Rep. Cynthia Thielen addresses SB2341 – Zoning; Agricultural Tourism

SB2341 HD2 – RELATING TO LAND USE. Report Title: Zoning; Agricultural Tourism Description: Repeals the prohibition on ordinances that allow overnight accommodations in agricultural districts. Authorizes agricultural tourism activities, including overnight accommodations of twenty-one days or less, within a county with a population greater than one hundred thousand people, but less than one hundred fifty thousand people; provided that the county has adopted ordinances regulating agricultural tourism. Effective July 1, 2112.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the prohibition on ordinances that allow overnight accommodations in agricultural districts. The bill authorizes agricultural tourism activities, including overnight accommodations of 21 days or less, within a county with a population greater than 100,000 people, but less than 150,000 people; provided that the county has adopted ordinances regulating agricultural tourism. Effective July 1, 2112.

DOA concerned that overnight accommodations would dramatically alter concept of agricultural tourism as originally intended and could cause agricultural tourism to be primary, rather than secondary, land use.
Office of the Mayor of the City and County of Honolulu: concern that there is the potential to transform much of the agricultural district, particularly the
scenic regions, into a “vacation rental district,” as there may be more profit from tourism than agriculture. It will also increase the value/price of the land. While this bill is for Maui, the Office has concerns about it setting a precedent for other islands. Also, Oahu imports food from neighbor islands and therefore impacts supply on Oahu. This is a Pandora’s box; more study needed.
Sierra Club: Special Use Permits can currently be done; recommends sunset clause if passes. These permits are more protective, on a case-by-case basis.

Rep. Thielen addressing SB2341 second time


Contact: repthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov Excerpt from CapitolTV

Advertisements

Reps. Marumoto and Fontaine address SB 2394 – Lending Practices

Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1689-12 S.B. No. 2394, S.D. 1, H.D. 3 RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION.(Consumer Protection; Lending Practices; Military Members; Distressed Residential Properties Program) AS AMENDED, PASS THIRD READING

HI Bankers Association (oral testimony):
This bill doesn’t make sense. This distressed residential properties program is a wholesale bailout of lenders who made bad loans. It creates a State of Hawaii portfolio of toxic mortgages. The State will is basically becoming the mortgagor. The full faith and credit of the state is what will make the lenders whole. This could adversely impact state’s credit and bond rating. The bill allows state to issue $25 million revenue bonds (Note: HD3 now says $10 million). This will just repeat what brought the mortgage crisis upon us in the first place—toxic mortgages were bundled up and sold to unsuspecting bondholders. Future borrowers will have more difficulty qualifying for a mortgage; banks will pass onto them the costs by requiring a high down payment, and by being more conservative in the underwriting. We also question the legality of the provision allowing condemnation of private personal property for public use provision.

Contact:: repfontaine@capitol.hawaii.gov or repmarumoto@capitol.hawaii.gov
excerpt from Capitol TV

 

 

 

Reps. Pine and Riviere address SB 2394 – Lending Practices

Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1689-12 S.B. No. 2394, S.D. 1, H.D. 3 RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION.(Consumer Protection; Lending Practices; Military Members; Distressed Residential Properties Program) AS AMENDED, PASS THIRD READING

Rep. Riviere asked HI Credit Union League: Q: What is most troubling about this bill? A: The Second Part. (We are OK with First Part.) Second Part could put taxpayer money in jeopardy.
Rep. Yamane asked AG: Q: Wouldn’t condemnation be allowed, for public purposes, since we buy distressed property? A: Eminent domain is for real property. There are problems with using eminent down for personal property. Mortgages, we consider, are more personal property. (AG told Rep. Ichiyama they would do research on laws in other states.)
Rep. Jordan asked AG: Q: What do you do for forgiveness of debt? Who takes on responsibility? A: Not sure how transaction could go. If homeowner owns the debt at the time, then it would apply to homeowner. If State, then State. Q: What about deficiency judgment? A: Homeowner will still owe. It’s like a monkey on your back. Q; Does that liability affect income tax of homeowner? A: Don’t know. Q: If I was the homeowner, will I still be burdened with having to pay tax on forgiven debt? A: Yes.

Contact: repriviere@capitol.hawaii.gov or reppine@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Excerpt from capitol tv