Hawaii shedding a small percentage of visitors -- who already think they're not getting their money's worth. Not enough to put a dent in the traffic. But some.

 

[slip]

I don't consider $50 time 900,000 visitors in December to be all that much money. I wouldn't turn my nose up at a $45 million payday. But $45 million per month isn't going to accomplish diddly-squat. (And this is the busy time of the year.)

Now, $50 per day. Now we're talking. And more for cruise ship tourists.

I can see Hawaii shedding a small percentage of visitors -- who already think they're not getting their money's worth. Not enough to put a dent in the traffic. But some.

What is being proposed is a $50 annual fee starting at the age of 15. So anyone coming to Hawaii multiple times per year only pays $50. Yes, it is not $50 a day. So depending how it is billed, many people may not even notice it.

There are always people who won't return to Hawaii. Unless something changes with what has been proposed (and I doubt that will happen), I don't see this affecting visitor numbers. Airfare and the economy will remain the main forces that drive the tourist numbers.

 

[ScoopKona]

Unless something changes with what has been proposed (and I doubt that will happen), I don't see this affecting visitor numbers. Airfare and the economy will remain the main forces that drive the tourist numbers.

I think it will affect numbers -- just not very much. Perpetually-indignant Karens (the sort of people who complain about the term "Karen") will demand that fees amount to an affront. "How dare these people charge me just for the privilege of spending my money on vacation. And they're going to charge my children too? I never! I'll go to the Bahamas where my money is welcome, thank you very much. I hope this teaches you Hawaiians a lesson!"

 

[slip]

I think it will affect numbers -- just not very much. Perpetually-indignant Karens (the sort of people who complain about the term "Karen") will demand that fees amount to an affront. "How dare these people charge me just for the privilege of spending my money on vacation. And they're going to charge my children too? I never! I'll go to the Bahamas where my money is welcome, thank you very much. I hope this teaches you Hawaiians a lesson!"

And those small numbers will be replaced by more First timers that may not even notice the fee.

 

[daventrina]

And those small numbers will be replaced by more First timers that may not even notice the fee.

And hopefully the entitles ones will go away and the new ones will be respectful

 

[ScoopKona]

And those small numbers will be replaced by more First timers that may not even notice the fee.

Perhaps. I think it's likely that the state (and Maui in particular) will tighten the screws until they start to shed visitors. It's all about decreasing bodies but increasing revenue. Gentrifying tourism -- fewer, richer guests. That will also annoy a small percentage of tourists. "We're not good enough? Fine. Florida likes our money!"

 

[slip]

And hopefully the entitles ones will go away and the new ones will be respectful

It would be pretty rare for that to happen so I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[slip]

Perhaps. I think it's likely that the state (and Maui in particular) will tighten the screws until they start to shed visitors. It's all about decreasing bodies but increasing revenue. Gentrifying tourism -- fewer, richer guests. That will also annoy a small percentage of tourists. "We're not good enough? Fine. Florida likes our money!"

It's all about decreasing numbers and increasing revenues for some, not all.

We'll see if Maui tightens any screws. Going by what has been started and proposed, it will take years and more changes to see a noticeable difference. It looks like 2022 will finish at about a 10% decline in visitors state wide compared to 2019 and that's really without any changes.

 

[ScoopKona]

and that's really without any changes.

Inflation is doing the job for them. The economy is also shaky and has been for years. Society is calcifying. And not in a good way.

 

[slip]

Inflation is doing the job for them. The economy is also shaky and has been for years. Society is calcifying. And not in a good way.

Like I said, airfare and the economy are main driving factors amd a new $50 fee will not be.

 

[slip]

More in the proposed $50 Visitor Annual Passport.

Hawaii "Annual Passport" Visitor Fees Exposed

What are your feelings about an annual Hawaii visitor passport and the related problems?

beatofhawaii.com

 

[Tamaradarann]

I don't consider $50 time 900,000 visitors in December to be all that much money. I wouldn't turn my nose up at a $45 million payday. But $45 million per month isn't going to accomplish diddly-squat. (And this is the busy time of the year.)

Now, $50 per day. Now we're talking. And more for cruise ship tourists.

I can see Hawaii shedding a small percentage of visitors -- who already think they're not getting their money's worth. Not enough to put a dent in the traffic. But some.

I listened to the fine points of the $50 Green Fee and there are issues on implementation. First of all one only has to pay the fee for the license if they want to access a State Park. Staying in Wakiki like a large number of tourists do one may not go to a State Park so you don't have to pay the fee. The Waikiki beaches are not State Parks neither is the Arizona Memorial.

When you are a new visitor you probably want to see all of the sites which may include state parks. If you are a return visitor, like we were many times before we bourght our condo, you probably won't pay the $50 fee for the license sicne you have been there and done that.

Now there are State Parks that are monitored with staff and others that are not. If the park is not monitored with staff one can go unnoticed and not pay the fee.

Other State Parks have staff that collect the access fee, like Dimaond Head. I guess that now instead of collecting the access fee they will just be checking that people over 15 years old have the license. While the State gets the $50 fee for the license they lose the Diamond Head park entrance fee for all that enter.

How much will it cost to implement and collect this new fee?

 

[rickandcindy23]

$50 per person for a six-week stay in our owned timeshares, totally doable.