Go Back   Starboard Forums > Free Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13th March 2008, 09:18 AM   #21
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default all bad

Hmm one thing strikes me here folks.
I am not from North America.


But is getting busted running and illegal TVR a "criminal" offense or a "civil" offence in the USA?

Ok i can see selling dope on the Hana highway, running over pedestrians drunk at longs drugs parking lot, asaulting people without being legally at war with them , or maybe hitting humpbacks with a jetski.......



But running a short term rental house???

if so Ok but i hope a balance can be struck.

I am sure many investors flocked to the northshore for investments purposes it seems for some reasons to do short term VRs.
But why dont these same people want to rent to longterm people??? Rent contols?? Long term renters seem like a better more predictable income ..

is there something i cant see here unregistered? you seem to have your finger on the pulse.

I am sure the Aina have suffered enough. But if the county wants more long term rentals they should give landlords some incentives, and better yet or start building themselves and take matters into their own hands, that is literally ( as in start building!!!)

not unregistered

call me :superunknown
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2008, 11:30 AM   #22
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default

Hi superunknown,

Your view is quite refreshing, especially since it's coming from the outside. However, I'm afraid that Maui's county government might have a different agenda that isn't that friendly to visitors, unless you want to stay and spend on the south side of the island.

From my perspective it's a local versus visitor decision factor. With the constrictions that growth might involve, at least in my opinion, the county government has decided to limit growth on the Northshore for visitor use in favor of the chance that owners will rent to locals at a much reduced income overall, irrespective of this creation of an "illegal" environment. It must be remembered that the county looked the other way for some time, and that's truly sad overall.

While there might be an argument for giving so called locals an advantage in the future, I wonder whether that makes sense from a long term perspective. Locals which do not have financial strength to stand on the top of the game would love to live in the best spot on Maui for a song, but the windsurfing and kiting markets are clearly putting pressure on that. Visitors are beginning to understand the special advantages that the Northshore offers (unquestioned from a knowledgable point of view), unfortunately, to the downside of the local low income residents.

It's kind of that capitalistic force and direction that can be found in free a society, and it truly works to limit the opportunities of those at the bottom of the income ladder, especially if it was a previous stronghold for the poor. Living in Santa Barbara, I readily understand the consequences in this type of situation. But in a free market, the forces can undermine those with little strength and financial holdings, and this advantages those with greater strength, vision and capability. Therein lies the dilemma here.

Is the county government up for the real future? Unhappily, I don't think so. Yet, these limited horizon folks were elected by the residents of Maui, and that has meaning overall, at least to confuse reality. However, can the will of the locals win over the future of a vacation focused Maui, only time will tell.
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2008, 01:03 PM   #23
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Does anyone here have contact info for Pontificators Anonymous? You know, to help people to stop pontificating.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2008, 07:13 PM   #24
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fywhc2

Having travelled windsuring to costa rica and the many places in the carribean, Dom Rep aruba , margarite i see that every year more and more people are building and buying properties throughout the islands. People who dont necessarily live there.


There is local resentment against these people. So the maui goverment atttitude is nothing new or out of human nature. And yes the "locals" cannot or have a damn hard time trying to compete.
But a trend for real estate to inflate for speculative reasons ( in this case a beautifull warm island) can be seen anywhere on many different levels.Take the micopcosm of a city, and a neighbourhood that is touted as a new development , prices go up for what reason???

"the county government has decided to limit growth on the Northshore for visitor use in favor of the CHANCE that owners will rent to locals at a much reduced income overall"



CHANCE its seems indeed a haphaard policy, what if they dont and sellout and more off islanders buy up at prices now even with better value.

I am still wondering why they dont rent to long termers now whats the incentive for VR to exist and rent to short term people. It cant be Tax evasion for the sake of ??

super
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2008, 10:28 PM   #25
Birdbrain
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Super, the incentive is money. As an example, a studio or small one bedroom that rents for $100 a night as a vacation rental, would get only $1,000 a month as a long-term rental. By the way, these rental prices are not set by rent controls, which you asked about before; it's just the market price. So, if the owner can keep a property booked with vacation rentals, there is the potential for three times as much rental revenue. And that's what inflates the property values, because the property as vacation rental can support a higher mortgage payment, and therefore a higher selling price.

Granted, this does not apply in all situations. For example, some rental properties have a desirable location or other attractive characteristics that put them out of the reach of typical long-term renters anyhow. However, the zoning ordinances prohibiting vacation rentals are not aimed at those kinds of properties. They are aimed at properties in residential neighborhoods that might be taken out of the long-term rental pool in order to accommodate vacation rentals instead - yes, this really has happened in many neighborhoods. This forces long-term renters to move elsewhere. But where? If the trend of proliferation of vacation rentals continues, there will be nowhere left for long-term renters to go.

Your solution of just building more housing is not workable for many reasons. For one thing, Maui has limited water supply, and development is limited by availability of water. Other considerations are limited roadways, limited energy supply, limited waste processing, and other infrastructure limitations that make added development problematic - especially on the North Shore. This is what creates a limitation on housing resources and a conflict between competing interests of vacation rentals and long-term residents.

Besides, one can easily make the case that developing the North Shore to create more housing and accommodate a higher population density would eliminate some of its current characteristics like rural charm, low population density, local color, which are precisely what make it so attractive...

There is no easy answer to the problems that Maui is facing. The current administration and County council are wisely leaning in the direction of sustainable growth and sustainable development with a more diversified (i.e. less tourism-dependent) economy - and they have the broad support of their constituents to do so. Housing, and the vacation rental issue, are just one facet of the overall sustainability framework - others I've alluded to are water, energy, infrastructure. Of course some vocal minorities are vehemently opposed. That's not surprising, as there is an inherent conflict between sustainability on the one hand, and making money at any cost on the other.

How this all plays out is anyone's guess. The County Council is currently considering new proposals from the administration which update the vacation rental ordinances, and should be voting on passing them into law in the near future. My prediction is that all sides will get a little of what they want, but not everyone will get all that they want. The new regulations will be less restrictive and less onerous, however they will still place significant limitations on vacation rentals. Stay tuned.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2008, 02:37 AM   #26
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Super

I'm the 'unknown' that started with the 'don't you guys get it, illegal TVRs are illegal' post.

Re the legality: my understanding is that the illegal construction aspect of many TVRs is a civil misdemeanor, while the failure to pay the hotel tax and the income tax evasion are criminal acts. Pls note that the illegal construction WILL ultimately need to comply, in some cases this is as simple as removing kitchens etc, but in many cases entire structures built for the sole purpose on running an illegal business will need to be torn down.

Re Longterm vs short term: A longterm unit that would bring in $1500 - 1800 per month can easily earn $100 per night or $3000 per month. Putting the 1500 plus illegal units in Haiku back into the long term rental pool would increase the supply enough that those rents would probably drop to about 1999 levels - $1100-1600 per month. So you can see the cost to the community that lives here is VERY high, both in terms of what is available, and how much they need to pay every month.

As has been pointed out in another post, the Maui water supply is pretty well tapped out at the moment, and will soon be further taxed by the 3000 plus water meters that will come on line in the next year in high demand areas like Wailea.

To that, I would like to add that there are plenty of houses for the current population already - everyone who wants to lives under a roof. The issues are:

1) How much do they pay for that roof
2) What are the chances of them ever owning the house that goes with it.

On Maui's north shore, people who care about the community and the long term viability of Maui as a nice place to live, grow up, and perhaps ultimately raise a family have realized that illegal TVRs are making those things a LOT more difficult while giving almost nothing back - the budget minded renters are hardly the cornerstone of our billion dollar tourism economy.

The fact that they are also illegal makes the issue pretty much a no-brainer for anyone who does not have a vested financial interest in the 'business'.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2008, 03:01 AM   #27
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

HI STEVEC

YOU RAISE AN INTERESTING POINT: ARE YOU A WILLFULLY OBTUSE TROLL, OR AN IMBECILE? I TRUTHFULLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT - HOWEVER, I CAN EASILY REBUT ALL OF YOUR 'POINTS':

From my perspective it's a local versus visitor decision factor. With the constrictions that growth might involve, at least in my opinion, the county government has decided to limit growth on the Northshore for visitor use in favor of the chance that owners will rent to locals at a much reduced income overall, irrespective of this creation of an "illegal" environment. It must be remembered that the county looked the other way for some time, and that's truly sad overall.

THE COUNTY IS CRACKING DOWN ON ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES. THERE IS SO MUCH LEGAL GROWTH ON THE NORTHSHORE (OVER 10,000 NEW HOUSES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS) THAT THE IDEA THE COUNTY IS 'LIMITING GROWTH' IS LAUGHABLE.

While there might be an argument for giving so called locals an advantage in the future, I wonder whether that makes sense from a long term perspective. Locals which do not have financial strength to stand on the top of the game would love to live in the best spot on Maui for a song, but the windsurfing and kiting markets are clearly putting pressure on that. Visitors are beginning to understand the special advantages that the Northshore offers (unquestioned from a knowledgable point of view), unfortunately, to the downside of the local low income residents.

SO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AND WORK IN HAIKU SHOULD BE FORCED OUT BY AN ILLEGAL BUSINESS. RIGHT.

It's kind of that capitalistic force and direction that can be found in free a society, and it truly works to limit the opportunities of those at the bottom of the income ladder, especially if it was a previous stronghold for the poor. Living in Santa Barbara, I readily understand the consequences in this type of situation. But in a free market, the forces can undermine those with little strength and financial holdings, and this advantages those with greater strength, vision and capability. Therein lies the dilemma here.

DUDE, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A 'FREE MARKET'. ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS SHUTTING DOWN AN ILLEGAL BUSINESS.

Is the county government up for the real future? Unhappily, I don't think so. Yet, these limited horizon folks were elected by the residents of Maui, and that has meaning overall, at least to confuse reality. However, can the will of the locals win over the future of a vacation focused Maui, only time will tell.

HMMM, SO YOU THINK THE RESIDENTS OF MAUI SHOULD'NT BE ALLOWED TO ELECT GOVERNMENT THAT THEY FEEL REPRESENTS THEIR INTERESTS? SAY, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF DEMOCRACY? IT'S PART OF THAT 'FREE SOCIETY' YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT.

DAMN, STEVEC, THIS IS A NEW LOW, EVEN FOR YOU!
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2008, 04:05 AM   #28
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey, does Pontificators Anonymous have a Santa Barbara chapter? Serious question - if someone from SB was feelin' all 'ponty', who would they turn to?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2008, 03:06 PM   #29
antipost
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
...is getting busted running and illegal TVR a "criminal" offense or a "civil" offence in the USA?
Hey super, in the US, criminal law typically is prosecuted by the government, and civil law is usually prosecuted by private parties. So, to answer your question, running an illegal TVR is a criminal offense, as it is a violation of a County statute which would be enforced by the government.

Keep in mind, the US legal system distinguishes between different classes of criminal offenses. For example, the federal government generally considers a crime punishable by more than five days up to a year in jail to be a misdemeanor, while considering crimes punishable by greater than a year in prison to be felonies; crimes of five days or less in jail, or no jail at all, are considered infractions. This is in contrast to other common law jurisdictions like Canada, Australia, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, where crimes are divided into "summary offences" and "indictable offences." Maybe you're familiar with one of these systems? All this being said, without directly consulting the statutes, I couldn't tell you where offenses like illegal operation of a TVR and evading excise tax payments fall on the spectrum. Probably, the other poster's guesses of a misdemeanor for the former and a felony for the latter are correct.

If you're really interested in US Law, but not enough to go to law school in the US to learn all of its intricacies, I suggest that you get a hold of the Law and Order TV Series DVD box sets for a few seasons, and spend a few weeks familiarizing yourself with how it all works. At the end of it you'll be at least as qualified to practice law as most US attorneys, and you might even be ready to pass the legal bar exam. You might also find it highly enjoyable - possibly even more enjoyable than windsurfing or making random posts on internet forums. In one of the show's most interesting episodes, a reputable dentist hires a prostitute to squash bugs underfoot on the floor of his office - this happens to be an established sexual fetish known as giantessophilism; its adherents, whose mannerisms and conduct bear a striking resemblance to those of poster SteveC, are known as "crush freaks." He compensates her with free dental work. Legal complications ensue, after his assistant is mysteriously murdered in an adjoining office...

Just in case you'd like to be even more mystified on the not-so-fine points of US law, consider this: in the mid-1990s, renowned former American Football player and celebrity OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his wife in criminal court, and found guilty and liable in civil court. America, love it, or leave it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2008, 03:20 PM   #30
steveC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 639
Default

It's interesting how bold unregistered folks can be, especially since they don't want to take any real responsibility for their comments. They're kind of an anonymous voice out of the woodwork where history and ownership has no real meaning.

While some of you folks may not appreciate my point of view, and that's quite clear from some of the comments, truly a forum like this is really a opportunity to voice our opinions and thoughts. I don't always expect that we will all agree on sensitive topics like this one, but there's still good reason to comment.
steveC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
None

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +7. The time now is 01:30 AM.