Hill happy governor changed mind about bills on veto list

by Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, July 25, 2025

Sometimes, Hawaii benefits when the governor changes his mind. This is one of those times, according to Grassroot Institute of Hawaii’s Policy Director Malia Hill, who spoke recently with host Johnny Miro during his Sunday morning public access program on H. Hawaii Media.

Specifically, Gov. Josh Green altered course when he signed a handful of bills that had been on his intent-to-veto list. Chief among them was SB66, the so-called “shot clock” bill that should speed up the building permit process. The new law provides an expedited path to obtaining a building permit if the county doesn’t act within 60 days.

“Everyone knows about how bad the permit delays are. We’ve all heard the horror stories. People waiting more than a year,” Hill told Miro. “So it felt like, hey, finally, finally, we’re doing something about permit delays.”

Hill also cited two bills, SB15 and HB830, dealing with historic review and preservation, that should facilitate more homebuilding while ensuring that the islands’ history and legacy are preserved.

Hill went on to tout Green’s signing of HB126, which reforms Hawaii’s asset forfeiture laws by now requiring that individuals must be charged with a crime, rather than merely arrested, before their assets can be seized. Hill said the law doesn’t roll back asset forfeiture as far as Grassroot would like, but it still represents progress.

“There’s not really any evidence that [asset forfeiture] helps law enforcement be more effective,” she told Miro. 

Hill said it was also satisfying to see the governor sign bills that will help rebuild Lahaina, eliminate school impact fees for homebuilders and get rid of degree requirements for certain government jobs.

Looking forward, Hill said Grassroot will continue to push for reforms at both the state and county levels that will ease Hawaii’s housing crisis, improve healthcare access and expand occupational opportunities.

TRANSCRIPT

7-20-25 Malia Hill on with host Johnny Miro on the H. Hawaii Media radio network

Johnny Miro: It’s time for Sunday morning public-access programming on this H. Hawaii Media radio station. Happy to have you along on this Sunday morning. I’m Johnny Miro. 

Once again, it is time for our Sunday morning public-access programming available via our five Oahu radio stations and five stations on Maui and on Kauai. Hawaii Stream FM on Live365, another way to pick us up if you’re away from the terrestrial radio.

It’s not always a bad thing when a politician changes his or her mind. In this case, his mind. And after that busy legislative session, Gov. Josh Green initially threw a lot of cold water on a few major reforms by adding them, if you recall, to his intent-to-veto list. But when it came down to decision time, crunch time, the governor signed them after all. So he wanted that suspense. 

Joining me today to discuss what some of these bills were and what might have been behind the governor’s change of heart, once again, is Malia Hill, director of policy at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

They’re available at grassrootinstitute.org. And they are a nonpartisan public policy think tank, based here in downtown Honolulu, that seeks to lower our cost of living, increase housing and healthcare access, expand opportunities, and make Hawaii a place where we can all thrive and prosper. 

So Malia’s going to talk with us a little bit about the governor’s non-vetoes and what we might look forward to in the coming years. So good morning to you, Malia. Happy Sunday.

Malia Hill: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Miro: Oh, no. Yes, exactly. We spoke at the end of the session and covered a lot right there. And I recall that you were feeling pretty good about Grassroot’s priority bills. And can you remind listeners what some of those big legislative wins were?

Hill: Yeah. I think one of the big ones was SB66, the shot clock for permitting. We were really excited about that. It basically gave a new route to get through after 60 days. So that was a big one. 

We had progress on school impact fees, asset forfeiture reform. 

And then there were a couple bills that would have helped historic review — you know, those delays in getting historic review on building projects, especially new homes. So we had a bill that would redefine what qualified as historic, SB15, and a bill about third-party review for some projects for historic preservation. That was HB830.

And, you know, these were pretty big bills for us this year. You know, they may not seem glamorous, but every single one of them, you know, has a chance to make a real impact. And so we were very happy about seeing them get through the Legislature.

Miro: That first one with the shot clock, that’s with the permitting process. If it doesn’t happen within 60 days, you have pretty much the go-ahead. Is that how that works? Can you refresh our memory as far as building is concerned?

Hill: Yes. So the SB66, the shot clock bill, what it really did was create this sort of alternate path, like a release valve. So you would do your permit application, and if 60 days passes and nothing has happened, you have the choice to take an expedited path.

And the expedited path basically, you have to finish the application. You know, you have to have all your pieces, everything that it requires. And then you would sign a waiver of liability and have a third-party certification. 

And then the permitting department gets five days just to make sure you really did enter everything you’re supposed to. And then you could start construction. It would just be deemed approved. So that’s what the shot clock bill was.

Miro: We’ll see how that works out. Then the governor, Malia, came out with his intent-to-veto list, and there were some few unpleasant surprises on it. What was the biggest disappointment in your opinion?

Hill: Well, the biggest disappointment was that shot clock bill, SB66. 

You know, I thought it was understood. Everyone knows about how bad the permit delays are. We’ve all heard the horror stories — people waiting more than a year. You know, I talked to a gentleman who had to rent a new home for his family to live in while they wait for their permit. So it felt like, hey, finally, finally, we’re doing something about permit delays.

And I explained how it worked. You know, it’s not like it was this dramatic thing. I mean, if you compare it to some of the stuff that happens on the mainland, where it’s like automatic and 15 days and stuff. This is hardly, you know, the most radical permit bill you’ve ever seen. It was a compromise. And yet, it ended up on the intent-to-veto list. 

You know, the governor cited concerns about, you know, it might skip necessary historic review. It might endanger, you know, relics or burial sites. Basically, iwi kupuna, he cites that as one of the reasons that he put it on the veto list.

Miro: And I also know that the governor concluded one of the bills aimed at reforming that historical preservation in the intent-to-veto list. Now, what was your response to his rationale, Malia, for vetoing the shot clock and the historical preservation bills?

Hill: Yeah. The other item that made it to the intent-to-veto list was SB15. And what that bill did was just redefine historic property so that it had to have some kind of claim to historic value because what was happening was … The existing law had it so that if something’s 50 years old, it kind of moves it into the historic category. And, you know, if you think about it a little bit, you know, merely turning 50 does not make you historic. [laugher] Like, there needs to be something else.

Miro: Yeah.

Hill: Some other element, some sort of, you know, other thing that could make it historic. And from a practical matter, what it means is just really overloading SHPD [the State Historic Preservation Division] with all these things that need to be reviewed. And so then you delay the process, you delay how long it takes to get the approvals. You just really add to the cost and the trouble of building. 

So, SB15 also, in addition to the shot clock bill, similar reasons from the governor for putting them on the intent-to-veto list — basically concerns about historic review and endangering heritage and relics, the iwi kupuna. Those were, like, all the things that were cited when both those bills went to the intent-to-veto list.

Miro: All that drama, all that buildup, and then when the time came though, however, the governor signed both bills. Do you know why he changed his mind on these?

Hill: Well, you know, I can’t claim to know exactly what he was thinking, but we can guess. You know, if you look at both of them, the bills, neither of them, really reduced any protections. Like, all these state requirements for historic review and environmental review were still there, you know. There’s all the things that would trigger additional considerations. Like that wasn’t part of these. 

And, you know, we do know that recently a representative from the governor talked to Civil Beat about the historic definition bill. He basically just said, “Well, you know, we put it on the intent-to-veto list, and then we were able to research it a little more. And basically, you know, everything, all the existing statutes and laws that have to do with, you know, handling iwi kupuna, historic places and such, they’re still there. And on the other hand, we need these ways to try to grow housing and, like, kind of get rid of these delays and stuff.”

So I think that that argument must have been what moved the governor. And, you know, speaking for Grassroot, I know that on the shot clock bill, we launched a campaign that basically urged people to write to the governor and hundreds of people responded. 

You know, at this point, these protections are still there. We didn’t get rid of the protections. So while I don’t know for sure that this is why the governor changed his mind, I think that he was probably persuaded by the argument that those protections still existed and that there is a lot of public support for the idea of removing these roadblocks to creating housing.

Miro: Yeah. Malia Hill, policy director, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Grassrootinstitute.org, for her work and the other staff members’ work over there. 

Was there anything that you supported that you weren’t surprised to see on the intent-to-veto list?

Hill: Yeah. One of the things that, you know, that when the intent-to-veto list came out, we were just, you know, “Oh, obviously.” It was HB126, which was asset forfeiture reform. It was a compromise bill to begin with. A previous asset forfeiture bill had been vetoed by Governor Ige. This wasn’t even as strong as the one that had previously been vetoed by Ige. It didn’t go as far as we’d want in reforming asset forfeiture.

For example, you know, it merely requires someone to be charged rather than convicted of a crime for their property to be forfeited. But it’s still improvement. It’s still a good reform. But we knew all along that there was really strong opposition, mostly from law enforcement, to reforming Hawaii’s asset forfeiture system. And so we anticipated that this was going to be a bit of a fight. 

And you know, when the governor put it on his intent-to-veto list, the rationale was, you know, that asset forfeiture is needed, it’s an aid in fighting crime.

Miro: But there is, like you just mentioned, the opposition to that. How did you … what was your response to that? I mean, even the compromise approach to the asset forfeiture reform seemed a little over the top, but there’s still pushback in trying to come up with something a little bit … a better approach, let’s put it that way.

Hill: Yeah. So, you know, just in case anyone’s lost here, asset forfeiture basically means that the government, the police, can take your property. Even if you haven’t necessarily been convicted of a crime. And they just get to keep it.

Miro: Yeah.

Hill: They basically do a court case against your car or, you know, whatever. And the thing is, there’s not really any evidence that this helps law enforcement be more effective. 

In fact, there’s a report that says, you know, something very different. The Institute of Justice did a study of states with extensive asset forfeiture systems to just see if it’s true. Is it really a helpful tool? And Hawaii was one of the states in the study, and they basically found there’s no relationship between asset forfeiture and higher rates of, you know, solving crime. 

If anything, they found that they’re slightly worse at solving violent crimes in places with extensive asset forfeiture. They didn’t really, you know, know why. They said that maybe it has something to do with the, you know, higher incentive to solve a crime that has property involved, because then you can, you know, get the property.

Because fundamentally, if it doesn’t prevent crime, then what it really is, is just a funding tool for law enforcement. And that creates some problems with incentives, especially when we’re talking about, you know, civil rights and property rights. You know, that’s why the reform was needed.

Miro: All right. So was this a clean sweep for your priority bills this year? And what else, Malia, were you happy to see the governor sign into law? There were a couple others.

Hill: Yeah. So, you know, it turns out the governor did end up signing the asset forfeiture bill after all. No explanation why. So I hope it was just, you know, agreeing with us that it needed it. [laughter] 

But other things he signed into law without any, you know, much comment on it was the bill to reform school impact fees. Basically, getting rid of this extra fee, potentially unconstitutional fee, that came with a new construction of housing.

He signed legislation that helps rebuilding in Lahaina and anywhere where there’s been a Special Management Area, bills to help foreign medical school graduates become doctors here more easily, getting rid of degree requirements for government positions. Not a bill, so he didn’t sign it, but there was a fiscal notes resolution passed, which I think is really important, requiring the Legislature, you know, hopefully next year, they’ll actually have a bill that will just make them just find out how much something costs before they pass it. I think that would be great.

So it was a pretty good year. They did some stuff with transit-oriented development, basically just, you know, making it easier to build near where the rail is. And increasing the scope of practice for pharmacists. Lots of stuff that the governor signed that, you know, will make a difference.

Miro: It seems like Grassroot was pretty much happy with what the governor did, from what I was reading. And a lot of people were very appreciative of that. 

Looking forward, you’re probably already planning for the 2026 session. So what is Grassroot looking to accomplish next?

Hill: Yeah. We were happy. I’m in a strange position of just saying, you know, “Thank you, governor. Good job.” And looking forward,” at the moment, our biggest focus is our work in the counties. 

You know, once the Legislature ends, we can really focus on what’s going on at the county level. And we’ve been testifying on a lot of things like property tax exemptions, property tax tiers. Also pro-business measures like liberalizing the food truck requirements in Maui.

But looking forward into the next [legislative] session, we’re going to keep looking at these measures that speed up homebuilding. There’s still a lot more of those regulatory barriers, slow approval things that we can really deal with and try to make it easier, less expensive to build more housing. 

But we also want to continue to look at ways to make healthcare more accessible and, you know, reduce unnecessary regulations on workers, you know, like hair braiders, cosmetologists.

[music]

Miro: That’s Malia Hill, policy director, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. You can find her work and the other work from the members of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii at grassrootinstitute.org. 

Once again, excellent information, Malia. We’ll talk to you again soon and enjoy the rest of your Sunday. Really appreciate the time.

Hill: Thank you.