Skip navigation

Join the Vacation Rentals Conversation!

Get answers to all of your questions from fellow owners and travelers.

Join the CommunityX

CommunitySeek, Ask, and Share in the Vacation Rentals Community
353216 Views 1,450 Replies Latest reply: Jan 13, 2014 6:49 PM by grace300 RSS Go to original post 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 ... 97 Previous Next
  • Contributor 175 posts since
    Feb 22, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,200. Apr 13, 2012 12:51 PM (in response to alohaes)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    alohaes wrote:

     

    This article has appearances of fingerprints of Senator Baker.       Someone has filed a complaint with RAM dispute process to have the inaccuracies addressed - last paragraph is untrue.

    There wasn't an accurate paragraph in there.

     

    Who is RAM?

  • Contributor 26 posts since
    Mar 24, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,201. Apr 13, 2012 12:52 PM (in response to blackburied)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    I keep trying to pound the message home, but have been met with overwhelming apathy.

     

    Our association made a half hearted effort to organzie a designated "local contact" that owner-managers in the complex could use, but that was before the "one agent - one owner" ammendment.

     

    There are a handful of owners that seem to grasp the huge impact this legisialtion can have, while the majority don't seem to undestand or don't care.

     

    Many owners and industry workers (housekeepers, maintenance, etc) seem to have the attitude that the whole thing will "blow over" or there will be some sinple "reigistration process" we will have to ccomply with when it's all said and done.

  • Contributor 78 posts since
    Mar 18, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,202. Apr 13, 2012 12:57 PM (in response to blackburied)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    RAM is the Realtor Association of Maui

  • Contributor 175 posts since
    Feb 22, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,203. Apr 13, 2012 1:00 PM (in response to islandadventures)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    islandadventures wrote:

     

    Our association made a half hearted effort to organzie a designated "local contact" that owner-managers in the complex could use, but that was before the "one agent - one owner" ammendment.

    ...

    Do they realize that "1:1" only forces the "on-island emergency contact" to be in line with HRS 467-2 "caretaker" exception, thus negating the owner-managed right, but still leaving the licenced agent option?

     

    The 1:1 wording is just to force us to the "licenced agent" option, as we'd never be able to handle a W2-status employee for one small condo.

  • New Member 22 posts since
    Feb 25, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,204. Apr 13, 2012 1:00 PM (in response to islandadventures)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    Dear Islandadventures:

     

    I posted my response to that blog here, yesterday.  Here it is again; feel free to send it to your HOA and ask them to send out to your neighbours; I addressed US Constitutional and NAFTA angles:

     

    Adam Leamy

    Victoria, BC

    Canada

     

     

    A key part of any policy discussion is always the facts, and getting them right; otherwise, discussions and premises for action are off to a bad start.  Your comment in respect of Canada and Canadians, “Just when you thought that real state [sic] law could not get more complex, we suddenly find ourselves dealing with international trade agreements” is illustrative in precisely this way.

     

    In fact, the agreement you reference between the US, Mexico and Canada is the North American Free Trade Agreement, not the “Fair” trade agreement as you incorrectly identified it.  Moreover, NAFTA has been in effect since January 1, 1994.  In removing most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, it has been shaping and creating cross-border investment opportunities between the partner countries for close to 20 years now. 

     

    NAFTA offers provisions and protections for Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians engaging in cross-border trade.  One of the key provisions for Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians — and you can easily find this on your US Trade Representative’s website — is “National Treatment.”  In fact, NAFTA spells out the provisions and protections offered under “national Treatment” quite clearly, saying that the US, Mexico, and Canada, and their respective states or provinces:

     

    . . . shall accord to investors of another Party, or investments of investors of another Party, treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments . . . . The treatment accorded by a Party means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.

     

    The bill you reference — and others like it this legislative session — holds a different standard for on-Island owners of transient accommodations than it does for off-Island owners of transient accommodations, going so far as to dictate an operating standard for off-Island owners that it does not prescribe for on-Island owners. For Canadian cross-border investors so targeted this way, NAFTA is clear:  Canadian cross-border investors are to receive from the State of Hawaii (or any state) “treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded,” which would be the treatment the bill affords to on-Island owners of transient accommodation.  If passed, this bill and those like it, will go to the dispute-resolution process agreed to by the US, Canada, and Mexico, where they will fail, and cash-strapped Hawaii will be assessed monetary penalties; that’s just the way NAFTA was designed to work by the US, Canada and Mexico, almost two decades ago.

     

    By my count, I have now made five separate acts of testimony to the Hawaii Legislature on various bills related to transient accommodation, supplementary letters notwithstanding.  If you take a moment to visit the State of Hawaii Legislature webpage, you’ll be able to see the testimony submitted by those opposed to the bill.  There are hundreds of pages of testimony in opposition.  Americans cite many reasons to oppose the bill, including infringement on the four Hawaii Counties’ Home Rule Powers, and its application of invasion of privacy, fraud, theft and other burdens and liabilities on those it targets.  They also cite its affronts to the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Hmm, just when you thought that real estate law could not get more complex, we suddenly find ourselves dealing with two-decade old international trade agreements, and that tired old chestnut, the US Constitution.

     

    And in those hundreds of pages of testimony, nowhere was there a statement by a Canadian, an American, or any other investor in Hawaii that they don’t want to pay TAT, as your note states.  In fact, the common statement was that if the State of Hawaii truly wanted to ensure tax compliance, and consumer protection via the amended requirements for an on-Island contact, it could easily do so through a bill that pursued that aim but upheld US Constitution and NAFTA protections at the same time.  Americans and Canadians were united on this front:  The State’s approach seems not at all interested in any of those points; if it were, there would be a much better bill before the Legislature.

     

    Again, thank you for your note on the subject matter.  With the facts now corrected, your assessment of the issues advanced by Canadians as “amusing” holds only as an unkindness.

     

    And therein lies another sad consequence of this Legislative session — it has taken friendships presumed to be strong and enduring and revealed them to be quite the opposite.

     

    A shame, really.

  • Contributor 26 posts since
    Mar 24, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,205. Apr 13, 2012 1:39 PM (in response to alohaes)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    I have posted this before, but will post again for clarity. This an except from an e-mail from Robert Lightbourn, the president of the Maui Board of Realtors (aka RAM). The subject pertained to whether RAM supports mandated Property Managers for all TVR's:

     

    The Government Affairs Committee and the RAM Board of Directors both voted unanimously in opposition to the bill, as did everyone at the Haiku Caravan last Thursday. There are some RAM members who support the bill. They appear to be the property managers, though not all property managers support it.  I believe that the Hawaii Association of Realtors  (HAR) does not support the bill either. It's being touted as a Realtor Bill because it was initiated by a property manager on the Big Island, who is a Realtor.

     

    Having said that, the manipulation of these bills has been so convulted and the wording so vague and indecipherable that most casual observer's don't even know what the issues are anymore.

     

    I think the Hawaii Legislature has suceeded in the old credo..."If you can blind them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bull****"

     

     


  • jwe Contributor 284 posts since
    Feb 18, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,206. Apr 13, 2012 1:08 PM (in response to sjsf)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    Some neighborhood groups support the bills because they feel it will be a

    way to get rid of illegal TVRs.  And this is a particular problem in HNL.

    But the legislature needs to separate the many issues and deal with them

    separately rather than aiming all artillery at all rental property owners.

     

    RBOAA has already gone on record and stated that owners should abide by all

    regulations and part of their function is to educate owners on the regs.

  • Contributor 40 posts since
    Feb 25, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,207. Apr 13, 2012 1:09 PM (in response to alohaes)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    What "inaccurate article" are people talking about and where can we read it?

  • kbr402 Contributor 28 posts since
    Jul 25, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,208. Apr 13, 2012 1:22 PM (in response to mauicondoowner)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    Here is the article, and it was copied from RAM (see comment at top of article)

     

     

    http://mauihomeandcondo.com/update-on-hb-2078-sd-2/2012/04/

  • kbr402 Contributor 28 posts since
    Jul 25, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,209. Apr 13, 2012 1:25 PM (in response to kbr402)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO
  • sodamo Contributor 260 posts since
    Nov 5, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,210. Apr 13, 2012 2:50 PM (in response to sjsf)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    You rent out that "broad brush" or reserve it for yourself and select legislators??? "It seems to me the un-permitted vacation rentals are hurting the reputation of all vacation rentals in Hawaii. I believe we should support the state and the local people in their efforts to identify these owners who are the bad guys and then leave all of us who are following the law alone. " I still suspect that as previously posted, most of the bad apples are running mini hotels in crammed residential areas, further cramming maximum bodies and vehicles where they shouldn't be. Not quite the same as renting a 3/2 located on a half acre which might otherwise be a vacant house attracting other nefarious activity.

     

    Not all vacatiion rentals are located in areas specifically zoned for same, but that doesn"t mean they are all illegal, especially if there is not a permitting process any more than rental property for long term. This doesn't mean those VR aren't following the rest of the laws including payment of all taxes, including GE/TAT. VR in Hawaii is much more that condos in certain areas, although they may represent a greater share of the horror stories the PMs are touting. If a vacationer has a problem in the middle of Puna, he just can't run down the hall and complain to someone at the desk or the next door neighbor, most likely the only contacts were provided by the owner.

     

    Different counties have different rules. The Oahu situation and that group have been mentioned way early in these threads. That group, as well as other resident owners actively fought these issues with testimony etc. Sadly, it appears RBOAA has defined themselves as the voice of the non resident owner, even to the point of alienating previously supportive resident owners. Initially, I had very high hopes that RBOAA was going to come together as a unified voice for all VR of all types regardless of location or ownership.

     

    David

  • Contributor 34 posts since
    Feb 19, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,211. Apr 13, 2012 3:07 PM (in response to blackburied)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hawaii landlord law defines who can be an owner's agent. Only a licensed realtor can serve more than one owner. This law existed when we bought our condo in 2009. The current legislation doesn't change that.

  • Contributor 38 posts since
    Feb 16, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,212. Apr 13, 2012 3:23 PM (in response to sodamo)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    RBOAA has always had the intention to unify all vacation rentals.  JWE mistated the requirements of membership.

     

    "Membership requirements:  Property Ownership in the Hawaiian Islands, comply with State and County Taxing Aurthority Laws"

     

    No one should have a problem with this requirement.  It would not serve RBOAA well to have members who are not paying their taxes.

     

    The counties issues with illegal TVR's are not on RBOAA's agenda.  There are different organizations on their respective islands dealing with these issues that are both for and against illegal TVRs.

     

    Alicia Hopkins, President

    RBOAA

  • jwe Contributor 284 posts since
    Feb 18, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,213. Apr 13, 2012 3:24 PM (in response to aurorasands)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    correct.  It does not make any sense but it does exist.  I suspect that

    their theory is only property mangers or realtors are competent to serve

    more than one owner since it is such an incredibly difficult job.  (tongue

    in cheek)

     

    If RBOAA had existed when it was proposed it would have been fought

    vigorously.

    Current proposed legislation makes it easier for property managers to try to

    police web sites to make certain that local contacts do not serve more than

    one owner.

  • Contributor 175 posts since
    Feb 22, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    1,214. Apr 13, 2012 3:24 PM (in response to aurorasands)
    Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO

    aurorasands wrote:

     

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hawaii landlord law defines who can be an owner's agent. Only a licensed realtor can serve more than one owner. This law existed when we bought our condo in 2009. The current legislation doesn't change that.

    I do not beleive that's correct.  HRS 467 defines who can manage a property (section 2 says an owner can manage), while the landlord-tenant law, HRS 521, does not define an agent.  It does say, under the heading "Rental Agreement, disclosure", it does require us to tell our guests of a local contact:

    (f) Any owner or landlord who resides without the State or on another island from where the rental unit is located shall designate on the written rental agreement an agent residing on the same island where the unit is located to act in the owner's or landlord's behalf. In the case of an oral rental agreement, the information shall be supplied to the tenant, on demand, in a written statement.

    But that's just an "agent", not a "licensed real estate agent".  Since they don't define agent anywhere in HRS 521 (and the landlord-tenant law has nothing to do with real estate agents), it just has the regular meaning "somebody who represents somebody else".  PM's will say: "no, that means you need to hire us by law already", but they are wrong... it says nothing of the sort.

     

    The new law changes that subsection f to the basic definition of caretaker (see HRS 467 "caretaker" definition), which then negates the exception for "owner-managed" given in HRS 467.

1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 ... 97 Previous Next

Not a member?

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Register Now

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (2)