Regarding STVR law
I would like to add a bit more perspective to former mayor Harry Kim’s call for a challenge (Your Views, June 23) to Circuit Court Judge Wendy DeWeese’s decision invalidating certain provisions of Bill 108 — the county’s short-term vacation rentals (STVR) law — as they related to prohibitions on agricultural lands.
When that bill came before the County Council in 2018, there was a clear need to regulate STVRs. The peace and tranquility of some neighborhoods were being negatively impacted as were the inventory of much-needed rental units available to our residents.
I supported the intent of Bill 108 and voted in favor of it, largely in deference to the stated importance it held in Mayor Kim’s overall administrative agenda. However, there were several aspects of the bill which some council members viewed as being susceptible to legal attack, one of which was precisely the issue considered by Judge DeWeese.
It would take too much time to explain in this writing the complicated application of two state laws to the formulation of our county STVR law, but at the risk of oversimplifying, let me just say that our law essentially created an uneven playing field for owners of similarly zoned properties through the use of what is commonly known as a “grandfather clause.” STVRs could be allowed on properties created before June 4, 1976, by way of a Nonconforming Use Certificate NUC, while properties of the same state land use designation created after that date would not be allowed.
I’m not going to give my opinion as the whether Judge DeWeese’s decision was right or wrong. That will ultimately be done by a higher court, if it gets that far. I can say, though, that Judge DeWeese has a reputation for being responsible and thoughtful in her evaluation of cases. So while it’s okay to pursue a challenge to the court’s ruling in order to prove the rightness of our law, we might be wise to also invest ourselves concurrently in understanding the bases for the court’s decision and exploring ways in which to the law can be amended so that it comports with principles set forth in that ruling.
In the process, the county could revisit ways of striking a balance between two important public policy goals: Protecting important agricultural lands and creating fair and equitable standards for our citizenry, each of which need not be mutually exclusive of one another.
Aaron Chung
Member, Hawaii County Council
‘Poor timing’ at park
I read your article regarding the closing of three recycling redemption centers with great interest.
At a time when we all need to do as much as possible for the environment, recycling should definitely be as easy as possible! Thank you for listing the recycling centers which remain open. But what about all the other stuff that we can’t recycle any more like newspaper, office paper and plastics?
Could you write an article about what other options are available for these materials? Help us to be more pono with our waste!
Can you also do articles on the current political candidates so we can be informed voters? Perhaps a standardized questionnaire so we know where each candidate stands on the important issues facing our county and state.
Why was the summertime chosen to do the renovation at Richardson Ocean Park? Poor timing when the place is most busy!
What are the handicapped supposed to do now when they may have to walk three or four blocks just to get to the front of the park? I hope that the bathroom renovations include some changing stalls, which was needed from before the bathrooms were even built! Now there are often long lines for only two stalls, which should not have to be used for changing rooms in the first place.
Mahalo for your attention to these matters.
Janet Taylor
Pahoa