The Oct. 24 front-page article on short-term vacation rentals (“Short-term rental law could hurt economy,” Star-Advertiser) leaves me with a fundamental question: What about zoning?
Zoning seems to have mattered to the eight City Council members who voted in support of Bill 41. It also seems to matter very much to our mayor, Rick Blangiardi, who is taking a firm stand against violators who for far too long have been thumbing their noses at zoning laws. These violators have become so emboldened as to presume that they are in charge of the law and of deciding what is good for our communities. A note of thanks to our mayor for his backbone in defending our zoning laws.
Our zoning laws are based on well-thought-out planning documents and are aimed at protecting the long-range public interest of our communities. The defense of these laws does not represent selfish “tribalism.”
Does zoning and its purpose of separating incompatible uses even matter to some of the people quoted in that article? Is the incompatible use of residential zoning by resort activities OK, even with luminaries such as economist Paul Brewbaker, regardless of the negative impacts on local residents?
In his defense of the benefits of short-term rentals, Brewbaker states that short-term rentals were a growing part of Oahu’s only “factory,” tourism. As with other factories, shouldn’t this “factory” be located in proper zoning and not in residential areas designated for permanent residency?
Note that under Bill 41, short-term vacation rentals holding a nonconforming use certificate (NUC) from 1989 are allowed to continue operating in residential zones. Only those operating without a permit must shut down or relocate to appropriately designated zoned areas.
In his prediction of economic doom, Brewbaker equates this relocation with the decline of Detroit’s auto industry, which caused many people to leave the area. To equate worker displacement due to enforcement of zoning laws with worker displacement due to overseas relocation of factories is absurd.
If short-term vacation rentals were to continue to ravage our housing supply, who are those who would have to leave, if not our local residents?
Prioritizing the cited desire by tourists for less crowded spaces would only continue to increase this flight of local residents. What are the ultimate social and economic costs for our island community of such prioritizing? Ever-increasing tourism at what price?
Shouldn’t factors such as a decent and affordable roof over one’s head, residential quality of life, community safety net, reduction in brain drain, retention of cultural values — and so many other factors that contribute to our general well-being and help reduce the need for governmental social services — enter into the evaluation of costs versus benefits of the “factory”? I think that they should, and hope that they will.
We are a remote island of very limited land and fragile resources. Our very survival depends on adherence to careful planning.
To malama the aina and its people is a far wiser option for our survival as a decent, healthy and thriving society, than to let an industry dictate the use of the land based solely on its financial interests.
Zoning does and should matter.
Ursula Retherford, who has a background in sociology, is a Kailua homemaker and advocate for social and environmental sustainability.
