Honesty in Wailuku, HI

Pros

• Kanagement's communications are excellent.
• Kam is appreciated for his help.
• The staff are great, respectful and helpful with clients' needs.
• Katie Ghrett is the best realtor who goes out of her way to help families find homes and rentals.
• Shore to Shore Realty has friendly agents who are willing to help and offer the best service available.
• They are the most honest local real estate company, with genuine concern for clients and tenants, and they tell it like it is.
• Chad and Shanna provided exceptional service, going above and beyond to ensure clients' comfort, with timely maintenance updates and candor about repairs.
• The service was outstanding and the staff very professional; highly recommended.

Cons

• The company is criticized for an extensive application process and a $100 fee that did not reflect a property that matched its advertised photos.
• The storage area reportedly housed people not part of a rental agreement, making the $100 application feel wasted when the property wasn’t as advertised.
• Heleen, the unit manager, is described as unprofessional: she hung up on a call, told tenants to call their own plumber, and generally failed to manage the unit with care.
• The agency is accused of listing rentals online for years without ever renting them and of collecting $25 per application without proper follow-up.
• The new landlord’s management is described as mildly impersonal and cold, giving a poor impression of management.
• Some staff were described as rude and racist, denying an application to immigrants from Canada and failing to engage with them.

Review

Honesty in Wailuku is best suited for budget-conscious renters who can tolerate a formal, sometimes slow application process and who prize blunt, direct communication over a smooth, high-touch experience. This community rewards those who do their homework, verify what is advertised against what exists, and stay vigilant about what they are signing up for. It is not a quick-or-flawless entry point for a new tenant; rather, it serves people who want straightforward candor from the agency and are prepared to navigate listings that may not perfectly align with reality until due diligence is complete.

Those who should consider alternatives are applicants who need fast occupancy, crave flawless presentation, or require consistently responsive management. The reviews reveal a notable risk: listings can linger online for extended periods without action, and an extensive application process can yield little movement. There are credible reports of rude, even discriminatory treatment by certain staff, and of managers (or their teams) who push repairs back onto tenants rather than delivering timely service. For families or individuals who insist on a seamless, respectful experience with prompt problem-solving, exploring other local options is prudent.

On the plus side, several threads of the reviews point to genuine strengths that can offset some drawbacks. A number of clients praise friendly, helpful agents and candid, no-nonsense communication. The agency is described by some as the most honest local real estate company, with staff who tell it like it is and strive to keep clients informed about maintenance schedules and repairs. When the right people are involved, such as Chad, Shanna, or Katie Ghrett, service can be notably attentive, and opportunities to find a good fit do exist. These pockets of reliability demonstrate that the operation can function effectively when mishaps are avoided and expectations are aligned.

Yet the main cons do not vanish in the glow of occasional excellent service. The $100 application fee is a real hurdle for many, especially when listings appear to persist without measurable progress or formal rental agreements. Misalignment between advertised photos and actual units is a recurring complaint, as is a sense that some unit managers are unmotivated or unprepared to handle urgent maintenance needs. The most troubling threads describe encounters with unprofessional conduct and, in at least a few cases, discriminatory behavior that denied access to otherwise qualified applicants. These issues create a structural risk for families balancing budgets, timelines, and the need for dependable housing.

Practically, decision-makers can turn these dynamics into a disciplined plan. Verify exactly which unit manager will handle the property and request direct, written confirmation of maintenance responsibilities, response times, and who pays for emergencies. Insist on an in-person or virtual tour that reflects the current condition, not just polished photos, and compare those realities against the listing’s description. Prepare to document communications and push for written agreements that specify move-in timelines and any required deposits beyond the initial application fee. If a negative pattern emerges, delayed responses, unreturned calls, or dismissiveness, treat that as a red flag and broaden the search to comparable communities.

In the final analysis, this community remains a viable option for households willing to tolerate a rigorous process in exchange for straightforward advice and occasional high-touch service from reliable agents. Its benefits peak when the right manager is on board and when listings align with reality through accountable communication. For those who prioritize speed, seamless management, and consistently respectful treatment, alternatives should be prioritized. The prudent path blends cautious optimism with a clear plan: pursue Honest guidance, demand concrete commitments, and keep other Maui options in view to avoid being locked into a process that may not meet essential needs.