The Honolulu City Council is considering a tax on vacant homes, which may lead to unintended consequences. A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 11th, at 10 a.m. at Honolulu Hale to hear public testimony on this proposed bill. The goal of the bill is to increase housing availability for local residents. However, it's unlikely to achieve this, and it could even harm local families if enacted. For example, if you own a family home that remains vacant for more than six months a year, you could face a significant property tax increase. This approach is not the right solution to the affordable housing crisis.
Please help by submitting your testimony via email or attending the meeting in person before December 11th at Honolulu Hale.
If you wish to testify in person or via an email testimonial, please see the steps below:
Steps for Testifying:
Click here: https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/measure/3047
Select Submit Testimony for the Dec 11, 2024 @ 10 a.m. meeting.
Choose Oppose.
Enter your personal (not business) information.
Under Representing, select Self.
Choose Written and Oral Testimony.
Copy and paste one of the provided talking points into the Comment section.
Agree to the terms and submit.
Please see examples of testimonials that you can also use or may be something to consider
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. The 11,000 homes and $189 million in revenue being stated in reports are far from accurate. The Council should defer action and wait for the $500,000 study to be completed in January to provide more accurate data, as Budget Director Andrew Kawano requested. |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. The 17 exemptions provided for in the most recent draft of Bill 46 sound reasonable, but to receive an exemption, the property owner may have to file for that exemption every single year. This would impact all property owners renting homes to local residents. There are over 100,000 properties that the City will have to manually review an exemption for each year. If a property owner misses the deadline—even by one day—they will be deemed an empty home for an entire year and face a significant empty homes tax. |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. Kupuna and locals will be harmed. Many local residents missed the deadline when the City first rolled out the Residential A tax classification. Expect the same with another new tax classification. Under Residential E, every property without an owner-occupant exemption will automatically be considered an empty home, requiring the owner to opt out and prove that the home is occupied. How many local residents will be caught in this net and have to pay this tax for a year until they can file their appeal for the following year? |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. Bill 46 was never intended to hurt local residents, which is why so many exemptions are included, but it does not cover every local. Take, for example, the long-time kama‘āina family who, for whatever reason, moved to the mainland—whether for work or to be closer to the grandkids—who have a home here, whether they inherited it or owned it for years. They come back home three times a year. When they talk about home, they talk about Hawai‘i. They intend to come back permanently eventually. Their home is not empty. It still has tutu’s ashes on the shelf, and all their family belongings are there. There’s no exemption for them. They will be forced to sell it, rent it with their family possessions inside, or pay a huge tax. Bill 46 is basically saying to that Kama‘āina, “Don’t come back.” We know others have similar reasons why their home is “empty” but have no exemption. |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. Why rush to pass Bill 46 now since it doesn’t go into effect until 2027? We have urged the Council to pause action on Bill 46, heed the Budget Director’s advice to wait until the feasibility study is completed in January, and avoid the inevitable legal challenges that San Francisco faced. The study will tell us the true size of the affected market and the potential outcomes of the empty homes tax. From there, we can establish sensible solutions to generate revenue and determine ways to deploy the funds to help with housing. |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. Loss of business. Less tourists. Less jobs. Less construction. Less property tax revenue. Less income tax revenue. Lower values. If Japanese, Canadian, and mainland owners are forced to sell their existing units on O'ahu, they will cease to visit or come less often, reducing tourist revenue. |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. Where is the money going? Bill 46 purports to support affordable housing but allocates only 20% of the revenue to affordable housing initiatives. Shouldn't the majority of revenue be allocated to that purpose? We support 100% of the revenue be allocated like in Vancouver.
Where did the previous funds go? The property tax coffers are full. In the past two years, property tax revenue jumped over $111M in 2022 and $142M in 2023 – an additional $253M in revenue. What did the City do with that money? |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. Legal challenges. It's uncertain whether Bill 46 would hold up in court due to serious concerns related to the measure's constitutionality. Recently, a similar measure was overturned in San Francisco. Is the City and County of Honolulu prepared to defend this in court? Are taxpayers okay with paying the prevailing party's legal fees (like we recently had to pay for the Short-Term Rentals lawsuit that the City lost)? |
I oppose Bill 46 as it is. Why reinvent the wheel? We already have an established taxing mechanism for generating additional tax revenue from the intended group of taxpayers - Residential A. This tax classification went from $10.50 per thousand to $11.90 per thousand on all values over $1M, which generated about $30M more each year since the increase. |
This proposal could cause confusion and negative consequences for local residents who own homes on Oahu or the neighboring islands. Instead of introducing more taxes, we need more effective solutions to address the affordable housing crisis.
Yorumlar