Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With just 10 days to spare, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson ruled Thursday in favor of short-term rental property owners, stopping the Oct. 23 enactment of an ordinance to shield Honolulu’s residents from the effect of short-term rentals on the state’s rising housing costs.
The injunction bars the City and County of Honolulu, as well as the Department of Planning and Permitting, from enforcing or implementing the ordinance’s prohibition of 30-to-89-day rentals until further notice.
. . .
Saito, who could not be reached immediately for comment, had also argued that damages to property owners were purely financial, but Watson determined that there are constitutional damages at play as well.
Note, the court here determined that the City and County of Honolulu ordinance likely violated Hawaii state law as well as the Hawaii and Federal Constitutions regarding takings without compensation. Thus, the reasoning would be useful throughout the state.
We'll see what comes of this decision (whether it's appealed, etc.), but I think this is wonderful news.
Note, the court here determined that the City and County of Honolulu ordinance likely violated Hawaii state law as well as the Hawaii and Federal Constitutions regarding takings without compensation. Thus, the reasoning would be useful throughout the state.
We'll see what comes of this decision (whether it's appealed, etc.), but I think this is wonderful news.
If limiting 30-89 days rental is considered takings, then it is not clear to me why limiting short rentals under 30 days wouldn't have the same issue
We can disagree here. I don’t think it’s reasonable property limits can’t be set on owners
I can appreciate this position. From where I stand, the most appropriate and legally sound way to restrict use is via zoning. But zoning applies to the kind of use, not the length of the use. I think that we'll see more and more court pushback (on constitutional and other grounds) on efforts to restrict residential use like this one going forward. And, under a Takings Clause analysis, government can still restrict duration of use; government would simply have to compensate homeowners for this restriction.
New television political ads out for Josh Green (or at least the first time I've seen them) - part of his platform/pitch is he wants the State to get involved in enforcement of the illegal rental market which is all driven at the County level today.
Too late to edit my previous post - from Green's website:
Make housing for Hawaii residents our top priority by aggressively enforcing existing laws to shut down the 25,000 illegal vacation rentals across the state, taxing the 35,000 vacant investor units, and limiting permits and increasing taxes on new luxury developments by out of state investors.
“It’s a good start and we certainly applaud the city,” said Rick Egged, president, Waikiki Improvement Association.
“This was to win back our communities and to put tourism in places where they were supposed to be rather than every neighborhood on the island,” he added.
During the height of the vacation rental boom, Oahu was reported to have more 10,000 illegal vacation rentals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
