Housing ballot questions: action or rhetoric?
by Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President / CEO, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Many of the proposals to amend the Honolulu Charter that the city Charter Commission rejected earlier this year represent some of the biggest missed policy opportunities in recent memory.
Several of them, including two submitted by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, could have addressed the housing crisis and high cost of living in tangible ways.
Instead of considering amendments that would boost homebuilding or speed up permitting, the Charter Commission spent quite a bit of time discussing a proposal that would require the Council to implement a so-called empty homes tax, which Grassroot thankfully helped defeat because research shows doing so would likely worsen the housing crisis.
In its place, the Commission agreed to put a somewhat concerning “purpose statement” on the ballot: Question 7.
The question itself refers simply to preserving and increasing housing availability as city policy. However, the exact proposed amendment declares, in part, that a policy encouraging “use of the city’s existing housing supply for city residents represents a clear, compelling, and desirable government interest.”
Grassroot is concerned that this language could be used to justify passing ordinances that have little effect on the overall housing supply, such as an empty homes tax or short-term rental regulations.
Another uncertain ballot proposal related to housing is Question 10. While the question mentions affordable housing, the actual language of the amendment does not specify affordable housing. Rather, it would require the city to draft a 10-year housing plan consistent with the city’s general and development plans that would take effect in 2030 and be revised every five years.
Perhaps this winds up being a good plan that encourages substantial reform. Or it could become an excuse for inaction or another speedbump for homebuilding. But we cannot tell from the proposal alone.
So while there is nothing to strongly oppose in either Question 7 or Question 10, they are ambiguous and, if they pass, their value in many ways will depend entirely on the priorities and decisions of future elected officials.
There is also the question of necessity. Honolulu lawmakers don’t need another policy statement or plan to pass laws that would make it easier to build housing — they can do that whether these amendments pass or fail. That’s why these proposals are so frustrating. They represent the appearance of action but are really nothing more than rhetoric.
So I ask: At what point will our policymakers move on from drafting plans and codifying value statements to implementing policies that will effect meaningful change, such as zoning and parking reforms, reductions in minimum lot sizes and upzoning?
I encourage voters to weigh the merits of these amendments for themselves. But when it comes to assessing our elected officials, be sure to look at their actions, not just their words.
If you are interested in Grassroot’s take on several other ballot questions across the state, my colleagues recently evaluated them. Many fall outside of our usual priorities, but several would affect government operations — for better or worse.
E hana kākou! (Let’s work together!)
>>> DONATE TO GRASSROOT <<<