Q: Would you be kind enough to explain why the circuit breaker tax credit is being denied to residents who serve to bolster the county economy? Our circuit breaker application has been denied by the Real Property Tax Collections section because "it does not meet the statutory requirements of the current circuit breaker credit ordinance" in that our property "is not the only property owned by any of the titleholders on Maui, in Hawaii, in another state or territory, or in a foreign country." In fact, our second property is a condominium unit presently rented on a long-term basis, which we will occupy if we become unable to manage the house that is presently our principal residence and the object of the denial. The revenue derived, combined with our Social Security benefits, allow us to live a more comfortable retirement. It appears unfair and discriminatory that residents who have invested in real property that is not real estate or in intangible, monetary or other assets that do not serve to bolster the Maui economy are unfairly allowed to continue to benefit from the circuit breaker credit. The statutory requirements further discriminate in that they single out owners who have a second property versus those whose property includes an ohana unit. Is an ohana unit not, in fact, a second property? Thank you in advance for your response.