Customize your experience by selecting your role:
Owner, Property Manager, or Traveler
I am confident that we will get an updated legal opinion, but remember the
legislature can proceed in spite of a legal opinion. So far the HI
legislature has not shown much respect for the constitution or our rights.
We need to be proactive in emailing and faxing House members as well as
establishing a PR campaign
I have been looking at some other avenues appropriate to those who are not only non-resident of Hawaii, but who are, in fact, just plain old foreigners, whose pathway to this US investment has been partially eased through trade treaties and tax conventions negotiated with the US Government, on behalf of the States and Provinces. I do not as yet know if they are applicable, but I offer this one, below, on the chance that cleverer people than I might 'get ideas' from it. Or maybe just start to use the language or context, because, let's face it, it's kind of compelling; in having read the excerpt several times now, I'm warming to it, the need for lawyers' eyes, and the potential for a two- or multi-track effort to advance the issues that have been so rapidly identified and elegantly refined on this forum.
It might be, perhaps, that governments who were signatories to such conventions or treaties would have something helpful, i.e. pre-emptive and prescriptive, to say about a State's legislative foray into areas that could cause difficulties for treaties and conventions and the signatories to them, particularly if there was a worry that other States in the Union might well be seduced by the apparent success of the foray. For example -- and I'm just spitballing here -- Canadians might wish to raise the issue under their North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) dispute provisions, or perhaps just with with their federal representatives, identifying a State's intended action that appears to undermine NAFTA and the "little Canadian investor's" ability to participate in its investment and enterprise provisions. Americans might want to express concern to federal representatives in their State, and in the appropriate bodies in Congress, regarding an individual State's escalating actions that would seem to cast doubt on the conviction underlying US participation in NAFTA, the commitment the State has to the provisions NAFTA sets out for trade and enterprise, and the opportunities and rewards all of us would expect to flow from our investment and our hard work in launching and operating an enterprise.
Again, just spitballin' here. Looking for avenues and themes. And, sure, maybe opportunities to bracket State action with national and international participation. But that's just me.
In any event, I quote the following, from NAFTA, noting that in the case of NAFTA, 'Party' means the US, Mexico, and Canada:
Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to 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.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 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.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
Thanks for the very creative approach. I doubt it world hold sway with the
Hawaiian legislature at this time if the opinion of a HI attorney that the
bill is unconstitutional did not. However if the bill becomes law, that
sounds like possible ground for challenge (along with the unconstitutional
From: ajl firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO - Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO
<http://community.homeaway.com> Community from HomeAway Seek Advice.
Get Answers. Optimize your Vacation Rental Business.
Re: Hawaii Trying to Kill VRBO
created by ajl <http://community.homeaway.com/people/ajl> in Listings -
View the <http://community.homeaway.com/message/18750#18750> full
AJL I like your spitballin'. I think our Canadian friends and the NAFTA agreement has some meat. I think we ought to throw that into the scenario with our dear legislators who are clueless to what they are doing to their economy and the real estate in their state if the law moves forward.
Has any body been able to shed some light as to the form 990 exclusion in the amendment in terms of whether or not this is a means we can use to exempt ourselves from being forced to hire a property manager to manage our properties? There was a question regarding this due to the fact that the 990 is used by non-profits. Can us regular for profit organizations use it?
The legislature and bill is very confused so this legislation is a mess.
Perhaps they mean form 1099, but even that does not make sense.
You can draw your own conclusions, but my respect for this legislation and
the legislature is not very high.
From a practical matter, how long does it take NAFTA to resolve disputes?
My wife's cousin's husband runs a cattle auction facility in the Toronto
area and the US cut off imports of Canadian beef years ago. I do not know
if that dispute is still going on, but even if it has been resolved it went
on for many years.
1099 makes no sense either as you point out. A 1099 is required if you:
- collect and distribute rent income on behalf of another person (in excess of $600)
- payments to individuals, partnerships or estate for services (again in excess of $600). This does not apply to payments to other businesses.
Hence, many owners would not need to file a 1099 either. This is illustrative of the level of thinking/understanding that has gone into this bill. And the Senate just approved it without amendment!
Does anyone know the voting schedule? timeline to submit testimony?
What will be title of the bill being voted on?
Here is a comma separated list of all the state representative's email addresses:
email@example.com, repawana@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repbelatti@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repbrower@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repcabanilla@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repcarroll@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repchang@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repching@Capitol.hawaii.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, repevans@Capitol.hawaii.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, rephanohano@Capitol.hawaii.gov, rephar@Capitol.hawaii.gov, email@example.com, repherkes@Capitol.hawaii.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, repito@Capitol.hawaii.gov, email@example.com, repjordan@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repkawakami@Capitol.hawaii.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, replee@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repluke@Capitol.hawaii.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, repmarumoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmckelvey@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmizuno@Capitol.hawaii.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, repnishimoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmoshiro@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reppine@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reprhoads@Capitol.hawaii.gov, email@example.com, repsaiki@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsay@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsouki@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptakai@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptakumi@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repthielen@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptokioka@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptsuji@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repward@Capitol.hawaii.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, repyamane@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repyamashita@Capitol.hawaii.gov