What’s the Real Cost of Short-Term Rentals?

Understanding the Cost-Benefit Analysis Behind Bill 9

When it comes to solving a housing crisis, people often ask: What’s the real impact of a policy? What do we gain—and what do we give up?

That’s where a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) comes in. And that’s exactly what Maui Housing Hui has put together to support Bill 9, which proposes phasing out the Minatoya list and returning thousands of short-term rentals (STRs) to long-term housing. You can read the whole it here.

Here’s a breakdown of what a CBA is, why it matters, and what we found.

💡 First: What Is a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)?

A CBA is a tool used to look at all the trade-offs of a decision, not just the money. It asks:

What will this policy cost us?
What will it give us in return?

But here’s the key: a good CBA goes beyond dollars and cents. It includes things that are harder to price, like:

Cultural displacement
Mental health from housing insecurity
Loss of public trust
Environmental strain from over-tourism

A CBA tries to answer a human question, not just an economic one: Is this good for our community overall?

📊 What’s the Difference Between a CBA and an Economic Analysis?

An economic analysis usually focuses on the business side of things: how much revenue will be gained or lost, how markets will shift, how industries will respond.

That’s important—but it’s only part of the picture.

Economic analyses often:

Prioritize industry profits
Rely on narrow market data
Overlook community harms and cultural loss
Treat housing like a commodity, not a right

A Cost-Benefit Analysis, by contrast, includes:

Community wellbeing
Public trust
Cultural continuity
Environmental impact
Generational belonging

It’s a bigger lens—more public-minded, more holistic, and better suited for decisions about public land, public needs, and public policy.

🧠 Why Are We Qualified to Write One?

This Cost-Benefit Analysis was conducted by Maui Housing Hui, a grassroots housing justice organization made up of Maui renters. Our principal researcher holds a Master’s Degree in Social and Public Policy, and our work is grounded in rigorous analysis of established, widely trusted sources—such as UHERO, FEMA, the ALICE Report, and peer-reviewed housing studies.

But our qualifications go beyond academic training.

We center community voices—especially those often left out of policymaking: renters, working families, Native Hawaiians, Maui’s multiethnic local populations, and those facing housing insecurity. We believe that lived experience is expertise, and that people who live the impacts of housing policy every day deserve a seat at the table.

Too often, local voices are dismissed in favor of consultants, developers, or economists disconnected from the real cost of displacement. Our role is to bridge the gap—using research expertise to uplift community truth, not replace it.

This CBA is one part data, one part community listening, and all grounded in the belief that Maui’s future should be shaped by those who call it home.

🧮 What Did the CBA Find?

Here’s what we learned when comparing the status quo (keeping the Minatoya list) versus a phase-out (Bill 9):

🏠 HOUSING IMPACTS

Phasing out STRs could return 6,000+ homes to the long-term rental market
That’s the same as a decade’s worth of new construction—without needing to build
Rents could drop by 6–14%, especially in high-tourism zones
Fire survivors and ALICE families would finally have real options to stay on island

💵 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

STR contraction may cause a short-term tourism revenue loss (~$70M), but
Local spending would go up as more residents stay housed and employed
Local businesses benefit from stable residents, not transient tourists
Maui hotels are already short-staffed—STR job losses would be absorbed

🌺 SOCIAL & CULTURAL IMPACTS

Displacement harms cultural practices, ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi transmission, and ʻohana housing
Phasing out STRs restores neighborhood stability and ancestral connection
Trust in government goes up when decisions reflect community priorities

🌱 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

STRs use more water, electricity, and generate more waste
Converting to long-term housing lowers strain on resources and infrastructure

🤔 What About the Critics?

Some say it’s too risky. That STR owners will lose money. That tourists will stop coming. That the economy will suffer.

We hear those concerns—and we looked at them carefully. But the data, the court rulings, and the real-world examples (like NYC and Santa Monica) all say the same thing:

Local governments have the right to zone for the public good.
The economy will adapt.
Tourists adjust, but residents can’t.

In the long run, what’s more damaging:
🔻 A small drop in STR revenue?
OR
🔻 Thousands of families priced out of their communities, generation after generation?

🔚 Our Conclusion: Phasing Out STRs Is the Best Path Forward

The math is clear—but the values matter more.

A CBA doesn’t pretend housing justice is free.
It simply says the cost of doing nothing is higher.

Bill 9 isn’t about punishing anyone. It’s about course-correcting. About honoring the Maui Island Plan. About saying enough to unchecked speculation and yes to community survival.

If we want a Maui where future generations can stay rooted, we must act now.

📣 Show Up for Bill 9

🟥 Monday, June 9 | 10:00 AM – 4:30 PM
📍 Maui County Council Chambers | 200 S. High St., 8th Floor, Wailuku
🕘 Arrive at 9AM | Wear red | Testify in person or online

This is the kind of decision a CBA is meant for: not just economic theory, but the future of our island home.

Let’s make sure that future still includes us.