A proposal to change the property tax classification of bed-and-breakfast lodgings and vacation rental homes has triggered a wave of opposition from owners who would pay higher taxes.

Bill 96, pending before the City Council, would reclassify such properties as "hotel and resort," rather than residential.

Owners would be required to pay taxes calculated at $12.40 per $1,000 of assessed value, instead of $3.29 per $1,000.

That means that taxes on a property worth $600,000 would shoot from $1,974 per year to $7,440, minus any exemptions.

The change could affect about 100 bed-and-breakfasts and 1,000 homes, cottages and condominiums that can be rented to vacationers for less than 30 days. But it's too soon to know whether the bill is likely to win approval in its current form, if at all.

Owners who oppose the change say it would be unfair because their properties and earnings are much smaller than hotels and resorts, include fewer amenities and generate less income.

And, they say, it would be unfair to designate an entire property as hotel and resort if only a portion of it is rented out — such as a backyard cottage — or the property is rented infrequently.

"Classifying transient vacation units and bed-and-breakfasts as hotels would be financially disastrous for owners who often use these homes to supplement their living expenses," owner Delorese Gregorie told the City Council earlier this month.

More than 80 other opponents have submitted testimony against the plan, an unusually high number for a bill that has yet to be considered by a council committee.

"Vacation rental owners here are not getting rich, but are just trying, like others in Hawai'i, to supplement their family income," said owner Don Maxwell. "It would be terribly unfair to tax vacation rental owners the same as big businesses like hotels and resorts."

Councilman Gary Okino, who proposed the change, said the current classifications give owners an unnecessary tax break.

"If they're going to benefit from visitor accommodations, they should pay the same rate as hotels," he said. "Fair is fair. If they get the same benefit, they should pay the same tax. Some of those guys are really raking it in."

Okino said he hadn't seen much public support for a change, however, and could not yet gauge how the rest of the council feels.

But it's important to at least consider the change and have a public discussion about it, he said. "I just wanted to throw it out there," he said.

The proposal comes amid growing pressure from some neighbors to crack down on the many vacation rentals that are operated illegally.

The city's Planning Commission is also reviewing two amendments that would overhaul a 1989 ordinance that banned new bed-and-breakfasts.

The first amendment would repeal that measure and allow bed-and-breakfasts in residential communities, but also set up ways for neighbors to block the lodgings before they open.

The second would require operators of transient vacation units, including bed-and-breakfasts, to include their permit number and addresses in advertisements. It would also establish fines for noncompliance.

The amendments would need council approval.

Many who oppose more bed-and-breakfasts and vacation rentals say they chip away at the sense of place in neighborhoods, open up residents to increased property thefts, and are a nuisance because of noisy parties, parking problems and late-night arrivals.

But rental operators and others say the businesses thrive around the world, offering tourists a way to learn more about a place and interact with residents.

They also argue that regulating the industry — instead of banning it — would address the concerns of some neighbors, while allowing more bed-and-breakfasts and vacation rentals to meet what they say is a growing market demand.