I suspect that if they spent as much time and creativity doing a good job in their business  competing effectively in the internet age as they do trying to stifle competition, that they would be very sucessful.

These bills are nothing less than an admission of failure on the part of their backers. If they  cannot compete effectively, then they will  try to change the rules.

All non-resident property owners are outraged at the uncontitutional nature of the propsed legislation and as a group we will challenge any unconsititutional legislation that passes, and, while at it, we will challenge any already existing legilsation that is unconstitutional.

The stated purpose of the bill is Aloha Smoke. 

The real reason for requiring the posting of a local contact is to make sure

that a local contact does not serve more than one non-resident property

owner.  That requirement is restraint of trade and sufficient reason to

obtain an injunction if the bill passes.

Arurorasands,

I 100% agree with you on that one.  Those Pms were clearly looking at listings to see who didn't list the correct tax rates.  They assumed that because the listing didn't advertise the correct GET AND TAT that they must not be compliant. 

Islandadventures, Thank you for a great laugh on this monday morning.  I almost spit up my water.

Not sure we disagree.  The code does not say it has to be a licenced professional, just says that if we live off island we must have a local contact.  You get the definition for the contact in HRS467. 

Please take a look at the committee report for HB2078.

Blackburied,

I respectfully suggest that over the next day we all spend our time

communicating to legislators and encouraging others to communicate to

legislators rather trying than trying to dissect the law today,

We will have ample time to get a full legal opinion afterward.

The complete list:

BIG WAVE UPDATE

Two bills that we are opposing are going to the floor for vote on Tuesday 4/10/12.  We must send emails to oppose them.  Our messages must refer to both bills in the single email.  Send your email to both of these email addresses no later than TONIGHT!:

sens@capitol.hawaii.gov

reps@capitol.hawaii.gov

Have the actions of the Hawaii State Legislature had an impact on revenues from sales of Condominiums since the introduction of these bills to harm off-island owners?

Consider the data year in the charts below on Condominium Sales in Maui Year to Date (YTD) compared to the same YTD data last year (i.e. January to March 2011 versus January to March 2012).

Source of above information: Realtors Association of Maui. March 2012

Question 1. If you were a business owner and one of your sales managers took actions against your advice and the above were the results of their sales productivity after they ignored your advice, what would you do?

They just lost $19,378,791 for your business in only one little corner of their sales region.

Answer 1. Fire them

The recent actions of the Hawaii legislature are associated with a loss of $19,378,791 in condominium sales in Maui alone this year to date (YTD).

How much is this in tax revenue losses to the state of Hawaii?

How many lost jobs does this add?

How much do Hawaii State taxes need to go up to offset this fall in lost tax revenue?

How many programs to the poor and needy in Hawaii have to be cut or not made available because of this?

How much income have the realtors on Maui lost as a result?

And this is just one little island.

What should we do with these legislators? You know the answer.

The provisions we dispute in these bills betray the discriminatory intentions of the legislators to create requirements for non-resident owners that are very difficult to meet. This will be the basis for immediate litigation and claims for substantial financial damages and perhaps a class action suit against the State of Hawaii for their unconstitutional behavior if the bills containing this or similar verbiage are enacted.