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!