Why’s this Kaua’i guy writing about the Honolulu City Council?
Well for one thing they represent more Hawaiʻi residents than the other 3 Counties combined AND they’re setting a very bad example that I’m hoping no other County Council on any island will ever follow.
The Honolulu City Council, tomorrow, Thursday 11/05/26 at 10am – is going to meet and possibly pass into law a bad, insensitive, and just wrong on so many levels – Bill 53 that attempts to further criminalize the very poorest of the poor.
Yep. The Honolulu City Council is hard at work trying to figure out how to protect shopping carts from poor people.
GMAFB – These people are literally sleeping on the streets with all their worldly possessions inside that shopping cart. Some are working and cannot afford the sky high rents, some have medical issues and cannot afford medical treatment, and yes, some have substance abuse problems.
And the answer is to take away their shopping carts?
I don’t think so.
Please, please, please if you live on Oahu, Please contact YOUR Honolulu City Council Member and ask them to kill Bill 53. No amendment or deferral can salvage this.
Please also email in testimony, and show up in person if you can. Even if you don’t testify at the hearing, your presence in the room is important. Submit testimony for the Honolulu City Council meeting ASAP and no later than tomorrow, November 5 @10 AM: https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/testimony BILL053(26)
RELATING TO SHOPPING CARTS.
Of course it’s already illegal for anyone to steal anything from anyone.
Do we really need to “toughen the law” and crack down on those living at the very bottom of our social and economic ladder?
Ask the Council to “kill the bill” and focus instead on the comprehensive solutions already proven to work.
Every County needs to improve access to mental health services and substance abuse treatment.
Every County needs to increase the availability of affordable housing, safe zones, and homeless shelters.
I encourage Councilmembers in every County to do what I did a few months ago. No Room at The Inn – My own, eye-opening experience, attempting to help.
Put on your “anonymous citizen’s hat” and call the homeless shelters in your County. Call and do your best to locate a safe and dry place for your imaginary houseless friend to sleep tonight.
When you eventually reach a live person, they’ll say, “Tell your friend to come in, fill out an application, and when something opens up, we’ll let them know.”
So…the person who’s really houseless, dirt poor, and living on the street, must push their shopping cart who knows how many miles, down to the shelter, fill out the application, and then wait for the telephone call (assuming they have a phone and further assuming it’s charged up and working).
And for most, that call may not come for days, or weeks, or longer – depending on many factors.
To my friends in Honolulu – On behalf of the most vulnerable people on the planet, please let your voices be heard – tell the Council that Increasing the supply of true affordable housing is the answer, not taking away shopping carts.
Submit testimony NOW for the Honolulu City Council meeting tomorrow, November 5, 10 AM:
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/testimony
I think this is a good bill. Hawaii’s retail sector is taking enormous hits from inflation and internet sales. Stolen shopping carts are a significant expense that must be borne by the business to survive. I’ve been to foodland without a cart and ended up buying less.
By itself, this bill does not pick on the homeless. That homeless are more inclined to take shopping carts, i agree. But does a person’s economic status by itself mean that laws of general application should not apply? Does this mean that a poor person should be allowed to steal?
We live in a nation of laws that are supposed to apply to everyone. No one should get a pass just because they are poor. There are many poor people who don’t steal.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this one. It is already against the law to steal shopping carts or any item and I beg to differ…this bill does pick on the homeless since they will be disproportionately impacted. My hope is that our City Council leaders would find more productive and meaningful things to do with their time. And yes, economic status does impact the general application of laws…unfortunately rich people are treated differently than poor people…It will be interesting to see the votes and hear the testimony tomorrow.
I think our elected officials have an equally important responsibility to support the businesses in their districts. Without those businesses, constituents would not have jobs, a way to put food on the table for families, and residents would not have access to needed goods and services.
Lets not forget that.
Let’s compare laws in various states.
I think there is an important distinction in what you’re raising: preventing shopping-cart theft is a legitimate business concern, but confiscating a shopping cart from an unhoused person can create another problem without addressing the reason the cart was taken in the first place.
There are really three separate issues:
I would look at policies in other states through that lens: what protects businesses, what happens to the person whose cart is confiscated, and whether the policy actually reduces homelessness.
What other states and cities have done
There are several different approaches. Importantly, not all of them make the unhoused person the primary target.
1. Arizona – Phoenix: Make retailers responsible for prevention and retrieval
Business accountability model
Phoenix has a citywide abandoned-cart program that:
The city is addressing the problem through retailer responsibility and cart recovery, rather than relying exclusively on punishing the person found with a cart. City of Phoenix
2. California – San Luis Obispo: Retailer retrieval requirements
Prevention and recovery
San Luis Obispo adopted an ordinance requiring businesses with 25 or more carts to:
There is also a particularly important provision: city employees check for personal belongings before returning carts to businesses. Personal property is stored for 90 days.
That recognizes that a cart may be stolen property while the belongings inside it still belong to a person who needs them. KCBX
3. Washington – Criminalize unauthorized removal
Washington has a state law, RCW 9A.56.270, making unauthorized removal or possession of a properly identified shopping cart a misdemeanor.
The law requires identification and warning information on the cart, including the retailer’s contact information. Justia Law
This is closer to the enforcement approach being considered in Honolulu.
4. Oregon – Cart recovery and retailer notification
Oregon law, ORS 98.515 and 98.520, allows local governments to adopt shopping-cart recovery ordinances.
These can require retailers to:
Eugene also has procedures for protecting personal belongings found inside recovered carts, including storage and retrieval arrangements. OMP Network
What is particularly interesting about these examples?
There are three policy choices:
Approach
Who bears the responsibility?
Criminalize possession
Person with the cart
Cart containment and retrieval
Retailer
Recover carts while protecting personal belongings
City and retailer
These approaches are not mutually exclusive. A community can enforce existing theft laws while also requiring businesses to take reasonable steps to prevent cart removal and recover their property.
5. Honolulu – Bill 53: The current local debate
This is particularly important because Honolulu is considering a more punitive approach.
According to the August 18, 2026, Associated Press/Civil Beat report, Bill 53 would make possession of a shopping cart outside a store’s premises illegal, with penalties of up to:
The bill’s supporters cite retailer losses, abandoned carts, blocked sidewalks, and public safety. Opponents point out that people may lose their only means of transporting their belongings, including medications and identification. The Washington Post
Honolulu City Council legislative records
My suggested alternative for Hawaiʻi
I would separate shopping-cart theft enforcement from homelessness policy.
A reasonable policy could include:
The larger argument I would make
There is a distinction between protecting private property and solving homelessness.
Businesses have a legitimate interest in protecting their shopping carts. But a shopping cart is also sometimes the only storage and transportation available to someone living outdoors.
Taking that cart away does not give someone a home, a place to store their possessions, or somewhere safe to sleep.
Increasing the supply of genuinely affordable housing is the answer. Not taking away shopping carts.
And I would add one more point: We should measure public policy by whether it reduces homelessness and its associated costs, not simply by how many shopping carts or homeless people have been removed from public view.
That is a much more constructive framework for a Honolulu City Council discussion.
I can also help develop this into a concise testimony opposing Bill 53, using examples from Phoenix, California, Oregon, and Washington to demonstrate that there are alternatives to criminalizing possession.
Kate, The thought and research you’ve put into this is greatly appreciated. I am hopeful that you are able to submit testimony and/or encourage, educate, and support others to do the same. gh
I thanked Esther Kia‘āina for saying no to the Oct. 22 reading of the bill. There’s got to be a better way to deal with this problem.
Agree, there’s got to be a better way. And YES absolutely we should acknowledge Councilmember Kia‘āina for her NO vote. Hopefully others will join her tomorrow. gh
Fully agree, Gary! Will definitely submit testimony. The Council has lost its way. From self-enrichment through obscene raises to this crazy focus on protecting shopping carts. Madness.
Mahalo Dawn! Please also help spread the word…