Posted on: Monday, November 21, 2005
Vacation rentals are not 'manageable'
By Larry Bartley
In a Nov. 13 Advertiser commentary, "Vacation rentals are manageable," author F. Kenneth Stokes, a "green" economist for the Kauaian Institute, showcased facts and figures gleaned from his study, "Transient Vacation Rentals on O'ahu," released in September.
Ironically, he omitted a key fact and figure.
The commentary failed to mention that his report was funded by the O'ahu B&B Association and the Kokua Coalition — industry groups that are openly working for the expansion of visitor accommodations into O'ahu's residential neighborhoods.
This adds a new shade to Stokes' "green" economist title.
Stokes also neglected to include how many of the vacation rentals surveyed were legal and how many were illegal. At a recent presentation to the Hawaii Economic Association, when this question came up, Stokes said that 13 percent were legal. The follow-up question was, "So, 87 percent were illegal?" He answered, "Yes."
There's not enough room here to dissect each point in the study. I disagree with its assumptions, methodology and conclusions.
The study lays out various statistics to supposedly conclude that there aren't nearly as many illegal vacation rentals on O'ahu as everyone thinks and that their impact is minimal and acceptable.
Yet it's nearly impossible to determine how many — and to what degree — people are engaged in widespread illegal activity. They don't advertise in the Yellow Pages, respond to surveys or answer questionnaires.
They operate clandestinely, exposing themselves only enough to find their clientele, usually through Internet advertising that never gives the address of the "little piece of paradise."
The most glaring omission or whitewashing here concerns the devastating impact this industry has on our neighborhoods, rental housing availability, rent prices, property taxes and the property rights of neighbors.
Let me start with the California 6th District Court of Appeals' statement in upholding Carmel-by-the-Sea's zoning ordinance prohibiting short-term rental in single-family zoning districts (234 Cal.App.3d at 1591):
"It stands to reason that the 'residential character' of a neighborhood is threatened when a significant number of homes — at least 12 percent in this case, according to the record — are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a weekend, a week, or even 29 days.
"Whether or not transient rentals have the other 'unmitigatable, adverse impacts' cited by the council, such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community.
"Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach Little League, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a Scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor.
"Literally they are here today and gone tomorrow — without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community."
The definition Stokes uses — TVR (transient vacation rental) — works well because it covers both the so-called B&B and TVR categories, which in actual practice are very similar. They introduce a constant flow of strangers.
About 1,000 remaining TVRs in residential neighborhoods (mostly Waikiki) were "grandfathered" in 1989. They are mostly not included in Stokes' study and are not the "illegals" mentioned here.
No one doubts that the market exists for a vacation experience outside of the hotel districts — they are here. But what are the TVR operators selling? The peace and tranquility of our residential neighborhoods, which should not be for sale.
We purchased our property with certain rights defined in the Land Use Ordinance (LUO). Those rights include limitations and prohibition of certain activities on our neighbors' property. If it's OK to operate a hotel room in residential neighborhoods, why not an auto repair shop, a furniture factory or a hotel?
Those living near TVRs agree overwhelmingly that they are not desirable neighbors. Five neighborhood boards in the most heavily impacted areas (Wai'anae, North Shore, Kailua, Waimanalo, Wai'alae-Kahala) and the Lanikai Association have adopted strong resolutions calling for no legalization and increased enforcement.
Neighborhoods are now forming groups to aid the Honolulu Department of Planning & Permitting in enforcement.
From the commentary, Stokes says that "Continuing rapid growth of TVRs is likely." This conclusion is based on their current status as prohibited by the LUO. One of two future scenarios is likely: exponential growth if legalized, and rapid shrinkage if the LUO is enforced.
The commentary also assumes that the LUO is unenforceable, which is not the case. In the past four months, the Department of Planning & Permitting enforcement policy has changed from "catch them in the act" to a much more easily achieved "preponderance of the evidence" standard. More TVR citations have been issued in the past three months than in the two previous years. Internet Web sites advertising the illegal TVRs are disappearing overnight.
Yes, TVRs are truly manageable. Let's manage them according to Honolulu's LUO — allowed in resort-zoned areas where they are legal — and gone from residential-zoned neighborhoods where they are illegal.
Larry Bartley is executive director of Save O'ahu's Neighborhoods. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
