I had a meeting in Honolulu and was hungry. I found myself in one of those Chinatown little shops.
I ordered a “chicken-rice” plate.
Out came a plate with white rice and half of a chicken that literally looked like a rubber chicken. The skin was an old yellow color that those who are familiar with chicken will understand what I’m talking about.
I took a bite and could not take a second. Those who know me know that I’m not a fussy eater at all. I pretty much eat anything. I love cafeteria food during my college years because I was happy I didn’t have to cook or wash dishes. So, this dish was really bad.
So, I quickly ordered another dish. This time, it was a noodle bowl.
I took the chicken dish home and threw it away.
Sometimes I think there is no need to make a fuss about everything. Everyone is trying to make a living. Food is not so important that it has to become a tit for tat.
When a waitress brings me a wrong dish. I’m ok with it too. Why create a fuss? There are more important things in life.
Facebook posts don’t have to be about just about food and events. I thought this was a very helpful share from a friend.
Hawaii has morphed into a very expensive place to live with the average price of a single family at $1M. There are more Hawaiians living out of Hawaii than here. There are a lot of frustrations and angst, and rightly so.
Perhaps the saddest thing I’ve heard from my years of community advocacy is this phrase from a Hawaiian: ” You can go home to your homeland but we have no place to return to. This is our homeland.”
” While looking for something else, I came across this law from 1850, prohibiting natives from leaving Hawai’i due to a concern of population loss. It puts into perspective the recent discussions on the exact same issue.” Jonathan Scheuer
Read the 2012 Commission Report of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection (MACLS). Particularly, read the Minority Report by John B Goody on Page 47. “The revised site rankings were astounding, and seem to defy common sense.”
Kailua, Waianae, Kapolei, Waianae have all staked their grounds that they don’t want landfills in their areas.
” The consultant compiling statistics for Mayor Peter Carlisle’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection said Wednesday it had made a big mistake. On Friday, just five days ago, the committee announced Kailua as the top ranked location for a new landfill. Its announcement was based on data compiled by SMS Research, a Honolulu firm hired by the city.
But in fact SMS President Jim Dannemiller said Wednesday he had made an “inadvertent data error” while compiling numbers provided by the advisory committee. The mistake changes the positions of almost all eleven potential landfill sites on the site selection list.
A site described as “Upland Kahuku 2” was seventh on the list released Friday. Now it is the new #1. “Upland Kahuku 1,” which is adjacent to “Upland Kahuku 2” is second on the revised list.
The Ameron Quarry moved from first on Friday’s list to fifth on the revised list.
Here is the new updated list released Wednesday afternoon.
REQUESTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO EVALUATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ACT 73, SESSION LAWS OF HAWAII 2020, THE ELEVEN SITES PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY CITY STUDIES AS POTENTIAL REPLACEMENTS FOR THE WAIMANALO GULCH SANITARY LANDFILL AND ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL WAIMANALO GULCH SANITARY LANDFILL REPLACEMENT SITES, INCLUDING LANDS HELD BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS IN KALAELOA.
The City and County of Honolulu (“City”) Department of Environmental Services (“ENV”) has begun identifying potential sites for its next municipal solid waste landfill. To help discern potential sites, ENV formed a Landfill Advisory Committee (“LAC”) to evaluate the sites identified to meet current State regulations. The LAC process is documented in the Final Report.
Social media can’t be all that bad. this is funny. Potholes are every where here in Hawaii.
It’s a mystery why we spend millions of dollars each year and we continue to have such problems. Mind you, we don’t even have to deal with snow or de-icing.
It I have my rathers, I would insist that there are warranties to these jobs. Companies must be confident enough of their work to provide a 5-year warranty. If there are potholes, the company has to fix their work within a week at its own expense.
Bill 21, authored by City Councilman Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, asks for changes to the City County Housing Code to be consistent with the International Building Code (IBC) that allows windowless (no natural light and ventilation) housing units.
Santos-Tam, a construction industry lobbyist, said that the county needs to build 25,000 housing units and thus “optionality” is necessary in housing development. The statement begs many questions as to who these units are for and do we want Oahu to follow other countries’ values and standards. Is this about helping developers or is this about meeting the needs of our local residents?
Below is an excellent example of a local government worker with lots of expertise and experience standing up for the public good, rather than developers. Michael O Silva, speaking as a private citizen, should be commended for speaking up. His testimony is free from self-interests but filled with common sense and aloha for the ordinary local residents. Read the testimonies here.
Listen to Bill 21 here. It starts around the 1:46 mark.
46-A Authority to enter private property; zoning violation. (a) Notwithstanding chapter 322, a county planning or permitting agency may enter privately owned residential real property, without the consent or cooperation of the owner or occupant of the real property, for the purpose of investigating any condition on the premises that the officer reasonably believes may constitute a violation of any county zoning ordinance, rule, or regulation that:
On Page 4, it continues:
§46-B Penalties for unaddressed zoning violations. The penalties for a violation of any county zoning ordinance, rule, or regulation shall be as follows, regardless of whether a county planning or permitting agency’s investigation was conducted without the owner’s or occupant’s consent or cooperation pursuant to section 46-A(a) or by other means:
(1) An owner of real property who fails to remediate all conditions that gave rise to issuance of the notice of violation, to the agency’s satisfaction and within the agency’s specified time frame, shall be assessed by the agency a fine of not less than $1,000 for each day the violation persists;
(2) If fines assessed to the owner of real property exceed $5,000, then the notice of violation shall constitute a lien upon the real property within thirty days; and
(3) If within thirty days of receiving notice of the lien, the owner of real property fails to: (A) Satisfy the lien specified in paragraph (2); and (B) Commence and diligently conduct remediation of all conditions that gave rise to issuance of the notice of violation, to the agency’s satisfaction, then the applicable county planning or permitting agency shall commence foreclosure proceedings, judicial or nonjudicial, on the real property without delay.”
Good public policies are vetted carefully in an over-arching manner. They must be rooted within the parameters of the US Constitution that have served us well for 235 years.
There are some very troublesome bills – SB875, HB15. HB538, HB106, SB216, HB 498 that are introduced this 2023 session.
The language may vary in these Bills but the core violation is the taking of private property based on civil fines, without providing the judicial court process. It’s not about the market value or the balance of the sold property loot.
I get it that certain politicians are hoping for easier and quicker penalties like non-judicial foreclosures. But to think that the counties can seize private property based on civil fines is misguided. We can’t have knee-jerk legislation just because we want to punish some “egregious” private property owners or to create a new source of income revenues.
Counties cannot become the in-house Police, Prosecutor, Jury, Judge, and Executioner.
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it best in one of her last Opinions for the US Supreme Court in Timbs vs Indiana relating to excessive CIVIL fines and Due Process. Below are some of jurist RBG’s excerpts to all of us from the grave:
“This Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the protections contained in the Bill of Rights, rendering them applicable to the States.”
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties. Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies, as the Stuarts’ critics learned several centuries ago.”
” Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming.”
“Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed “in a measure out ofaccord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence,” for “fines are asource of revenue,”
” In short, the historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming. Protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions secured by the Clause is, to repeat, both “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Keep in mind the counties already have “Judicial Foreclosure” and “Eminent Domain” powers in place. But the justification is that these processes take too long.
In other words, these bills will allow the counties to be the Police, Prosecutor, Jury, Judge, and Executioner. The Judicial Due Process will be cut off.
We’re asked who started these non-judicial foreclosure bills to forced sale of a private property, based on the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) fines, without going to court.
Here are some quick answers:
It originated in 2022 as HB 1434 with Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi. Keep it mind that this Power of Sale requests applied to ALL Counties in Hawaii. Based on my observations of him, it’s unlikely that this non-judicial Power of Sale idea originated from Blangiardi unless he’s hoping for a new stream of revenues from fines and sale of properties.
If I have to take a guess, it would be his Managing Director Mike Formby, formerly with the Pacific Resource Partnership (PRP) or former Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) Director Dean Uchida.
The time line provided in this bill is too unrealistic. It assumes that DPP is 100% efficient. In actual fact, it takes a very long time to get a permit. Some permits take a much longer time because it may need a shoreline certified shoreline. This could easily take six months to complete.
As part of the 2022 county package to state legislators, Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi requested “nonjudicial foreclosure” powers, i.e., the power to seize private property without going to court. Fortunately, House Bill 1434 did not pass last year.
This year’s package includes another request for “nonjudicial foreclosure,” aka “power of sale.” 2023HB 106 BELOW represents an alarming threat to property owners and is prevalent in totalitarian regimes.
This year’s HB 106 offers weak assurance that “a county may, after all notices, orders, and appeal proceedings are exhausted, satisfy all unpaid civil fines through the power of sale on the real property subject to a recorded lien.”
Unfortunately, our years of civic participation at Honolulu Hale show that due process has not always been fair and equitable to ordinary residents.
Furthermore, recent federal indictments and guilty pleas continue to show the troubledHonolulu Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) has no consistent record of fair play or efficient management. Written testimonies reveal alarming threats toward private property rights.
Dawn Takeuchi Apana, DPP director designate, stated: “Specifically, this bill would authorize the city to bring closure to pending civil fines imposed on landowners who are in violation of the city’s land use ordinances and building codes, through a nonjudicial or administrative process.”
Honolulu City Councilman Calvin Sayalso submitted testimony for a quicker seizure: “Our city corporation counsel is currently able to initiate a Judicial Foreclosure process, which has been successful in similar instances, however this is a long process that takes valuable resources away from other pressing legal matters.”
In other words, give us the authorization to hurry it up by bypassing the regular court method of foreclosure.
The House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs, whose members include Chairman David Tarnas and Vice Chair Gregg Takayama, approved HB 106 on Jan. 31. Its report states in part:
“Your committee finds that authorizing the counties to collect on liens filed on properties through a nonjudicial foreclosure process provides some leverage over property owners to comply or lose their property. If a property owner fails to comply and the property is foreclosed upon, this measure would enable the property to be put to productive use, allow liens attached to the property to be satisfied, and stop the accrual of additional debt or taxes on the property.”
Hawaii’s state legislators should recognize that most ordinary residents sacrifice and work their tails off to achieve real property ownership. Each county’s goal should be to help property owners comply with the law and correct their violations, not summarily seize their properties.
HB 106 invites corruption and exposes residents, especially those who have fewer financial resources available to them, as easy casualties of this potential power of sale. All Hawaii counties would be affected.
It should be noted the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Feb. 20, 2019 (Timbs vs Indiana), that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines — civil asset forfeitures are a type of fine — applies to state and local governments, thus limiting their ability to use fines to raise revenue.
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also astutely argued fines could be used to retaliate against political enemies and had been used as a source to raise revenue.
Hawaii has a few egregious property owners, but this tyrannical bill is not the solution. We urge our legislators to vote “no” on HB 106.
AUTHORS:Natalie Iwasa is a CPA and certified fraud examiner; Choon James is a residential Realtor and farmer.They have spent combined decades of civic participation at Honolulu Hale as community advocates for good governance.
At the end of the October 20, 2022 Planning and Zoning Committee, Chair Tommy Waters told the public to pay more attention saying that the Bill 10 was introduced on February 3, 2022.
Funny thing I was just thinking that even the single – vacation rental – issue took years to reach a conclusion.
With the vacation rental issue alone, after years of acrimony during the Caldwell Administration, the new Blangiardi overhauled Bill 89 and came up with a new Bill 41 aka Ordinance 22-7. Presently, there is a District Court Preliminary Injunction Order on October 3, 2022.
Why would the public be so alarmed with Bill 10 at this stage?
Could it possibly be that the City Council members did not provide sufficient disclosure, education and outreach on this very sweeping and significant Bill that overhauls Oahu’s land use ordinance?
Seriously, how many city council members have read through the entire 239 pages approved and submitted to them by the Honolulu Planning Commission?
After the Second Reading of Bill 10 on September 26, 2022, two city council members felt the need to host informational town hall meetings for this Bill.
District 1 Andria Tupola hosted an hour Zoom meeting on October 19, 2022. It could have gone on for another two hours to work out amendments in the Ramseyer format.
District 3 Esther Kia’aina said she would host a town hall meeting on November 10. But it would be only on the Agricultural section.
If we watch the Bill 10 proceedings video here, we will note that ONLY amendments that were submitted by ONLY the City Council members were accepted or not accepted by the Council Planning Chair. Other various suggestions and concerns by the public appear to be lost in the pile of oral and written testimonies.
Inevitably, there is a whole lot of reading. Contrary to what the Chair may say, there are a lot of substantial changes to the Land Use Ordinances (LUO). It’s not just an update.
Add to this commotion is the public mistrust that this omnibus Bill is so huge that there may be changes slipped into the documents. The contents are also complicated and technical. This is not a bill to ban fireworks. This is a bill on how the city will control and regulate the lifestyle and communities of Oahu. The public is wary that does not have the time or resources to comb through it line by line.
CC-230(22) – ELEFANTE – Bill 10 (2022) Relating to Use Regulations.
CC-237(22) – TUPOLA – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-241(22) – WATERS – Proposed amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-249(22) – ELEFANTE – Proposed additional amendments to Bill 10 (2022).
CC-250(22) – ELEFANTE – Disclosure of Interest Statement for Bill 10 (2022). FILE
CC-268(22) – ELEFANTE – Bill 10 CD1 (2022), Relating to Use Regulations.
CC-273(22) – TUPOLA – Proposed amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-274(22) – KIAʻĀINA – Bill 10 CD2 (2022), Relating to Use Regulations.
CC-275(22) – WATERS – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-276(22) – CORDERO – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-280(22) – TSUNEYOSHI – Proposed amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-281(22) – WATERS – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-286(22) – ELEFANTE – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-295(22) – SAY – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD1.
CC-296(22) – ELEFANTE – Proposed additional amendments to Bill 10, CD1 (2022).
CC-297(22) – ELEFANTE – Disclosure of Interest Statement on Bill 10 (22), CD1. File
CC-298(22) – ELEFANTE – Disclosure of Interest Statement on Bill 10 (22), CD1. File
CC-305(22) – ELEFANTE – Bill 10 CD2 (2022), Relating to Use Regulations.
CC-309(22) – WATERS – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD2.
CC-310(22) – TUPOLA – Proposed amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD2.
CC-311(22) – ELEFANTE – Proposed Additional Amendments to BILL 10, CD1 (2022).
CC-313(22) – WATERS – Proposed Amendments to Bill 10 (2022), CD2
CC-314(22) – ELEFANTE – Disclosure of Interest Statement for Bill 10 (22), CD1. FILE
CC-315(22) – ELEFANTE – Disclosure of Interest Statement for Bill 10 (22), CD1. FILE
CC-316(22) – ELEFANTE – Zoning and Planning Chair’s Recommendations on Proposed Additional Amendments to BILL 10, CD2 (2022).
CC-319(22) – TUPOLA – United States Court of Appeals Opinion 47.
CC-320(22) – ELEFANTE – Disclosure of Interest Statement for Bill 10 (2022). FILE
CC-321(22) – ELEFANTE – Disclosure of Interest Statement for Bill 10 (2022). FILE
D-0074(22) – PLANNING COMMISSION – Draft Bill to Request Amendments to Chapter 21, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH), 1990 Land Use Ordinance (LUO), Relating to Use Regulations.
D-0127(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Request for Extension of Time for Processing Bill 10 (2022) Relating to Use Regulations.
D-0130(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Testimony in Support of Bill 10 (2022) Relating to Use Regulations.
D-0269(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Additional summary information for Bill 10 (2022).
D-0273(22) – Presentation on Bill 10 (2022) for 04/21/22 Zoning and Planning meeting.
D-0532(22) – KAILUA NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD NO. 31 – Recommendations Pertaining to the Proposed Land Use Ordinance (LUO) Chapter 21 Changes Proposed by Bill 10 (2022) for the July 14, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting..
D-0576(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Departmental Response to Proposed Amendments in Bill 10, CD1 (2022) Relating to Use Regulations Chapter 21, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu Land Use Ordinance (LUO).
D-0583(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Departmental Response to Councilmember Questions Bill 10, CD1 (2022) Relating to Use Regulations In the B-1 and B-2 Business Districts, Chapter 21, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu – Land Use Ordinance (LUO)
D-0622(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Presentation on briefing item #10 for the August 25, 2022 @ 09:00 AM Zoning And Planning meeting.
D-0658(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Request for Second Extension of Time for Processing Bill 10 (2022) Relating to Use Regulations.
D-0699(22) – PLANNING AND PERMITTING – Response to questions from the Committee on Zoning and Planning Special Meeting on September 26, 2022.
MM-162(22) – CLIMATE CHANGE, SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCY – Bill 10 (2022), CD1 Relating to Use Regulations.
M-0058(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Feb 23, 2022 @ 10:00 AM Council Meeting.
M-0069(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for March 3, 2022 @ 09:00 AM Zoning and Planning Meeting.
M-0156(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Apr 21, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting.
M-0280(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Jul 14, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting.
M-0286(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Jul 14, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting.
M-0324(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Aug 25, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting.
M-0339(22) – HAWAII STATE ENERGY OFFICE – Testimony on BILL010(22) for August 25, 2022@ 09:00 AM Zoning and Planning Meeting.
M-0346(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for August 25, 2022@ 09:00 AM Zoning and Planning Meeting.
M-0351(22) – Testimony on Bill 10 (2022) for 08/25/22 @ 9:00 AM Zoning and Planning meeting.
M-0370(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for September 7, 2022 @ 10:00 AM Council Meeting.
M-0373(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for September 7, 2022 @ 10:00 AM COUNCIL Meeting.
M-0387(22) – Testimony on Bill 10 (2022), CD1 for September 26, 2022 @ 9:00 AM Zoning and Planning Special Meeting
M-0411(22) – Testimony on Bill 10 (2022), CD1 for September 26, 2022 @ 9:00 AM Zoning and Planning Special Meeting.
M-0417(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Sep 26, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting.
M-0450(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Oct 20, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting.
M-0460(22) – Testimony on BILL010(22) for Oct 20, 2022 @ 09:00 AM ZONING AND PLANNING Meeting.