GaryHooser's Blog

On November 3, we must elect a Kaua‘i County Council majority that pro-actively seeks to move our County forward, rather than one that’s timid, passive, and sits on the sidelines – hesitant to propose new ideas, or unwilling to hold our new Mayor accountable.

Our new Council must first and foremost do whatever’s necessary to fulfill the Kaua‘i Charter requirement to hire an independent County Auditor and support staff. Regular independent (not politically driven) performance audits are essential to identify and reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiencies that exist in our County government, as is the case for any and all large organizations.

Past excuses for leaving this Charter mandated office empty for over a decade focus on an apparent “inability to attract qualified candidates”.

The number one factor for every applicant seeking any job will of course be the salary offered by the employer.

Unfortunately, neither the Council nor the Mayor has requested a review or guidance from the Kaua‘i County Salary Commission as to whether or not the Salary level set for the County Auditor is sufficient or needs to be increased. (confirmed via recent UIPA request).

The Salary Commission “reviews and establishes the maximum salary of all elected officials and officers of the County…”. (County website)

Affordable housing and the urgent push to increase the availability of new homes, must be accompanied by Council oversight AND independent performance audits as well.

Are the County land purchases accompanied by an independent appraisal? Are the “associated costs” (real estate commissions etc) reasonable and is the entire transaction fully transparent and done at “arms length”?

Are the construction contracts entered into by the County “non bid” contracts? Did the County solicit and evaluate bids from a variety of contractors and/or land sellers?

The County administration is and will continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars purchasing land, providing development incentives, and supporting the construction of new housing through-out Kauai.

But to avoid the too often inevitable missteps that accompany the spending of large sums of money on complicated developments, an independent County Auditor AND a proactive Council must be in place to provide the necessary oversight.

Our Council must support these housing initiatives AND ensure the homes are truly affordable, they are made available to local residents first, AND there are provisions in place that keep them affordable.

No government subsidies, whether RISE bonds for infrastructure, tax credits, or density increases, should be granted to any development unless accompanied by clear, strong, and permanent affordability requirements.

Rather than just rely on the Mayor and Planning Department/Commission to “cut a good deal” – the Kaua‘i County Council could pass an ordinance putting such requirements into law – today.

Important: Read my recent post “Developer Incentives – Affordable Housing And Accountability”.

On November 3, a new Mayor and Council will be elected.

There are 14 Council candidates vying for the top 7 slots.

My hope is that a majority of those chosen will be willing and able to assert the oversight and leadership necessary to both support the new Mayor and to hold him accountable, AND to initiate their own initiatives that add value to our community.

I encourage all to vote, but think long and hard before basing that vote on name recognition alone. Each and every candidate is a nice person, quick with a smile, a shaka, or a high-five when needed.

But we of course need more than that. Much more.

What’s needed most is a deep commitment to provide honest, assertive leadership, a willingness to ask the tough questions, AND the ability to offer thoughtful, creative but “doable” solutions.

We don’t need “big talk, big body, and BS” AND we don’t need those embedded in the old way of doing things.

Yes, we need institutional knowledge grounded by real world experience, but more than that we need the entrepreneurial spirit of those who understand “creative problem solving” AND who know how to build coalitions to get us there.

Please do your homework, look closely at the candidates, and choose those you think will serve us best. And of course, read this blog post if you are interested further in my thoughts on who I will be voting for. Or…if you just want my Council choices…for the Kaua‘i County Council, I will only be casting 5 votes (and yes you are allowed to vote for up to 7):

Bulosan, Addison

Coots, Mike

Correa, Michelle Kaleiohi

Holland, Fern Anuenue

Martin, Umi

Please join me in including the above 5 individuals on your Kaua‘i County Council voting list as well.

Gary Hooser
garyhooser.com

Kudos to Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters and Vice Chair Andria Tupo­la for introducing Bill 11 which “seeks more transparency over publicly funded incentives for affordable housing projects”. (See below article)

While the measure still needs refinement, it’s a critically important step in the right direction.

My hope is the newly elected Councils in every County will consider and pass similar measures AND take the concept even further ensuring via ordinance that NO government subsidies, whether RISE bonds for infrastructure, tax credits, density increases, or other benefits will be granted to any private developer unless accompanied by clear, strong, and permanent, affordable housing requirements.

Jobs and economic development are important, but we need more.

A County ordinance restricting the use of any and all development incentives, to only those projects that clearly and unequivocally provide true affordable housing to local residents, AND provide full transparency – is what’s needed.

Affordable housing by definition must be priced “below market” and thus must also contain “restrictions” on the resale to avoid flipping and maintain long term affordability.

With or without the passage of Constitutional Amendment #2 (RISE Bonds), the government support/subsidy of private development in exchange for public benefits in the form of affordable housing, will without a doubt continue.

To be absolutely clear: Any and All County support/incentives MUST include clear standards and full transparency to ensure the costs of implementation are managed properly, the public benefits are actually delivered, and truly affordable housing is made available to local residents.

Please contact your Councilmember and ask them, politely and professionally of course, to take this concept and run with it.

And while you’re at it, send a mahalo to Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters tommy.waters@honolulu.gov and Vice Chair Andria Tupo­la councildistrict1@honolulu.gov for starting this conversation, AND encourage them to go all the way.

Gary Hooser
garyhooser.blog

Below I’ve cut and pasted a copy of the Honolulu StarAdv story

Council advances affordable housing transparency bill10/21/26

The Honolulu City Council’s Housing, Homelessness and Parks Committee recommended a draft of Bill 11, which seeks more transparency over publicly funded incentives for affordable housing projects.

In spite of opposition from Mayor Rick Blangiardi’s administration, a Honolulu City Council committee Tuesday advanced legislation requiring public disclosure of city incentives for affordable housing developers on Oahu.

The panel’s Housing, Homelessness and Parks Committee recommended a committee draft of Bill 11, which seeks greater transparency over publicly funded incentives for affordable housing projects, to receive a third and final reading by the full Council.

The next full Council meeting is scheduled for Nov. 5.

Introduced in January by Council Chair Tommy Waters and Vice Chair Andria Tupo­la, the measure would require the city Department of Housing and Land Management to submit semiannual reports detailing incentives awarded, received, authorized or approved for affordable housing projects.

As drafted, Bill 11 would require the city to report on financial assistance, including grants, bonds, loans and other monetary support, as well as real property tax exemptions, fee waivers and deferrals, development-­related exemptions and other benefits provided to affordable housing projects.

Reports also would identify each project’s name, tax map key number, address and developer, along with the estimated value of nonmonetary incentives, the legal basis for each incentive and the cumulative value of assistance provided to each project.

The reports also would include the total number of dwelling units and affordable units in each project, the city agency administering each incentive, and any known federal or state grants or awards received by the project.

The bill defines affordable housing projects as housing offered for sale or rent to households earning 140% or less of the area median income, adjusted for household size.

According to Hawaii state data for 2026, 140% of AMI for Honolulu County is $150,920 annually for a single person, and $215,600 for a family of four.
DHLM opposes Bill 11’s reporting requirements as drafted.

At Tuesday’s hearing, DHLM Director Kevin Auger said his department and the administration “share the Council’s view that the public deserves to know whether the city is getting a good value from the housing incentives that Council approves.”

But he noted the city’s “chief concern” with this measure “is that it won’t provide much that’s truly useful, and it will do so at great expense.”

“The stated purpose of Bill 11 is to require the reporting of affordable housing incentives to City Council but the breadth of the bill is problematic,” Auger said. “The expansive definition of ‘affordable housing’ — housing offered for sale or for rent to households earning 140% or below the AMI — would cover the homes lived in by close to three-quarters of Oahu’s population, including, for example, a family of four earning up to $215,000 a year.”

He added if DHLM took on this work it would be “endless.”
“And the question that we have is to what end?” Auger said.

Auger argued that the measure focuses on documenting incentives rather than determining whether they make a difference in housing production.

Determining whether an incentive makes a difference would require analyzing what developers could have built under ordinary zoning and regulatory requirements, along with construction costs, financing and market conditions, Auger insisted.

Instead, DHLM recommends studying housing programs to determine whether incentives make projects more financially feasible by comparing costs with and without the incentives.

Auger noted the Council also did not solicit “input or discussion” from DHLM while crafting Bill 11.

“And it’s not been revised to provide for any of our comments, concerns, or feedback since its introduction,” he said. “Based on the foregoing, we respectfully ask the committee not to advance Bill 11 and continue to work with the department to further refine the tools we are already developing to determine whether or not the city and its taxpayers are getting good value from the housing incentives the Council approves.

“Bill 11 is a prime example of unneeded bureaucracy; it’s a rearview mirror-­focused reporting requirement that would consume precious departmental capacity that will negatively impact our strategic plan to deliver more affordable housing,” Auger said.

In response, Tupola, the housing committee’s chair, questioned DHLM on its lack of input on Bill 11.

“In all of the letters you guys sent from March and September there were no amendments suggested,” Tupola said. “Do you guys have a list of suggested amendments that you have for this bill?”

“We’ll be happy to follow up with you, chair, to provide those to you,” Auger said, but added “fundamentally, we don’t like the bill at all. We don’t think it’s an appropriate approach.”

In the end, the committee — which on Tuesday included Tupola and Council members Scott Nishimoto and Augie Tulba — passed Bill 11 out for final adoption.

After the meeting, Auger told the Honolulu Star-­Advertiser that Bill 11 “was introduced by its sponsors without consulting DHLM.”

“After it was introduced, DHLM staff reached out to Waters’ office requesting to discuss how to craft a more effective approach than the one proposed by Bill 11,” he said. “We followed up that discussion with additional feedback. The bill has not been adjusted to address the feedback provided.”

Asked how many affordable housing developers operate on the island, Auger offered a broad estimate.

“If you’re referring to developers of ‘affordable housing’ as defined by the bill … that likely would include nearly every developer of housing on Oahu,” Auger said.

Waters has defended the need for Bill 11.

“Every incentive the city extends to a developer is a public investment, and taxpayers deserve to know exactly what that investment is producing,” Waters said in a previous written statement.

He noted the city lacks a consistent system to track the full scope, cumulative value and impact of its affordable housing incentives.

“That transparency is how we verify that these tools are delivering affordable units for local families, and how we make smarter decisions about where to invest next,” Waters said previously.

Aloha friends,
Because it’s a “hot topic” with potentially significant implications AND because my position differs from that of some friends and allies who I deeply respect – I’ve updated my previous post explaining my rationale (on 10/12) and am also including the below published in the StarAdvertiser which I had previously not read, AND in case you missed it, here again is my list of Council candidates that have my support.

The actual “ballot language” for Con Am #2 is here.
Bill 3219 that authorized the Con AM #2 is here.

“Our View” from StarAdvertiser Editorial Board: Voters should enable city-linked ‘RISE bonds’
Sept. 27, 2026

In the Nov. 3 general election, Hawaii voters will be asked to approve or deny an amendment to the state Constitution allowing counties to issue “housing infrastructure growth bonds,” in districts needing housing-related public improvements. The correct answer is “yes” — voters should approve the amendment.

The ballot question reads, “Shall the Hawaii State Constitution be amended to authorize counties to issue housing infrastructure growth bonds, the repayment of which shall be secured solely by the incremental increase in real property tax revenues attributable to the increase in assessed real property values within a designated district established for housing-related public improvements?”

Don’t be intimidated by the legalese: Give counties this power, which reduces the cost and complexity of adding new housing.

Housing infrastructure growth bonds are an efficient way to prep for new housing development. They essentially borrow against higher property taxes that will be collected within the boundaries of a specific development district that is created, using the money to plan and pay for roads, water, power and sewage systems in that district under one project umbrella.

The constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the Legislature, with Senate Bill 3219. As the bill states, Hawaii faces a severe, ongoing shortage of housing for local residents. However, a continuing obstacle to new home- building has been the expense of adding homes on land that isn’t set up with basic infrastructure, leading development to take place in a piecemeal, inadequate and often inequitable process.

Counties seeking to issue a standard development bond today are required to account for money generated as debt, then stay within their own municipal debt limits — a restraint that doesn’t fit for growth bonds, since their purpose is to isolate the bond debt from public obligations paid for by all taxpayers. As a result, most development in Hawaii takes place in fragmented pieces — small project by small project, costing more and taking longer than using a master plan would.

That’s partly why housing development hasn’t kept pace with the urgent demand for homes, especially in neighborhoods where growth would complement the advance of Skyline. Rail is envisioned as a spark for transit-oriented development (TOD) in zones like Halawa, Kapalama and Iwilei — but aging or inadequate infrastructure creates a costly hurdle.

To bridge this gap, the constitutional amendment — “ConAm No. 2” — will allow counties to raise money for infrastructure by self-financing — issuing bonds that are paid back from higher taxes in a special district. This is known as tax increment financing (TIF).

To help voters get familiar with the idea, the state calls these tax-increment-financed bonds RISE (“Resilient Infrastructure for Shelter and Equity”) bonds. To use RISE bonds, counties can establish TOD zones or master-planned community districts where infrastructure is urgently needed, issue bonds to pay for upfront public infrastructure — the roads, sewers and water lines — and get the work done without repeated rounds of permittings. As homes and improvements are built, properties rise in value, and that incremental increase generates tax revenue used to repay the bonds.

Approving ConAm 2 will not raise property taxes on residents, and it will not authorize the use of funds from existing property tax revenue. That typically appeals to homeowners who want to support affordable housing, but don’t want their own homes becoming less affordable. Tax-increment bonds are used in 48 other states.

The principal benefit to local residents is simple: more affordable homes, built faster. Using TIF for infrastructure can reduce the cost of constructing new homes by up to 30%, industry experts report — and lower development costs translate into lower purchase prices and rents. Done right, it’s a sustainable solution, generating housing around transit hubs without taking away from general funds for public services elsewhere.

The benefits are clear, but there are potential pitfalls in TIF, or RISE bonds. TIF projects may collapse if a developer pulls out, or if property values don’t rise — or if market downturns or other roadblocks delay construction, raising costs and delaying benefits. Careful vetting of specific projects will be required.

This amendment allows RISE bonds to be issued only for public improvements within defined housing development zones or public housing-related infrastructure. The constitutional amendment won’t grant automatic approval to any project; and, each proposed district and bond issue will require a full review, public hearings and approval by the county council. Further, counties can structure agreements so that developers or investors must absorb risks or cover revenue shortfalls — incentivizing “on-time, on-budget” development and protecting public funds.

Approving ConAm 2 gives our local county governments a proven, self-sustaining financial tool to build foundational infrastructure Hawaii desperately needs. By voting “Yes,” voters can help ensure that local households, and future generations can afford to live — and stay — in Hawaii.

Honolulu StarAdvertiser “Our View” from editorial board

Recently I’ve been getting messages from friends and allies concerned about State Constitutional Amendment #2: Directing the Hawaii State Legislature to Establish Procedures for Counties to Issue RISE Bonds, Exempt from County Debt Limits.

I’ve publicly stated I will be “voting yes” and continue to believe this new authority/power will provide a powerful new tool for County governments to use.

However, because of recent notes and concerns from others, AND because I’ve been getting calls from people saying that Pacific Resource Partnership (PRP) and/or similar entity is using my name in a “push poll” on this issue…I’ve decided to dig in a little deeper.

I recently read through SB3219, in its entirety. This is the measure upon which the Constitutional amendment is based.

In addition, I skimmed through all the testimony from every single committee hearing in both the House and Senate.

Almost all supporting testimony for SB3219 comes from the real estate, development, construction labor, and Pacific Resource Partnership (PRP) segments of the community.

As someone with a “subject matter” focus that is grounded in environmental protection, this naturally raises red flags.

I could find zero opposing testimony of substance. Two individuals were opposed, but no substance was provided as to rationale or reasoning.

But even though the public opposition to SB3219 was minimal, because friends and allies whom I greatly respect have expressed strong misgivings AND have declared they will be voting No…I feel compelled to discuss further here their concerns and reasons we should all be concerned –

NOTE: I also read the “implementing” measure SB3218 that was also passed into law and takes effect if and when the Con Am #2 is passed…and falls to the wayside if the Con Am #2 does not pass. My initial posts/thoughts had assumed incorrectly that this “implementing measure” would only be introduced and passed after the Con Am was passed.

My position remains a Yes…somewhat hesitant…but a Yes nonetheless.

Reasoning for the “No” vote” recommendations seem at its core, to be based on the lack of trust that our government leaders will use this new power in a positive way, in support affordable housing and infrastructure, —- and fear that instead they will use this new financing tool in a negative way, and it will be a financial windfall to developers building luxury or whatever they want to build to make money.

Those opposing Con Am #2 remind us that the new power should/could have been “boxed in” (my words) to ensure only affordable/positive/honest development benefited from its use.

Each of our 4 County Councils can in fact provide such a box, and I’ve written about that here. Developer incentives, affordable housing AND accountability

I can definitely relate to the fear and mistrust, and government leaders across the state have earned that stigma.

But I remain unable to allow fear based decision making to dominate my own judgment on this.

As a former County Council member, I have in the past researched the proposed new funding mechanism contained in Con Am #2 and thought long and hard about the value of funding infrastructure using “future increases” in the tax value of the impacted properties AND leveraging that ability with large owners to create true affordable housing for local residents— AND located within or adjacent to existing urban development-so as to minimize traffic impacts and maximize “walkable, transit friendly” communities.

The opportunity passage of Con Am #2 presents, outweighs for me, the fear and mistrust.

AND the County Governments could and should – enact a County ordinance to ensure appropriate use of the potential new funding authority AND ALL EXISTING INCENTIVES CURRENTLY GRANTED TO DEVELOPERS/LANDOWNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

IMHO – Regardless of the outcome of Con Am #2 – any and all government incentives/benefits granted to developers and landowners that make a development more profitable, should be accompanied by clear restrictions on the sales of those properties to ensure the projects benefiting are truly affordable homes sold or rented to local families.

The County Councils can pass such an ordinance, but of course there’s no assurances this will happen. So…the fear of abuse…the lack of trust in our County governments…are motivating the No votes…and are also causing me some consternation.

But, I am also hopeful that the upcoming election will move County Councils in every County, in the direction making it more likely such an ordinance could be passed.

The Mayor also could of course ensure the new funding power is used appropriately.

AND if those County Councils and the Mayors fail us, each County Charter allows “citizen based ballot initiative” and thus we citizens ourselves could put on the ballot similar legislation – ensuring that County benefits granted to private developers and landowners MUST be tied to “affordability restrictions”.

AND an additional protection from potential “abuse” (using this new power to support luxury development or other) is that in order to utilize the bonding authority both the Mayor and the Council must agree to do so, as this would require appropriate “budget approval”. This also means the public would have the opportunity to voice its support or opposition. AND should the project being supported/funded require County land use changes/amendments, the County Planning Commission would also likely be involved, which also requires public hearings.

I’ve pasted here (no pay wall) an “Our View” from StarAdvertiser Editorial Board: Voters should enable city-linked ‘RISE bonds’ Sept. 27, 2026 – This editorial is worth reading and supports a YES vote perhaps more clearly and in a more positive, less defensive way than I have.

Bottom line, yes there is cause for concern, mistrust, and fear – but at the end of the day – I cannot let this drive my own decision making and thus will be voting YES on Con Am #2 AND will be committed to helping in the future ensure the positive use of this new tool.
Your feedback is welcome!

END NOTES: Below are a few sections of SB3219 – the foundational measure creating Constitutional Amendment #2.

I am not an attorney…and invite all you attorneys out there to clarify or correct any misunderstandings or misstatements should you see any (and I will correct, note on this blog piece, and update my position as may be appropriate).

It is my understanding from reading SB3219 that the bonds must be used for “actions necessary for housing and community development”.

Note it says “housing and community development” and not “or” – I believe “and” is a positive framing.

Community Development is defined in SB3219 as “advances a community’s values, culture, and vision”.

The Counties can pass a County ordinance that is “more restrictive but not less restrictive”. (If for example they wanted to ensure only certain types of affordable housing could be financed using this method)

The below info is taken directly from SB3219 (but out of context/sequence). Please read SB3219 yourself and let me know if I’ve got this right (as to my understanding of what’s happening).

“The legislature also finds that resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity bonds are a proven value capture tool used in many other jurisdictions to help fund housing-enabling infrastructure.  Through this form of financing, commonly implemented through tax increment financing, a county may establish a district and use a portion of the future growth in real property tax revenues–generated by new development and appreciation of existing properties within that district–to pay for present-day infrastructure.”

“2.  The term “community development” means the planning, acquisition, ownership, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or improvement of capital projects or improvements, including real or personal property, or any interest therein, that advances a community’s values, culture, and vision.  “Community development” shall be limited to capital assets and shall not include operating expenses.”

“5.  The term “resilient infrastructure for shelter and equity bonds” means all bonds, the principal of and interest on which are payable from and secured solely by all real property taxes levied by a political subdivision, such as a county, on the assessed valuation of the real property in a designated district established by the political subdivision that is in excess of the assessed valuation of the real property for the fiscal year before the effective date specified by resolution of the political subdivision of the specified public works, public improvements or other actions necessary for housing and community development by the political subdivision within the designated district.”


Gary Hooser – As always…feedback is welcome!

That’s the question a friend asked recently.

“Can we actually stop this insanity?”

I believe unequivocally the answer is yes. But it will take many of us, working together, being actively involved in our community and government, voting, AND running for election and serving in public office, AND helping and supporting others who do so, AND showing up to testify…AND in general taking ownership of our community and our democracy.

Yes, it’s a lot of work but it’s also a lot of community building that can and should be a fun and enjoyable experience.

We can’t give up.
Just sayin…and I know sayin is easier than doin…but we gotta keep on, keeping on.

And we must start here at home.

Last week I wrote about the power and opportunity inherent in County government and the County Council in particular. A policy and politics epiphany – Think County Council

Today, I’m asking you to offer tangible support (as in a financial contribution) to 4 County Council candidates, representing 3 different Counties.

I know each of them personally and offer my support without any reservation whatsoever.

They are already working very hard AND an extra boost from you and me during this critical homestretch period, would be a huge help. I’m 100% confident that when elected, they will serve us well.

Regardless of where you call home, please help each of them if you can. Their success on November 3 will benefit our entire collective community. Trust me. I know this in my heart.

Kaua‘i
Mike Coots (go straight to donate page)

Hawaiʻi County – District 5
Shannon Matson (go straight to donate page)

Maui County – Kahului
Carol Lee Kamekona (go straight to donate page)

Maui County – Upcountry
Bobby Pahia (go straight to donate page)

I’m making a personal contribution of my own to each of these candidates. Please join me!

Whether it’s $20, $50, or $100 – your help is needed NOW and prior to October 5.

Remember, ballots start arriving at homes across all the islands on or about October 14 (maybe sooner) AND these candidates need the boost NOW.

I’m focusing today on these particular 4 individuals because I believe they can benefit the most from our help AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME.

But to be clear every one of our friends running for election and hoping to serve us in the future NEED OUR HELP AND ALL NEED OUR VOTES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION TO WIN.

The full list of Council candidates I’m supporting plus links to all the Charter and Constitutional Amendments is here: “If I lived in the district this is who I would vote for in the 2026 general election”.

Mahalo for giving this your positive consideration.

We’re all in this together, and to win we must all step up to help.

Sincerely,
Gary Hooser

To pass a bill into law at the State level, requires the support of 13 Senators and 26 Representatives – assuming the Governor is supportive.

The votes of 51 U.S. Senators, 218 Representatives, and support by a President who is verifiably bat shit crazy – is required in Washington D.C..

Yet, laws can be passed and programs funded at the County level with the support of only 5 or 6 Councilmembers, whether the Mayor likes it or not. (5 votes are needed to override a veto in Kaua’i County, all other Counties require 6 votes)

This is where we must put our focus and energy.

County Councils meet year-round, AND are governed by the Sunshine Law requiring all policy discussions be made in public.

The State Legislature’s in session only 4 months per year, with decision-making occurring mostly behind closed doors.

County residents may collect signatures, place a “citizen initiative” on the ballot, and create new laws or charter amendments.

No such power exists at the State level.

It’s at the County Council where true change can happen – TODAY.

Students of government will say, “That’s all well and good, but the County’s power is limited and may not encroach into Federal or State jurisdictions”.

Yes, but not really, is what those with the “lived experience” of actually working in the public policy arena will tell you.

The County powers are broad, and there are always “work arounds”.

Through a variety of mechanisms, a County can regulate or tax, just about any entity that seeks to do business within the County.

The power to regulate the use of County roads or water systems, is significant.

The County regulates “land use” and determines/regulates what activities can be conducted.

AI data centers, chemical companies, and other noxious high impact industries, all require the use of County roads and water, AND all require the use of lands regulated by the County.

County property tax incentives or disincentives can influence the actions and activities of all landowners or renters.

No hotels, large landowners, wealthy vacation home-owners, beachfront, or fake-farm estate owners – are leaving the islands because property taxes are too high.

Taxes on these properties can be increased to support energy and food independence.

Different “uses” may be charged different property tax rates.

Owner occupied residential properties pay the lowest tax rates in most Counties. Locally owned small businesses could be taxed similarly.

Taxes on absentee, corporate, and foreign owned businesses could be increased.

The County could create “categories” and “rate tiers” for local business based on the certified use of local agricultural products, percentage of living wage jobs, and/or the amount of waste diverted from the land fill.

Several Counties have already banned the sale of “single use plastics and styrofoam” in the fast food business. Imagine if these “bans” were expanded to include other non-compostable junk now going into our landfills.

Imagine those 5 or 6 Councilmembers increasing property taxes on businesses with the greatest impacts on our public trust resources – and then using those funds for mitigation and enhancement.

The Hawaiʻi County Council is at this moment, considering a proposed ordinance to ban or severely restrict “AI data centers” that consume extraordinary amounts of electrical energy and water.

The Maui Council is leading the way in regulating vacation rentals, thus significantly increasing the availability of rental housing for local residents. They’re also at the forefront of ensuring the protection of Maui’s streams, rivers, and drinking water.

The Kauaʻi Council has created generous tax incentives in support of true affordable housing for local residents, and now in the process of protecting local multigenerational families from being taxed out of their homes.

Honolulu County voters will soon be voting on a proposal to implement “Ranked Choice Voting” for their Mayor and Council.

Imagine if every County did this.

Imagine if every County implemented a robust “vacant homes” tax and used those funds to support “youth services”, additional affordable housing, or other worthy programs.

The passage of new forward thinking public policy initiatives is limited only by the creativity of 5 or 6 Councilmembers, and the community that supports them.

On November 3, vote for Council members willing to think big, who will listen to their community, and implement the forward thinking change we need so desperately.

Please email gary@garyhooser.blog YOUR top-of-mind forward thinking public policy initiatives. Together, we can select and refine the boldest and the best, AND then ask our new Council to take action.