“Affordable Housing – Yes in my backyard” was the title of something I wrote 6 months ago on the topic of affordable housing. https://garyhooser.blog/2023/11/02/affordable-housing-yes-in-my-backyard/

To be absolutely clear, I support urban redevelopment and the general concept of increasing density in existing urban areas.

But this one-size-fits-all approach of SB3202 is bad, bad, bad.

For example adding density to Līhu’e on Kaua’i where the population consists of predominantly local residents will likely (likely but not guaranteed) lead to increased housing for local people.

But adding density to Kōloa, Poʻipū, Hanalei and other similar areas, will likely lead to housing for retirees from the continent, second homes for the wealthy, and more vacation-rentals.

The same is true for every Hawaiʻi island.

Some towns in existing urban districts have sufficient infrastructure, roads, bikeways, sewers, employment centers, schools, entertainment, shopping and dining venues – and many do not.

We certainly don’t need state government issuing blanket decrees requiring increased development for each of our unique and very special counties.

Better community planning via top-down state government mandates? I think not.

Yes, SB3202 gives each county some planning latitude but at the end of the day it’s still the state requiring increased growth via increasing density – whether the county and the residents want the additional growth or additional density, or not.

The way SB3202 is written the sales price or rental rates of the new homes developed on the new density will be whatever the market will bear. There are no requirements for affordability – none.

Giving increased density to land owners and developers is a huge gift that immediately increases the value of their property – and should have strings attached.

It’s incredibly naive or blatantly corrupt to give away the benefits of public policy to increase the wealth of those already wealthy – without requiring public benefits in return.

In exchange for the gift of additional density, lawmakers could and should have required property owners to abide by conditions such as:

* Develop homes intended for local residents within X years or “lose” the additional density benefit (no land-banking)
* Agree to build units targeting specific affordable wage earners such as 100% of median income and below.
* Prohibit the additional density from being used for short-term rentals
* Prohibit the resale of the homes or parcels generated by the extra density allowance, except under affordability conditions designed to keep it affordable. (no speculative “flipping”)

If the land owners and developers prefer not to abide by the conditions, then they can of course decline the gift of extra density being offered by government.

Buried in the language of SB3202 is also a provision that uniquely impacts Kaua’i. The bill actually takes away the Kaua’i Planning Commissions existing authority to approve urban district subdivisions, and transfers that power to one single individual – the Kaua’i Planning Director.

The Kaua’i County Charter Section Section 14.09. Subdivision or Consolidation of Land, “B. Approval of subdivisions. After the enactment of the ordinance governing subdivisions or consolidations of land, no land may be subdivided unless the proposed subdivision plans are in conformity with the subdivision ordinance and regulations and have been approved by the planning commission.”

SB3202 is essentially re-writing the Kaua’i County Charter.

WUWT?

The language in SB3202 is so obtuse that readers would need to be an insider or land use attorney, to understand this particular component. The loss of the Kaua’i Planning Commission process contained in SB3202 also takes away the public’s inherent right to submit testimony for or against subdivision developments proposed in the urban district, and the related right to a “contested case hearing”.

This “Kaua’i element” of the bill seems to have passed through the entire process without the Kaua’i Planning Commission being informed of the implications.

The Kaua’i Planning Director offered written testimony in support of SB3202, but apparently no testimony was submitted by the Planning Commission itself, nor from individual commissioners.

What can be done now?

Call the Governor (808) 586-0034 please and ask him to veto SB3202.

Then contact our Mayor mayor@kauai.gov and Councilmembers Councilmembers@kauai.gov AND especially our 4 state legislators- share with them your thoughts and ask them directly about theirs.

Why did each of our state legislators support basically amending (or ignoring) the County Charter and taking away the Planning Commission authority (and public participation that comes with that) and granting that power to a single individual? Why didn’t they formally consult with the Planning Commission or the general community?

senkouchi@capitol.hawaii.gov
repnakamura@capitol.hawaii.gov
repmorikawa@capitol.hawaii.gov
repevslin@capitol.hawaii.gov

Additional Notes: for those who are interested in getting into the weeds and legalese
Each county has a different subdivision process. Maui apparently has County Engineer also involved as key person in approval process.

Kauai I am told by Rep Evslin and land use attorney Kimo Frankel, is the only County that gives approval authority to the Planning Commission.

SB3202 says that “ (g) Notwithstanding any other law, county charter, county ordinance, or rule, any administrative authority to accept, reject, and approve or deny any application for subdivision, consolidation, or resubdivision of a parcel of land that has been fully zoned for residential use within the state urban district designated pursuant to section 205-2 shall be vested with the director of the county agency responsible for land use or a single county officer designated by ordinance; provided that:”

Translation:
“…authority to accept…deny any application for subdivision…Shall be vested with the director…” (and not with the planning commission is the reality but left unsaid)