Customize your experience by selecting your role:
Owner, Property Manager, or Traveler
I suggest we do send emails and faxes opposing to HB 1706. The bill is
unclear. It implies that a rental agent is required but does not state that
a rental agent is required.
If a rental agent is not required, than the bill should impose the
requirement to provide info on the agent only if we use one. If it implies
we are required to use a rental agent then it revokes the right of free
choice for property owners and visitors and discriminates against
non-resident property owners.
Another poorly worded bill, although the intent of this bill does make some sense to me.
I agree that rental owners of apartment and condo units should have some responsibility to keep building management informed of on-island contacts. This bill would simply make it mandatory and provide building managers more support in gathering that info.
There are the obvious practical benefits for us as property owners. For example, if the unit above mine has a plumbimg failure I would want both that unit's guests as well as the building management to know how to notify that unit's on-island representative to get there ASAP to minimize damage, not only to that unit, but mine as well. This seems like a practical matter to empower building management to have contact numbers they need.
I do not like the reference to "rental agent" it is ambiguous as to its intended interpretation. I would feel more comfortable with the person being referred to as the "owner's agent" or better yet "the owner's representative." The bill assumes that the on-island agent for the owner will be responsible for the property management. That is a dangerous assumption as currently worded. Owners and their on-site agent should maintain the power to determine how much management the on-island agent will share. It could range from the owner using a professional property management company all the way to contracting a responsible resident to act on the owner's behalf only in the event of emergencies. How the owner/ island-agent relation is defined should not be legislated any further than the owner's agent being a local resident who will be responsible in emergent situations.
I agree that it is another poorly written bill but because it references or implies that non-resident owners of transient accommodations must employ a rental agent it is dangerous.
It is one of the legislative steps necessary to pave the way for real estate brokers ( but really property managers) and salespersons to profit off of owners. In other words, this Bill is nothing more than a stepping stone in the process to transfer wealth from non-resident owners to real estate brokers and salespersons, under the guise of consumer protection, by forcing non-resident owners to provide their on island contact information and to employ real estate brokers and salespersons to carry out a function of their business.
HB1706 HD1 is still unconstitutional discrimination against non-resident property owners. :-)
I agree with what you are saying. I have already done this by the way. My association has a property management company on site and they have my list of who to call for emergencies…handyman. Housekeeping …All of us should have this in place. (I have experienced a large plumbing failure in another condo I own in another state--- this stuff happens!)
Letter I sent to House Representatives RE: HB 1706
1. The bill is unclear. It uses the term "rental agent" but does not impose a requirement to use a "rental agent"
Thank you for your consideration.
This will go to the governor if passed to be signed into law. The govenor in the past has veto'd bills. I suggest we start a campaign now to Gov. Abercrombie to say do not let this pass.
Include all the bill's that will be affecting all of us.
My understanding was SB2809 was supposed to combine HB1706 and HB1707 together... I don't think we need to worry about the HB's anymore, I believe if the senate passes 2809 SD1, then it goes to the house for a vote.
I could be mistaken, as these forums are where I got that information.
I'm still waiting to hear a legal opinion of SB2809... I still think they found that adult supervision would be best (for consumers) for all aspects of our business, but the only thing required is that the agent turn in our names to the tax folks once a year.
I had the same ambiguity with HB1706... I had heard that although the wording sounded all encompassing, they just wanted an emergency contact, like section E of 2809.
I don't see how these bills have any chance of passing. If they do, they will be challenged as illegal or unconstitutional. This would be akin to the Federal Government forcing each citizen to funnel their income through a 3rd party to ensure all taxes have been paid. While this happens to a large extent with employers automatically witholding taxes, there are a lot of self-employed and contract workers out there. Can you imagine if they were all forced to send their monthly income to some "agency" or whatever before they received their money? Not gonna happen. Hawaii would do better to just create a database and require ALL vacation rentals to be registered and approved, with a license issued - not just those in VDA's. That would serve as a double-check to ensure that taxes are being paid. Too simple I guess....
kwils1: you are the sound mind of reasoning! That's exactly what we, all, think here among us vacation rental owners. It's scandelous what Hawaii State is attempting to do. And, your comparison is spot on! Thank you.