The Honolulu Planning Commission recently advanced a proposal to increase the minimum number of days that a property can be rented without a special permit from 30 days to 180 days. The reported intention of the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP)’s proposal “is to cut down on the number of illegal vacation rentals that are taking permanent housing away from local residents.”

Honestly, I don’t understand how a new rule of 180 days minimal rental in most residential neighborhoods is going to help find permanent housing and solve the housing problem for local residents, especially when everyone knows the real problem is affordable housing for those who cannot afford the current rates.

The Planning Commission and DPP surely must be aware that for years homeowners associations in most multiple housing complexes, such as high-rise condominiums and townhouses in residential areas, have set rules addressing the minimum number of days owners are allowed to rent their units. These are specifically aimed at not allowing short-term rentals for vacation purposes.

Notably, homeowners associations have been monitoring and enforcing their rules on the minimum number of days owners are allowed to rent their units quite effectively, and in many cases, most have already extended the minimum beyond the 30 days currently allowed by rule.

So, it certainly isn’t as if there has been no control at all of these particular rental units. This raises the questions of redundancy and why the DPP feels it necessary to change rules to control this when it is already being handled in a most efficient and effective manner by homeowners associations, with the great advantage that no additional public funds are involved.

While I may not be housing long-term local residents all the time, as a local owner, I help meet the needs of our community by providing shelter to people who come here to serve our community for short but meaningful periods of time. It seems that the DPP plans to address this by issuing special permits for special categories of renters, and, no doubt, burdening short-term lessors with additional costs, in order to hire more enforcement staff.

Also, no details have yet been announced on what would be involved in getting a special permit, its cost and duration, how to prove a tenant meets an exemption category, how the rule would be enforced, how it would affect property taxes, how many times would one have to apply, and what happens when a lessor is able to find a long-term renter, etc. Would we be able to get a refund?

Without such vital information, how can the public give input into the matter before a final decision on the new rule is made?

With ever-increasing property taxes, maintenance fees, insurance fees and costs of maintaining properties in good condition, it is very difficult to lower our rents and still survive.

If additional costs are involved, lessors will have no alternative but to add it to the rent. I believe these issues should be given full consideration before any rules are changed. And I can’t help but wonder who, truly, will benefit from this?

Dina Brown, of Wahiawa, is a retired government administrator and former university lecturer.