Plantation View Hale
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Plantation View Hale
Building Overview
Plantation View Hale in Waipahu (built 1964) — concrete construction with pool, BBQ area, and resident manager. Window AC; assigned parking.
About Plantation View Hale
Based on MLS data, Plantation View Hale is located in the Waipahu neighborhood and was built in 1964. The MLS records indicate the building is constructed of concrete. Size and unit count are not specified in the available MLS data.
According to available records, on-site amenities include a pool, a BBQ area, and a resident manager. Air conditioning is by window units. The building does not allow pets and short-term rentals are not permitted.
Parking is available with assigned stalls and guest parking. Management company information is listed as unknown in the MLS. This summary is based on MLS data; buyers should verify all details, fees, rules, and current conditions with the listing agent or management.
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
I searched the remarks for explicit owner-occupancy figures or descriptive phrases indicating a high owner-occupied rate. No listing provided a numeric percentage or a clear qualitative statement, so this remains unknown from public remarks.
The public remarks repeatedly characterize the building as a walk-up community, which strongly supports the current value of 0 elevators. I looked for explicit elevator counts or phrases like "multiple elevators" and found none.
Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong evidence supports common area electricity/maintenance inclusion. Several remarks explicitly mention 'common areas' or 'common area maintenance,' and the MLS history is highly consistent (17 of 20 listings checked OTCOEX). This appears to be a building-level fee inclusion rather than a one-off agent note.
No analysis available
Electricity inclusion is confirmed repeatedly across the remarks, with many agents using nearly identical language such as 'maintenance fee includes electricity' or 'covers electricity.' The MLS history is highly consistent as well (17 of 20 checked ELECTR), making this a very high-confidence building feature.
No analysis available
Hot water inclusion is explicitly stated in multiple current remarks, not just implied. Historical MLS data also supports it strongly (15 of 20 listings checked HOTWAT), so this remains a high-confidence included fee item for the building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sewer inclusion is one of the strongest signals in the dataset. Multiple listings explicitly say sewer is included, and the MLS history is nearly unanimous (19 of 20 checked SEWER), indicating a stable building-level amenity/fee inclusion.
Water inclusion is consistently and explicitly confirmed across the remarks. The MLS history matches that pattern very closely (19 of 20 checked WATER), so this should be treated as a high-confidence included expense.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence 88%: 2/12 MLS entries include patio/deck (PATDEC/COVPAT), and remarks reference lanais such as a 'freshly painted lanai' and a 'Private, gated front lanai entry for exclusive use,' which function as patios/decks. Multiple units having lanais indicates the building offers patio/deck-type spaces.
Confidence 90%: Only 1/12 listings has WAJOPA checked, and no remarks across 12 listings mention walking/jogging paths. Such an amenity would typically be promoted, so the solitary MLS indication is likely a mistaken checkbox.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence 90%: Only 1/12 listings shows PUTGRE in amenities, while 11/12 do not, and none of the public remarks for any listing mention a putting green. Given that a putting green is a notable amenity agents typically highlight, the single MLS checkmark is likely an error.
No analysis available
The MLS checkbox appears in 1/20 listings, but 0/20 public remarks mention a recreation/rec/game/multi-purpose room. Remarks repeatedly reference pool, courtyard, community laundry and resident manager, but contain no explicit "recreation room" language — likely the checkbox was added in error rather than reflecting a building amenity.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence 72%: 1/12 listings have storage in building amenities and 1/12 have storage in unit_features, indicating that at least some units are assigned storage or have designated storage areas. While remarks do not highlight it, repeated MLS coding from different listings implies the feature exists.
Confidence 90%: No listing mentions any storage specifically for surfboards.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is overwhelming evidence the building has a pool. The current MLS amenities show pool in 20 of 20 listings, and multiple independent remarks mention it directly, including "the building features a pool," "community pool & more!" and "a swimming pool (empty at this time)." This appears consistent across listings rather than a copy-paste anomaly.
No analysis available
Confidence 80%: The building is said to have 'a pool' but there is no indication that it is a saltwater pool.
No analysis available
Community laundry is strongly supported by the data: 14 of 20 current listings have COMLAU checked, and one public remark explicitly states, "The building features a pool, community laundry, and a resident manager." The consistency across multiple listings suggests this is a real building amenity, not just a one-off checkbox or copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Parking is strongly supported for this building. Across the current MLS set, 19 of 20 listings include a parking type and the remarks repeatedly mention "one parking stall," "assigned parking," and "designated parking space." The evidence appears consistent across multiple agents rather than a one-off copy-paste error.
Assigned parking is commonly offered: 17 of 20 MLS entries list ASSIGN and numerous remarks include phrases like 'one assigned parking stall', '1 assigned parking stall', and 'assigned parking'. The consistent, repeated wording across listings supports high confidence that assigned/reserved parking is provided.
No analysis available
I looked for phrases like deeded parking, owned stall, parking included in deed, and similar language. The listings only describe assigned or open parking, which suggests parking is not deeded based on public remarks. No explicit evidence supports deeded parking.
No analysis available
I looked for monthly parking charges, parking rental fees, or any additional parking cost. The remarks discuss assigned stalls and guest parking, but no parking fee is stated anywhere. The only extra fee mentioned is for air conditioning.
Guest parking is available in parts of the project: 7/20 MLS entries list GUEST and multiple unit remarks mention '3 guest stalls' or 'visitor/guest parking' and 'visitors parking stalls and street parking are plentiful'. Evidence is consistent though not universal, so confidence is high but slightly lower than for building parking/assigned stalls.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for parking waitlist, waiting list, and join waitlist for parking. Nothing in the remarks indicates a waitlist system. The public remarks consistently frame parking as assigned or available, not waitlisted.
No analysis available
Confidence 80%: None of the remarks mention card/fob access, keyed elevators, or controlled entry via cards.
No analysis available
Confidence 80%: Listings mention a resident manager but do not mention any security patrols.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
At least 9 of the building's MLS listings and numerous agent remarks explicitly mention window A/Cs and the $75/month charge (e.g., "Association charges $75 per window AC (utility assessment)", "window AC in living room", "AC can be added for an additional $75/month"). Evidence is consistent across multiple listings and agents, indicating some units have or are allowed to install window air conditioners.
Strong building-level evidence indicates this is a concrete-built property. Current MLS data shows CONCRE in 16 of 20 listings, and multiple agents independently mention "CMU walls" / "clean tapered CMU walls," which aligns with concrete masonry construction rather than a single copied checkbox. The evidence is consistent across listings and strongly supports including construction_concrete.
Historical data supported double-wall construction (prior high confidence) and 7 of 20 current MLS listings check DOUWAL, but none of the public remarks explicitly state 'double wall' or 'double-wall construction'. Evidence is mixed: historical/MLS checkbox support exists, but remarks do not confirm, so confidence is moderate.
No public remarks reference 'hollow tile' (0 of 20), despite 10 of 20 MLS records checking HOLTIL; given the historical low confidence and absent supporting remarks, there is weak evidence for hollow tile construction and it is likely an MLS checkbox inconsistency.
Good supporting evidence: 8 of 20 current MLS records list MASSTU and several remarks explicitly reference 'CMU walls' and 'clean tapered CMU walls,' which align with masonry/stucco finishes. This corroborates historical high-confidence assessments that the building uses masonry/stucco construction.
No analysis available
Limited, mixed evidence: 3 of 20 MLS records list SLAB but no public remarks explicitly state "concrete slab" or similar. Because a small number of listings indicate slab foundation, the building may offer slab foundations for some units, but the evidence is only implied and not strongly corroborated in remarks.
No analysis available
Minimal evidence for wood-frame: only 2 of 20 MLS records list WOOFRA and none of the public remarks describe 'wood frame' or 'wood frame construction' (remarks repeatedly reference CMU). Given the lack of corroborating remarks and low checkbox prevalence, wood-frame construction is unlikely but not conclusively ruled out.
Only 3 of 20 current MLS records check ABOGRO, but 0 of 20 public remarks mention 'above ground' or similar phrasing. Without remarks or historical support, evidence is weak and the building should not be treated as having a documented 'above ground' construction feature.
Confidence 88%: Only 1/12 listings marks BRICK in construction_materials, whereas the majority reference CONCRE and MASSTU, and remarks describe 'CMU walls' (concrete masonry units), which are typical for this type of low-rise in Hawaii. The lone brick indication conflicts with the broader data and is likely an input error.
No analysis available
I searched for STR-related terms such as short-term rental allowed, vacation rental, NUC, TVU, and minimum-stay rules. Nothing was found in the remarks to indicate STR is allowed. With no positive evidence, the safest determination from public remarks is false.
I looked for hotel pool language such as "hotel rental pool," "managed by hotel," or branded rental programs. Nothing in the remarks indicates participation in any hotel rental pool. Because STR is not shown as allowed, this must remain false.
I searched for wording like "mandatory hotel pool," "required to participate," or "cannot opt out." The remarks contain no such language and do not describe any compulsory rental arrangement. There is no evidence of a mandatory pool program.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for leasehold or ground-lease language such as "lease expires YEAR," "ground lease ends," or renewal wording. Instead, the listing explicitly says fee-simple, which indicates no lease-expiry year applies. No lease expiry date is provided in the remarks.
I searched the public remarks for explicit VA-approval language, including VA approved, VA financing, and VA loans accepted. None was found. The references to VA buyers appear to be promotional and do not establish that the building is VA loan approved.
I reviewed the remarks for insurance-related wording indicating the HOA/building is fully insured or provides walls-in coverage. The listings mention maintenance fees, utilities, pool, and resident manager, but nothing about insurance coverage.
No analysis available
I searched the public remarks for explicit fire/life safety language such as FLSE passed, fire safety certified, life safety compliant, and passed fire inspection. Nothing in the listings addresses this directly, so there is no public-remarks evidence to confirm or deny it.
Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Across the remarks provided, there are 0 explicit mountain-view mentions. The visible view references are to Diamond Head, Makai, neighborhood, and city views, which do not establish a mountain view feature for the building. This appears to be absent from the current remarks rather than a copy-paste building amenity.
No analysis available
City views are explicitly mentioned in at least 1 listing, with the phrase 'Enjoy city views from your private lanai.' Historical MLS context also previously indicated city-view listings, so the evidence is consistent and credible. This looks like a real building-level offering present in some units, not a copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence 88%: 0/12 listings have SUNRIS in view_descriptions, and none of the remarks reference sunrise-facing or morning sun views despite detailed marketing text for many renovated units. If notable sunrise views were present, they would likely be highlighted, so their complete absence suggests this is not a recognized feature.
No public remarks across the provided listings mention "sunset," "evening sun," or "western exposure." Historically 0/12 listings included SUNSET in view_descriptions and current data shows only 2/20 listings with SUNSET in view_descriptions while 7/20 show NONE; evidence suggests the SUNSET checkbox entries are sporadic agent entries rather than true building-wide sunset views.
No analysis available
Confidence 90%: No remarks mention viewing fireworks from the building or units.
No analysis available
No analysis available
The building should be marked as having a resident manager. Historical MLS data shows RESMAN in amenities on 6 of 20 listings, and one current remark explicitly says "Amenities include an on-site resident manager." This is consistent with a genuine building-level feature rather than a one-off copy-paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.