Tag Archives: Honolulu City Council

Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters ruled ineligible to run for Third Term

Circuit Court Judge James Ashford ruled today, maintaining that Waters cannot run for a Third Consecutive Term for District District IV – Hawai‘i Kai, Kuli‘ou‘ou, Niu Valley, ‘Āina Haina, Wailupe, Wai‘alae Iki, Kalani Valley, Kāhala, Wilhemina Rise, Kaimukī, Kapahulu,
Diamond Head, and Waikīkī

However, this ruling does not prevent Waters to take a break and run again for a seat in the Honolulu City Council. It’s just that ““No person shall be elected to the office of councilmember for more than two consecutive four-year terms.” as currently stipulated in the Honolulu City Charter.

The letter of the law and the spirit of the law is in play here.

Trevor Ozawa filed a lawsuit questioning Chair Waters’ action:

Below is excerpt of the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief from the Circuit Court:

This action presents a single, narrow, and purely legal question: whether
Defendant Waters is eligible under Section 3-102 of the Revised Charter of
the City and County of Honolulu (“Charter”) to be a candidate for, and to be
elected to, a third consecutive four-year term as Councilmember for District
IV in the November 2026 election.


3. Charter Section 3-102 provides, in relevant part:


“No person shall be elected to the office of councilmember for more
than two consecutive four-year terms.”


4. Defendant Waters was elected to the office of councilmember for the 2019–
2023 four-year term at a special remedial election held April 13, 2019. He
was elected to the office of councilmember for the 2023–2027 four-year term
at the general election held November 8, 2022. He has now filed a
nomination paper seeking election to the 2027–2031 four-year term — his
third consecutive election to a four-year council term, in direct violation of
Charter Section 3-102.


5. On June 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed a timely Written Objection to Defendant
Waters’ nomination paper with the Acting City Clerk pursuant to Hawaii
Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 12-8, setting forth in detail the legal and factual
basis for Defendant Waters’ ineligibility. On June 12, 2026, the Acting City
Clerk issued a preliminary determination declining to refer the matter to
circuit court and stating that “no further action will be taken by this Office.”

6. The Acting City Clerk’s determination does not withstand scrutiny. It rests
on the proposition that Defendant Waters was elected to “a term of office
that commenced on May 6, 2019” — a phrase, and a date, that appear
nowhere in the Charter. Charter Section 3-102 provides that regular
council terms begin “at twelve o’clock meridian on the second day of
January following [the councilmember’s] election,” not on the date of the
councilmember’s oath of office. The Acting City Clerk’s determination
conflates the commencement of Defendant Waters’ personal service with
the commencement of the Charter-defined four-year term — a conflation
the plain text of the Charter forecloses.


7. This is the second time the Acting City Clerk has reached this same
erroneous conclusion on this same record. A substantially similar objection
filed by Christian H. Butt on March 23, 2026 received a materially identical
response on April 7, 2026 — including the same factual error regarding the
date of Defendant Waters’ swearing-in.


8. Plaintiff brings this action because no other adequate remedy exists to
resolve this purely legal question before ballots are printed and the 2026
election proceeds. The material facts are a matter of public record and are
not in genuine dispute. What remains is a question of law: the meaning of
Charter Section 3-102 as applied to an undisputed factual record. Plaintiff
intends to move for summary judgment promptly following Defendants’
appearance in this action.

Council Chair Tommy Waters at the Honolulu Hale Chambers. Next to him is the Acting City Clerk Chadd Kadota.

The Council Chair said he would appeal after the ruling. There are obviously questions whether the Chair of the City Council set up his Eligibility question for his own personal gain. Chair Waters himself told the public he was testing the waters.

The pressure on an ACTING City Clerk Chadd Kadota to make the decision as to whether Waters is eligible or not for a Third Term must be tremendous. It’s the Honolulu City Council who does the hiring of this clerk position.

Besides the above controversy, Chair Waters’ intransigent push to diss the public on their 64% salary raise will stick negatively with his public record.

Tommy Waters’s most controversial action as the City Council Chair was to prevent a public participation by refusing to place on the council agenda relating to the infamous 64% salary increase in 2023 – – Scroll to 6:58 to watch the spirited pushback from the public.

After the intransigent approval, the city council Chair Waters, Esther Kia’aina, and others proceeded to adopt a charter question to remove themselves from making decisions on salary increases. Instead, the responsibility to approve salary raises now falls on the Honolulu Salary Commission, appointed by the City Council and Mayor. As of today, the cumulative salary increase has been 86%. There’s a lot the public can forgive, but this one will haunt Waters for a very long time.

Chair Waters has made “improvements” to the Council in various ways. The City Council website now prominently features the Council members. Look at his own promotion as Chair. This city-funded social media promotion has never been done before by other Council Chair.

It’s not clear whether a dedicated spokesperson for the Council is still in place. Of course, the question would be why would the City Council need a dedicated media spokesperson when the City Council member can hold their own. Each council already has about five full-time staff. Other support include the entire Council Services that cover professionals who provide legal drafting, research, budget analysis and so forth.

Another recent “improvement” is the additional available funds to support Council members in the name of “shared commitment to communicating with integrity, effectiveness, and compassion – the core values that defines our Council’s public service.“

Yet, away from the public radar, Chair Waters has quietly promoted punitive measures without Due Process to the Public. Unbeknownst to the general public, HB 1434 submitted by Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi (as a Mayoral Legislative Package to the State Legislature) was the beginning of a new agenda to deny Due Process to Hawaii. It’s ongoing since 2021.

The DPP Director and five Honolulu City Council Members also testified or submitted written testimony to the STATE Hawaii Legislature for new powers to seize property through NON-Judicial Foreclosure, due to DPP county fines. This is very concerning as he should know that the government is not always right and the public always wrong. Due Process is a fundamental right for a citizen. Such an over-reaching power should be made known to the Public.

This agenda is continuing.

Chair Waters is also known for his inconsistent management of time limit for Public Testimony at Honolulu Hale. Some testifiers are allowed to have more than ample time while he cuts off others.

Chair Tommy Waters has shown to be a politician with a punitive streak inside Honolulu Hale. As the Chair, he has the power to assign positions. He uses his power when loyalty to his agenda is tested.

My biggest concern as a citizen is the fact that the Council Chair has not questioned the Honolulu Rail aka Skyline budget each year. It bites a huge chunk of the city’s treasury every year. But, during this 2026-27 budget session, much more media attention and efforts were focused on the manini Office of Economic Revitalization (OER) than the extremely expensive white elephant at Honolulu Hale. Many in Oahu are hurting with the costs of living and yet not much is focused on this need.

Some Answers to Your Questions about the Honolulu City Council 64% Pay Raise Controversy

Leave a reply

2023 Pay Raise Ruckus

Parts of this information is from public domain. The Approval of the City Council 54% Pay Raise is on around April 22, 2023. This huge increase caught the ire of the public. Much attention was focused on this issue that also produced significant attendance that prolonged into the evening at Honolulu Hale.

Tommy Waters was the Chair of the Honolulu City Council who pushed this through. This is the recording on June 7, 2023 beginning 6:59

There was even a polling by the Honolulu Star Advertiser with overwhelming voters against the 64% pay raise.

Chair Tommy Waters dug in his heels.

In 2023, the Honolulu Salary Commission approved a controversial 64% pay raise that increased City Council members’ salaries from $68,904 to $113,304 per year, and raised the Council chair’s salary to $123,288. The adjustment cost the city an additional $44,40 annually per participating member.

Summary of 2023 Adjustments

  • Council Members: Base pay increased from $68,904 to $113,304
  • Council Chair: Pay increased from $76,968 to 123,288
  • Mayor & Executive Leadership: Received a smaller 12.6% pay raise during the same cycle, with the mayor’s salary rising above $200,000.00

Key Developments Since 2023

  • Charter Amendment Capping Raises: Public backlash over the hike led Oahu voters to overwhelmingly approve a charter amendment, which took effect in 2025, capping future raises at 5% annually and removing the City Council’s authority to vote on their own compensation.

I voted NO against this Charter Amendment Capping Raises. It fundamentally takes the accountability from the ELECTED City Council Members. It passes the buck to the Salary Commission and takes the City Council members off the hook.

This is a very bad direction in many ways.

First, the city council position is an elected position. It should not be clumped together into the regular employee salary category.

Second, the City Council members must be accountable to the public in this elected office.

Third, the City Council and the Mayor appoints members to the Honolulu Salary Commission who will make the ultimate decision on salaries for the people who appointed them.

  • Rejections: Council members Andria Tupola, Radiant Cordero, and Augie Tulba formally rejected the 2023 pay raise at the time.
  • In 2023, Councilmember Andria Tupola, along with Councilmember Augie Tulba, introduced two resolutions (Resolution 23-81 and Resolution 23-82) to reject the Honolulu Salary Commission’s controversial 64% pay raise for council members and executives.
  • Resolution 23-81: Requested the rejection of salary increases and schedules for all city officials (including the Mayor and executives) on the basis of current economic conditions. Although the Council Chair Tommy Waters refused to put this Resolution on the Agenda to be discussed. Irate residents went ahead and submitted written testimonies to this Resolution to vent their anger. Read the written testimonies here.
  • Resolution 23-82: Specifically called to reject the Council members’ and the Council chair’s pay hikes, citing that the recommended raises were “unreasonably high and should not be allowed to take effect”.
  • Residents again were denied public participation as Chair Tommy Waters refused to put the two about Resolutions into the agenda for discussion. Residents collected some petitions but to no avail.
  • Because Council Chair Tommy Waters refused to schedule the resolutions for a hearing, the salary increase never received a vote amongst the council members. However, The Salary Commission Recommendations were accepted. The public was denied public participation. Tupola ( and Augie Tulba) formally rejected the pay raise in a memo to the city to keep their salary at its lower 2022 level ($68,904), although she eventually accepted the higher salary after the buzz subsided and she was re-elected.

2026 – – Another salary increase. City Council member Esther Kia’aina presently opposed the Salary Commission 4.7% making a differentiation between elected and employee salaries. However, she was a staunch supporter of the 2023 salary 64% increase. She also supported the City Charter Question relieving the City Council of accountable by giving full power of decision to the appointed Salary Commission.

  • Subsequent Adjustments: In 2026, the Honolulu Salary Commission authorized another 4.7% salary increase for executive and legislative posts, pushing regular council members’ salaries to $127,801

Hamajang HB1990 – Chronology of a Dictator’s Bill to fine $1000 minimum per day for ANY violations of County Ordinance, Rule, and Regulation. $20,000 fine TOTAL will face foreclosure!

Leave a reply

SENATE JUDICIARY and WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEES’ VOTING RECORD.

This was a very secretive Bill. While Hawaii was trying to handle the Kona Low flooding and storms, this Bill was sailing through without public knowledge until at the end.

Hawaii was protesting “NO KING” “NO TYRANT” “NO DICTATOR” OUTSIDE the State Capitol while legislators INSIDE the Capitol were passing these tyrannical bills.

Typically, an ordinary person does not have the time to participate. Most people who are at these sessions are lobbyists, bureaucrats, interest groups, and corporations. The procedures are also foreign to most citizens.

Hawaii SENATE Judiciary Committee and Ways and Mean Committee Report to the Senate President.

What is the intent of these quickie tyrannical Power of Sale and Foreclosure Sale?

Hawaii: Bipolar legislation in 2026

Leave a reply

While there are vigorous protests of “NO KING”, “NO DICTATOR” “NO TYRANNY” outside the Hawaii State Capitol, tyrannical laws are being pushed through inside the Capitol

Mahalo again for giving voice AGAINST HB1990.

Keep calling the senators to Kill HB1990! They should hear from you.

The last I look, HB1990 is still recommitted to the Judicial and Ways and Means. No movement or no new amendments to it. I hope there is no Gut & Replace actions.

It’s never a good idea to give the government more overarching, overreaching and tyrannical powers to fine you $1,000 per day minimum. And when it reaches to $20,000, you can be slammed with a foreclosure. This is Tyranny.

The Bill language  is very vague – ANY – ANY violations of county ordinances, rules, and regulations. Every owner becomes a sitting duck to the whim of the long arm of the government.    

Chronology of tyranny:

This Power of Sale based on county fines first began as an annual Legislative Package to the State Legislature in 2021. All neighbor Mayors were part of this package.  This covered ALL COUNTIES.

2021 – 2024  Mayor Rick Blangiardi persisted. We saw HB106 and many similar Bills with the same Agenda. But fortunately, these bills never got passed.

In 2025, the Honolulu Mayor distanced himself. HouseRepresentative Corey Chun from Waipahu introduced HB29. Fortunately, it was DEFERED By the Finance Committee.  

2025 also saw   Bill 811 introduced by Scot Matayoshi, Corey Chun, MichaelLee . Lisa Marten, Sean Quinlan, Greg Takayama. This is a bill on steriods. Foreclosure begins when your fines reaches $5,000! It will only take 5 days when the bill wants to fine you $1,000 per day minimum. What are these politicians thinking? This Bill did not gain traction.

Introducer(s):MATAYOSHI, CHUN, LEE, M., MARTEN, QUINLAN, TAKAYAMA This one imposes only $5,000 instead of $20,000 for a foreclosure slam! It did not gain traction.

2026  These Power of Sale Bills only needed 2 House Committees  to pass the House. Finance Committee was bypassed.   HB1861 was introduced by Quinland, Matayoshi, Marten, and Olds did not cross over this year.

Simultanteously,  another Bill1990 which we did not know about till recently, quietly progressed to where we are today  

Introducer(s):MATAYOSHI, GRANDINETTI, KILA, KUSCH, LEE, M., MARTEN, MORIKAWA, OLDS, TAKAYAMA, TAM, TARNAS, TEMPLO, TODD, WOODSON

Demoracy is at stake. We cannot be protesting NO KINGS – NO TYRANTS and then impose tyranny upon Hawaii’s residents with these secretive Bills to oppress. 

. 

“NO KINGS” “NO TYRANTS” protests nationwide today.

Leave a reply

But the Hawaii State Legislature HB1990 to fine residents $1000 a day and quick foreclosure is secretly sailing through.

We are trying to stop HB1861 with the same agenda. But we did not know about HB1990. It feels sneaky. Why no disclosure of these significant changes that affect the lives of residents. Ordinary residents shouldn’t have to bird-dog politicians to make sure they do us no harm or just introduce hamajang Bills!

This agenda to have a new foreclosure powers through new county fines was initiated by Mayor Blangiardi in 2021. Blangiardi pushed every year. In 2025, a similar Bill 29 was introduced by House Representative Corey Chun of Waipahu.

This year, HB1861 was introduced by four (4) House Representatives – Sean Quinlan, Scott Matayoshi, Lisa Marten and Ikaika Olds.

Unfortunately, while ordinary residents were stopping HB1861, there was a concurrent BILL HB1990 sailing through. We heard about it a day ago! What a devious system! Three of the 4 Introducers for HB1861 are also introducers for HB1990 – Scott Matayoshi, Lisa Marten, and Ikaiko Olds. ( Sean Quinland’s name is no longer here.)

This unconstitutional agenda has been ongoing and initiated by Mayor Blangiardi since 2021. Blangiardi pushed every year. In 2025, a similar Bill 29 was introduced by House Representative Corey Chun of Waipahu. 2026 brought new and more introducers!

Hawaii Legislators Introduce House Bill 1861 to Deny Due Process to ALL Counties

Leave a reply

Hawaii Legislators want to remove DUE PROCESS from Private Property Rights through HB1861 aka HB29. New NON-Judicial Power of Sale to seize private properties based on county fines. No court. Just Non-Judicial Foreclosure.

On the other hand, Democratic Party affiliated protesters organized nation-wide civic resistance – “No Dictators” protests against the Trump administration’s policies relating to civil rights, Due Process and democracy in October, 2025.

Such rallies were held the Hawaii State Capitol and neighbor islands including Hilo, Waimea, Kona, and Kahului.

I

n January 2026, these four Hawaii Legislators (below) want to remove DUE PROCESS from private property owners through HB1861 aka HB29.

This unconstitutional Tyranny agenda began with Honolulu City County in 2021. The Blangiardi Administration introduced NON-Judicial Power of Sale as a County Legislative Package in 2021. The Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) gets to issue violations, to place fines and to seize property without no Due Process of going to court.

Who wants to give more powers to the long arm of the government? Who wants DPP to be the Police, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

Private Property owners will be stripped of Due Process if these non-judicial Power of Sale Bills are adopted by the Hawaii State Legislature this year.

It’s ironic that the Unhoused now has more rights than ordinary private property owners and renters if non-judicial Power of Sale based on county civil fines is adopted through HB1861 aka HB29.

Below excerpt is for educational purposes.

The Unhoused is guaranteed an expanded Due Process Rights while private property owners will be denied Due Process in court.

Due Process in Hawaii is fundamentally guaranteed by Article I, Section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution, protecting life, liberty, and property from arbitrary government action. It ensures fair legal proceedings, including the right to counsel in specific cases, and has been recently applied to protect the property rights of unhoused individuals and the rights of parents in child protective proceedings.

Wookie Kim is the legal director of the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, which represented the plaintiffs in Davis v. Bissen.

On September 20, 2021, a group of unhoused people living near Kanahā Beach Park in central Maui were awakened by police officers and other Maui County workers armed with forklifts, dump trucks, and other heavy machinery. Wielding the threat of arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass, they forced everyone living in the park to leave immediately — with or without their personal belongings.

The county seized everything that was left behind. All told, the county impounded dozens of vehicles and immediately destroyed tons of property, including tents, clothes, pots and pans, child car seats, strollers, and water tanks.

Earlier this year, the Hawaii Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Davis v. Bissen that the county’s actions violated the due process rights of the people whose property was seized.

In an opinion authored by Justice Sabrina McKenna, the court held that “unabandoned possessions of houseless persons” were a “classic form” of property protected by Article I, Section 5, of the state constitution, even if such property was in a public space. The private interest at stake was “significant,” the court said, and the county’s “unchecked decision to seize and destroy the plaintiffs’ personal property posed a high risk of erroneous deprivation of property.” 

Moreover, the court held, because “the county’s plan was to destroy (instead of store) seized property,” it could not carry out the sweep without first conducting a “contested case” hearing under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act. A contested case hearing is a proceeding before the relevant agency (here, Maui County) in which the agency considers evidence, hears testimony, allows for cross-examination of witnesses, holds oral arguments, and renders a decision about the legality of a planned action, much like a court proceeding.

Here, the plaintiffs had formally requested such a hearing before the sweep occurred, but Maui County ignored those requests. As later court filings would reveal, the county’s stance was that it did not need to hold any hearings. Why? Because, it maintained, unhoused people’s property was “on government property without permission and in violation of trespassing laws” and, therefore, was not protected by due process in the first instance. But, as the court’s decision confirms, one does not forfeit due process protections simply by leaving property in a public space.

The ruling paves the way for a potential first: the holding of a contested case hearing before a local government conducts a sweep of a houseless encampment. While such a hearing would be routine for, say, a landowner challenging the state’s decision to bulldoze a home erected on her property, to my knowledge no municipality in the country has ever held or been required to hold such a robust hearing before destroying the property of unhoused people. While the plaintiffs in this case may only get a post-deprivation hearing on remand, going forward unhoused people in Hawaii may be entitled to a full-blown contested case hearing before a planned sweep.

This could have significant practical effect on the lives of an immense number of people in Hawaii: As of 2023, there were 6,223 houseless people in in the state. Native Hawaiian women, including two of the four plaintiffs, are disproportionally impacted by Hawaii’s housing crisis. Maui County uses sweeps to force — or, as Honolulu officials euphemistically describe it, “gently coerce” — unhoused people into pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. (Never mind that many unhoused people in Hawaii are employed, including all but one of the plaintiffs in this case, who work in service jobs tailored to Maui’s tourism industry.) Rather than helping people get off the streets, sweeps only perpetuate the homeless crisis.

Beyond its practical impact, a state supreme court win squarely vindicating the due process rights of unhoused people also carries symbolic weight. Our legal system structurally disfavors unhoused people: as scholar Wayne Wagner has written, “homeless persons possess fewer and lesser legal rights” than those who live in houses or apartments. Many of our constitutional rights — including those relating to privacy and autonomy — are predicated on owning or having possession of real property, a place to which one can retreat from governmental interference. Further, in lacking access to conventional housing, unhoused people are more likely to be politically disempowered because of difficulties in proving identity or residence when registering to vote. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s declaration that government actors are bound to respect due process for everyone, unhoused or not, at all times, is a victory for the principle of equality under the law.

Finally, the court’s decision is notable not only for its holding but for the way it got there. The court applied what it calls the “state-constitution-first approach” to constitutional interpretation. Under that approach, the court “interpret[s] the Hawaii constitutional provision before its federal analogue.” The court adopted this approach less than a month earlier in State v. Wilson — a case construing the Hawaii Constitution’s analogue to the Second Amendment — to govern how it would resolve cases in which a party “invokes both the Hawaii and United States Constitutions.”

In choosing to interpret and rely exclusively on the state constitution in its Davis decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court has highlighted the “distinct role [of state constitutions] under our nation’s system of federalism” and reminded us, once again, that state constitutions can be as important a source of rights as the U.S. Constitution.

Suggested Citation: Wookie Kim, Hawaii Expands Due Process Rights of Unhoused People, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Jun. 11, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/hawaii-expands-due-process-rights-unhoused-people.  

More information about HB1861 aka HB28

KILL House Bill 1861 aka HB29 –  Best-Kept Secret Hamajang to Deny DUE PROCESS to HAWAII 

Leave a reply

Hawaii is vigorously protesting “NO KING – NO TYRANT – NO ICE ” to demand constitutional Due Process for all.

Yet, four (4) Hawaii State House Representatives – Sean Quinlan, Scott Matayoshi, Lisa Marten, and Ikaika Olds – have introduced House Bill 1861 aka HB29 to deny DUE Process to all Hawaii counties. 

HB1861 (2026) authorizes counties to sell property through non-judicial foreclosure as a way to collect unpaid civil fines. Owners cannot go to court to explain or protect themselves. Period. Judicial Due Process is denied.

Yet, four (4) Hawaii State House Representatives – Sean Quinlan, Scott Matayoshi, Lisa Marten, and Ikaika Olds – have introduced House Bill 1861 aka HB29 to deny DUE Process to all Hawaii counties. 

HB1861 (2026) authorizes counties to sell property through non-judicial foreclosure as a way to collect unpaid civil fines. Owners cannot go to court to explain or protect themselves. Period. Judicial Due Process is denied.

This stealth anti Due Process agenda has been happening for five years!    

The Honolulu County Blangiardi Administration spear-headed this hamajang in 2021 through House Bill 1434 /Senate Bill 2110  – requesting a new NON-JUDICIAL Power of Sale based on the Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) civil fines. The Mayor’s DPP Director testified that existing “Eminent Domain” was too slow, took manpower, and resources.

Can you trust the troubled DPP to be your Police, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

Look at Kalihi, Kamuki, Kailua, Kaneohe, Kahuku. Look at Waimanalo, Waianae, Wahiawa and Whitmore.  What about Palolo, Mo’ili’ili, Sunset Beach, and Haleiwa? How many residents have turned their garages into extra living space or other additions to accommodate generational living or a little extra income to help pay for their mortgage? Is housing a huge problem in Hawaii?

This ill-thought unconstitutional bill will turn Hawaii’s private property owners and renters into perennial sitting ducks. The long arm of the government will be allowed to create a new source of revenue, bully, do political mischief, or issue violations at will that can morph into significant fines, ripe for non-judicial foreclosure.

Which legislator in 2026 would deny basic Constitutional Due Process Rights (through HB1861) as a  “quick solution” to various issues some Counties have no will to manage.

No amount of contorted promises of “Due Process” through county appeals can justify this sweeping unconstitutional invasion and violation of Civil Rights to all Hawaii. 

HB1861 aka HB29 is burning down a Cathedral to fry an egg.

Give Voice Now. Don’t complain AFTER-THE-FACT. Contact your legislators, Mayors, and City Councils. Elected legislators must stay inside the Constitutional Path for the Public Good.

Kill HB1861 hamajang!

Nothing good can come out by giving the long arm of government MORE new powers to control its people.

STATUS OF HB1861 ONLY Representatives Garcia, Gedeon, Pierick, Shimizu voting no. “Reservations is a YES vote.”

2/17/2026HPassed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on JHA with Representative(s) Alcos, Amato, Matsumoto voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Garcia, Gedeon, Pierick, Shimizu voting no (4) and Representative(s) Cochran, Lee, M., Poepoe excused (3).
2/17/2026HReported from WAL (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 339-26) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to JHA.
2/10/2026HThe committee on WAL recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 7 Ayes: Representative(s) Hashem, Morikawa, Ichiyama, Woodson, Souza; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Belatti, Poepoe; 2 Noes: Representative(s) Iwamoto, Shimizu; and Excused: none.
2/6/2026HBill scheduled to be heard by WAL on Tuesday, 02-10-26 9:00AM in House conference room 411 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.
1/26/2026HReferred to WAL, JHA, referral sheet 2 (FINANCE COMMITTEE IS DELETED in 2026. FINANCE COMMITTEE DEFERRED SIMILAR BILL HB29 in 2025.)
1/26/2026HIntroduced and Pass First Reading.
1/23/2026HPending introduction.

Counties want to be the Police, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Executioner!

Leave a reply

Best-kept secret is HB29 HD1 that is being quietly pushed through at the Hawaii State Legislature.

#HB29 is getting weirder by the minute. An attorney from Ashford & Wriston representing the Hawaii Bankers Association (HBA( testified that Hawaii already has a non-judicial foreclosure for delinquent mortgages, which is true. She cited the Hawaii Revised Statutes HRS 667 on foreclosure.

So, Chair #DavidTarnas said he would incorporate the bankers’ testimony into their HB29. amendment.

But, why? It doesn’t make sense. There is NO Mortgage involved. No private property owner applied or got a mortgage from the County.

We’re talking heavy smokes and mirrors, apples and oranges here. Expectedly, Bankers can force a NON-JUDICIAL foreclosure if a private property borrower does not pay. A property owner knowingly entered into a mortgage contract with promise to pay the bank.

But with this new POWER OF SALE HB29, it’s a forced “taking”. The County wants to sell a private property — based on a County civil fine — WITHOUT going to court. EVERY private property owner becomes a sitting duck.

This is really spooky. It exposes all private property owners to the whims of the government. HB29 HD1 is a fast lane to Tyranny.

Give voice. I testified that allowing the Counties Non-Judicial POWER OF SALE – – to sell private properties based on DPP’s civil fines WITHOUT going to court – – is unconstitutional and violates the 14th US Amendment. I asked if the public can trust DPP to be the POLICE, PROSECUTOR, JUDGE, JURY, & EXECUTIONER!

You can also see the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting’s reasons for wanting more easy Powers here. Dawn Takeuchi Apana‘s excuses for this quick Power of Sale are that their existing eminent domain power is too slow and costly and the city is short-staffed.

Do we really want to trust DPP who does not respect basic Constitutional Private Property Rights?

Sort by Date Status Tex

2/5/2025 H The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 9 Ayes: Representative(s) #Tarnas, #Poepoe, #Belatti, #Hashem, #Kahaloa, #Perruso, #Takayama, #Todd;
Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) #Shimizu;
1 Noes: Representative(s) #Garcia; and
1 Excused: Representative(s) #Cochran.

1/31/2025 H Bill scheduled to be heard by JHA on Wednesday, 02-05-25 2:00PM in House conference room 325 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.

1/30/2025 H Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on JHA with Representative(s) #Alcos, #Matsumoto, #Reyes Oda voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) #Garcia, #Muraoka, #Pierick voting no (3) and Representative(s) #Cochran, #Ward excused (2).

1/30/2025 H Reported from WAL (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 20) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to JHA.

1/28/2025 H The committee on WAL recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 9 Ayes: Representative(s) #Hashem,
#Lamosao, #Ichiyama, #Iwamoto, #Morikawa, #Poepoe, #Shimizu, #Souza; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) #Belatti; Noes: none; and 1 Excused: Representative(s) #Woodson.

1/24/2025 H Bill scheduled to be heard by WAL on Tuesday, 01-28-25 9:00AM in House conference room 411 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE.

Civil Beat pseudonym Keala_Kaanui regurgitates his falsehoods about the Hauula Fire Station Relocation Project again. What’s the motive?

Leave a reply

It’s Elections Time again! Civil Beat allows Candidates to answer their questions.

Choon James’ answers to Civil Beat’s Questions & Answers can be found here.

What is puzzling is that pseudonym Keala_Kaanui, perhaps the most prolific daily commenter for Civil Beat, is allowed to continue to post fake news like this:

Keala_Kaanuii: The great irony of someone lauding the first responders, who spent a good five years trying to prevent the City from building a badly needed new fire station because she realized she could have negotiated a higher price for her vacant parcel of land after she had signed the contract. Choon forced the city to spend thousands of dollars to condem the property after she tried to back out…“

But, here is a quick summary collected by a supporter:

Hawaii Fire Station Relocation Controversy YOU-TUBE #1.

This youtube is a must to watch. Once you watch this, you will get how off-base Civil Beat pseudonym Keala_Kaanui continues to be.

The Hauula folks were authentic in their opposition towards this project. Choon James sided with the Hauula folks. There was no legal contract to sell to the City.

The Honolulu City Council deleted the budget for this project for five years. Yet Mayor Caldwell fought on. In the end, the Hauula folks even correctly predicted who the contractor was for this project.

The community of Hauula did not want a new fire station that the Laie Community Association was pushing and testifying for. Hauula felt that it was a public facility checklist for Laie to pursue more developments like Envision Laie. Public facilities like a fire station is not a profiteering project. Just like the Kahuku Police Station is not a profiteering project.

Hauula wanted to keep the two remaining Commercial-zoned parcels for Recycling and small business. They and the homeless people depended on the Recycling. The homeless would collect in the area and then buy themselves a hot meal with their profit.

“Public Use” can also be very arbitrary. In the case of the Hauula Fire Station Relocation in the rural town of Hauula. The people overwhelming were against it. But Mayor Kirk Caldwell bullied his way through despite the city council of Honolulu continuously deleted the funding.

Hawaii needs to know that Mayor Kirk Caldwell SECRETLY siphoned $1.4 Million (in August 2014) from Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds for homeless shelter renovations such as Hale Pauahi in Chinatown to “plan and design” his Neiman Marcus firehouse in rural Hauula.

The City Council had deleted and defunded the extravagant project for 5 years but Caldwell is fixated on this $13M relocation project that will not increase personnel or area of service. The relocation project will decimate the last two commercial lots that locals want to keep for Recycling as well as other business start-ups. Ironically, the homeless in Hau’ula sustain themselves by recycling daily to buy themselves a hot meal. Caldwell governs by misguided agenda, not sound public policy.

Condemnation Honolulu Style – You-Tube #2

This is another compulsory watch.

Honolulu City Council adopted Resolution to condemn two commercial lots on February 24, 2010. This process was advanced in 42 days. It’s Hau’ula today, are you next? Do you live along the Rail Transit route?

UPDATE:  The legislative Honolulu City Council has not funded the project since 2011. But Mayor Kirk Caldwell is still pursuing eminent domain by alleged necessity in court. http://www.kitv.com/news/1200-signature-petition-protests-plans-for-new-hauula-fire-station/25103002#!bmO9B4 The city ‘expert witness’ is saying they need a fire station to bring in bigger – from 8′ x 25′ to 8′ x 32′  fire engines! Hello! The garbage trucks are already having a tough time with our country roads. This is going from ‘ridiculous’ to ‘insane’.

Update: May 15, 2010 Mufi Hannemann city corporation attorneys have filed lawsuit against owners for possession of the land.. Owners have filed lawsuit against city. What a waste of taxpayers’ money in today’s budget crisis!

Update: Owners subpoenaed city officials but Mufi Hannemann’s attorneys quashed on basis that public officials are very busy; owners are a nuisance, harassing and inconveniencing these officials. Ironically, on their way home to Hauula, owners saw Bryan Mick – City Community Relations sign-waving for Mufi Hannemann in front of Nimitz City Mill at 11:34 am August 11, 201

Here’s more information:

Woman Criticizes Honolulu’s Government, Has Her Protest Signs Bulldozed

Nick Sibilla Senior Contributor Institute For Justice

Updated Sep 1, 2014, 10:36am EDT

This article is more than 10 years old.

How people respond to criticism can reveal a lot about their character.  Some might try to debate or reason with those they disagree with.  Others prefer to ignore critics.  City officials in Honolulu take a different approach: They use a bulldozer.

Choon James is a successful real estate broker with over two decades of experience in Hawaii.  But the city of Honolulu is seeking to seize property she’s owned for almost a decade to build what she calls a “super-sized” fire station in rural Hauula.

Since January 2010, she has put up signs to protest Honolulu’s use of eminent domain.  These signs declare “Eminent Domain Abuse: Who’s Next?” and “YouTube Eminent Domain Abuse—Hawaii.”  For more than three years these signs have been up without any incident.

Bulldozing Free Speech

But now the city is showing a callous disregard for Choon’s freedom of speech.  Back in May, Honolulu seized two of her eminent domain protest signs.  Without her consent, city employees went onto the property and seized and impounded her signs before damaging them. Even worse, the city slapped her with a notice for trespassing, for property she is trying to defend in court.

After these signs were torn down, Choon placed three more signs there.  These lasted just a few months before the city once again seized the signs.  This time, Honolulu was much more dramatic.  On October 18, city workers, backed by police officers, squad cars and a bulldozer, came by and literally bulldozed those protest signs.

The city’s actions show a shameful lack of respect for the First and Fourth Amendments.  Citizens have a right to protest government actions.  The First Amendment was enacted precisely to protect citizens who criticize the government from retaliation.  Lawsuits challenging Honolulu’s unreasonable seizures and chilling attacks on free speech are now pending in federal court.

Unfortunately, Honolulu is not alone in trying to silence critics who question eminent domain.  The Institute for Justice has represented citizens in St. Louis, Mo., Norfolk, Va., Tennessee, and Texas who protested abusive property seizures and faced censorship.  Out of these four cases, IJ successfully defended free speech in three cases, while the fourth is currently in litigation.

After 24 of his buildings were taken by St. Louis, Jim Roos painted a giant mural on a building he owned advocating “End Eminent Domain Abuse.”  But St. Louis labeled the mural an “illegal sign” and wanted to force Jim to remove

the sign (and stifle his right to protest) or face code violations.  He teamed up with the Institute for Justice and sued the city.  In a major win for the First Amendment, in July 2011, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jim and allowed the mural to stay up.

In a similar vein, IJ has defended grassroots activists from a frivolous defamation lawsuit and protected an investigative journalist’s right to free speech from a vindictive private developer.

More recently, the Institute for Justice is suing the city of Norfolk for trying to squash a small business owner’s eminent domain protest sign.  The Central Radio Company,

a repair shop, has been in Norfolk for almost eight decades.  But Norfolk had plans to seize the property with eminent domain for a private redevelopment project.

To protest, owner Bob Wilson displayed a huge banner on-site.  The city responded by telling Bob he had to take down the sign or face fines of up to $1,000 per day.  Fortunately, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously struck down the city’s attempt to seize Bob’s land; his free speech case is still in federal court.

As the cases make clear, courts routinely respect Americans’ First Amendment rights.  Honolulu should do the same.

Nick Sibilla

I’m a policy wonk and legal correspondent with a decade of experience analyzing and reporting on legislation and court cases. 

Outside of Forbes, my work has appeared in The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Slate, Wired, Reason, and numerous other outlets nationwide.

As Mayor, I will invite INDEPENDENT experts to re-examine the Honolulu Rail Skyline

Leave a reply

I’m  originally from Singapore and I appreciate efficient multi-modal transportation. 

My trusted friend Natalie Iwasa, CPA and Certified Fraud Examiner, and I have been participating and observing City Hall for the last two decades. We know the good, the bad and the ugly.

​We must stop the social media games and be honest with the Public.

Status Quo will not cut it.

The Rail Skyline is out of control.

If we do not control and reset these project costs, our children will pay for today’s mistakes.

As Mayor, I will do the following:

Every one is coming from a good place. I will gather all stakeholders, including City Council and HART back to the round table to analyze this project. INDEPENDENT experts in contracts, legal, costs-analysis, engineering, budget, environment, cultural, and others will be invited.

The public will have its say in this much needed reassessment. 

Should HART be dissolved? 

Should Rail Skyline be under the Transportation Department?

​There will be no sacred cows; no tail wagging the dogs. There will be no hiding behind or blaming the FTA. FTA is not the monster or the Wizard of Oz behind the curtains. FTA is here to help and respect State Rights. 

There should be no managing Rail Skyline through Public Relations handlers and insulting the Public Intelligence from the Mayor’s Office.

​I have zero donations from lobbyists or PACs. I can be 100% independent to question the project with independent industry experts.

​Together with all stakeholders and Oahu residents, we can decide the most pragmatic solutions for Oahu.