In an effort to subvert the intent of the equal protection clause of the US constitution, the bills have been changed so they no longer put additional burdens on non-residents, but rather they put the additonal burdens on those who do not reside on the island where the property is. (if you do not live in Hawaii, you may have to think about that subtle difference, which realy makes no difference to those who do not reside in Hawai’i).

One of the ironies of thes bills is a state senators from Maui said that since the non-resident property owners are protesting these bills so vigorously, they must not be paying their taxes. So here is a self righteous Hawaiian politician who pretends be advocating this legislation is not for vested intersts but rather for the sole good of Hawai’i while at the same time implying that others are cheating on their taxes. And where does she derive her moral compass and the right to pass judgement from? From her experience in politics of course.

For non-resident (ie NON-VOTING) owner/investors who have managed successful rental operations in Hawaii, it is shocking how much disdain is being shown by Hawaii State Legislators for laws we take for granted.

Their state attorney general has at least been coaching them to revise these discriminatory measures by suggesting they need to add new language and provisions that give appearances of not being discriminatory. Is this legal? Coaching AFTER a bill has been written to make it’s original unconstitutional intent SEEM legal?

Basically the AG rules that the law as written places an challengeable burden on nonresidents due to higher US Law (Constitutional and Interstate Commerce) and even the AG comments that there is no empirical/statistical evidence shown or possessed by the State of Hawaii that nonresidents tax payments are a problem (the ‘foundation’ the HI legislature is using to justify special requirements for nonresidents).

The evidence of the attempt to subvert violation of NAFTA and US Constitutional Law can be seen in the documented progression of the Bills’ (HB1707, HB1706, SB2089, SB2078 amendments.

Per a note in the State’s Attorney General testimony of Feb. 29.

“…. In addition, because the property manager requirement is imposed only on “nonresident owners” the bill may invite a legal challenge under the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection

Clause, and/or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. Each of
these clauses generally prohibit discrimination against nonresidents or discrimination in favor of

“in state” residents. It is not clear what the outcome of such a challenge would be, because the
bill does not impose different rates of tax on nonresident owners, or deprive them of any tax
credit or exemption, but it does impose burdens that are not imposed on resident owners.

If adopted into law, this bill would be more likely to survive a legal challenge if the
Legislature could include in a “purpose” section of the bill a rational basis for why imposing a
differing burden on nonresident owners than resident owners serves an important public purpose.

If there are empirical evidence or studies that demonstrate that nonresident owners of transient
accommodation are not paying transient accommodation and general excise taxes, or are noncompliant

with county zoning requirements, the bill would be more likely to survive a legal

challenge.

Likewise, if like House Bill No. 1707, H.D. 2, this bill were amended to define “nonresident owner” as an owner of a rental property in the State who resides on a different island from the property or out-of-state and who rents or leases the property to a tenant, the bill would stand a better chance of surviving a legal challenge because the property manager requirement would apply to state and non-state residents alike.

We respectfully recommend that the Committee make the suggested amendments.”

This is an attack on the non-voting investor/small business owner and violates US Constitutional Law. What these bills all amount to is cheap votes for Senators and Represenatives of Hawaii State seeking relection by the locals who are glad to see these laws won’t [yet] apply to them as well as providing economic Favors to their major campaign contributors (the licensed Real Estate Property Manager Proponents and the Hotel Industry Lobbyists).