According to a story in today’s Star-Advertiser, City Council candidate Richard Turbin says questions being raised about alleged illegal short-term rentals involving several homes he owns, and accompanying documents, are part of a campaign smear.

Turbin is an attorney and longtime Kahala Neighborhood Board member and chair. He’s a fine lawyer, and a former Hawaii State Bar Association president. I’ve known Turbin and his wife for over three decades as civil libertarians and people who are usually on the right side of things.

But it seems to me that questions about short-term vacation rentals are legitimate in a district where this has long been an issue.

While the Kahala Neighborhood Board went on record opposing the City Council’s most recent attempt to legalize the expansion of short-term rentals, Turbin’s wife, Rae Saint Chu, submitted testimony during the 2008 council deliberations in favor of short-term rentals.

One document cited by Turbin appears to be a rental agreement for a home referred to as “Banzai Hale” on Ke Waena Road in Haleiwa for a two week period earlier this year. It quotes a rental fee of $550 per day plus a $300 cleaning fee and security/damage deposit. Total charge for the 13 days was quoted at $9,376.64.

Turbin doesn’t appear to dispute the validity of the rental agreement form, only the information indicating that the stay was for just two weeks.

According to the Star-Advertiser:

Turbin says someone apparently asked his rental agent for a contract and the agent gave out a blank rental agreement. He said it appears someone then filled in the document with no intention of renting the house.

“It seems to be a setup,” he said.

Turbin was not asked to comment on one section of the rental agreement spelling out “special terms”.

SPECIAL TERMS: *In accordance with City and County of Honolulu zoning regulations, Banzai Hale is being set aside for your exclusive use for a period of 30 days commencing on 5/10/10 and ending on 6/10/10. The total rental and tax charges are calculated on a per diem rate based upon providing the included services for your stated dates of actual occupancy of Banzai Hale with arrival on 5/28/10 and departure on 6/10/10. In accordance with the City zoning, Banzai Hale cannot be rented to, or occupied by, other tenants during any portion of the 30 day term covered by this Agreement. However, if Guest(s) should choose to occupy Banzai Hale for additional nights within the 30 day rental term, upon written consent by the owner, full payment of any additional per diem rent of $550, plus tax must be paid for any extra nights of occupancy must be made prior to such occupancy. Early arrivals and/or stay-overs without prior written approval and advance payment shall be liable for rent at double the per diem amount. Guest acknowledges and agrees that Owner reserves the right to alter the beginning and/or ending dates for the 30 day rental term as stated above, however any such revised dates shall continue to include the dates of Guest occupancy as specified herein.

The language suggests that the agreement attempts to meet the letter of the law restricting rentals of under 30 days by defining a rental period of 30 days, but calculating rental costs based on “dates of actual occupancy” that may be less than 30 days.

The web listing for “Banzai Hale” does not include a 30-day minimum rental term, but instead states: “Only 1 rental in a 30 day period.”

The belief that allowing one short-term rental in any 30-day period complies with the city’s prohibition on rentals of less than 30 days is apparently relied on by many homeowners to justify vacation rentals.

One longtime environmental watchdog explained that this provision has been a serious concern for many people who oppose the expansion of short-term vacation rentals and B&Bs because it appears to be calculated to circumvent the law.

However, it is not clear whether this language is specific to Turbin’s properties or appears in all contracts from this rental agent.

Turbin told the Star-Advertiser: “I’m upset this has come up in the midst of the campaign.”

But isn’t that precisely where such questions should come up?

In any case, as long as there are some voters who feel the short-term rental issue is a high priority, I’m hoping Richard will take the opportunity to clarify his view of the “1 rental in a 30 day period” provision and its relation to the city’s restrictions on short-term vacation rentals.