Tag Archives: Mayor Rick Blangiardi

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

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

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.

Who’s behind these non-judicial Power of Sale bills?

UPDATE: SB 875 & HB 15 are speeding on. ( HB 538 is quite similar.)

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.

Five (5) City Council members, known as the Gang of 5, also submitted testimony – Chair Tommy Waters, Esther Kia’iana, Brandon Elefante, Calvin Say, and Radiant Cordera.

What were the underlying motives?

Fortunately, Bill 1434 failed to pass last year.

I was in the same Mayoral campaign with Rick Blangiardi in 2020. Based on my observations and
his words, he had very shallow understanding about Honolulu City Hall workings.

This year 2023, Mayor Blangiardi is back with HB 106 and SB 216 by request to Senate President Ron Kouchi and House Speaker Scott Saiki.

However, presto! The tactics have changed a bit this year. There are five (5) clone bills with the same agenda speeding through.

Google Searches show no county mayors, state legislators or city council members appear to have warned Hawaii about this draconian assault on private properties.

Here are the rest of the three (3) bills.

SB875 is introduced by Senators Stanley Chang, Donovan Dela Cruz and Sharon Moriwaki. This bill is alive and has crossed over on March 7, 2023.

This time around, written testimonies come from only Honolulu City Council former Budget Chair Calvin Say and DPP Director Dawn Takeuchi Apuna.

Companion Bill HB498 is introduced by Representative Jackson Sayama.

HB 15 is introduced by Representative David Tarnas (D) It has no senate companion bill but it has crossed over on March 7, 2023.

HB538 is another similar one that includes judicial or non-judicial foreclosure. It is introduced by MATAYOSHI, BELATTI, HASHIMOTO, HOLT, KILA, KITAGAWA, LAMOSAO, MARTEN, NISHIMOTO, TAKENOUCHI, TARNAS, Chun.

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.

Hawaii State Legislature quietly overturning basic civil rights

UPDATE: SB875 & HB15 are speeding through at the State Capitol. Caveat: There may be more clone bills of this same agenda. I can’t keep up.

It’s a zoo at the State Capitol. Bills are flying off the tables. I don’t see how these 3,123 bills can be carefully vetted and thoroughly deliberated in such a short time.

There are at least five (5) clone bills allowing Hawaii counties to have non-judicial Power of Sale of private properties, based on county civil fines, WITHOUT going to court. This means no checks and balances in our Democracy.

These proposed actions violate many constitutional liberties. Due Process, that includes having your day in court, is fundamental to basic Civil Rights. Even prisoners on death-row have more judicial Due Process than these bills.

Even if we emotionally hate some egregious property owners, we cannot tear down the Cathedral of civil rights to fry a few bad eggs. There are other enforcement options for the counties already in place.

None of the legislators I’ve talked with knew about these far-reaching proposed Power of Sale bills.

Below are the CLONE BILLS that give all Hawaii counties non-judicial power of sale. Honolulu County reiterates that it already has “Judicial Foreclosure” and “Eminent Domain” powers but these processes take too long:

SB875 Introduced by Senators Stanley Chang, Donovan Dela Cruz & Sharon Moriwaki.

HB15 Introduced by Representative David Tarnas

HB106 Introduced by HOUSE SPEAKER SCOTT SAIKI (Introduced by request of another party – Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi.)

SB216 SENATE PRESIDENT RONALD KOUCHI (Introduced by request of another party – Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi.)

HB498 Introduced by Representative Jackson Sayama.

Give Voice Now!

Email: sens@capitol.hawaii.gov, reps@capitol.hawaii.gov,

OPPOSE SB875, HB15, HB106, SB216, HB498. Don’t overturn our basic civil rights. Allowing Hawaii counties to have non-judicial Power of Sale, based on county civil fines, WITHOUT going to court violates Due Process, There will be no checks and balances in our Democracy.

Call them now:

Senate: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/legislature/legislators.aspx?chamber=S

House: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/legislature/legislators.aspx?chamber=H

Bill 106 threatens private property owners

This is a reprint from the Star Advertiser published February 15, 2023. The limit for Star Advertiser was 600 words. For educational purposes, we’re adding more info through links and photos.

EDITORIAL | ISLAND VOICES

Column: Bill threatens private property owners

  • By Choon James and Natalie Iwasa
  • Today 
  • Updated 7:19 pm

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.” 2023 HB 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 troubled Honolulu 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 Say also 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.”

Chairman David Tarnas and Vice Chair Gregg Takayama, approved HB 106 on Jan. 31. 2023

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.

RBG was a tireless and resolute champion of justice.

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.

REJECT HB 106: Authorizes a county to proceed with a power of sale on real property subject to city fines.

The City and County of Honolulu is asking to have POWER of SALE on Oahu’s property owners based on DPP liens. Bill 106 will affect ALL Counties.

JHA 1/31/23 2:00 PM Tuesday
325 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE

BILL 106 and companion SB 216 may sound harmless in an ideal world with perfect fairness and equity and justice for all.

But in real life, these bills are too over-reaching and will further marginalize Private Property Rights. 

Bill 106 slams Due Process for ordinary citizens. There are systemic failures of discrimination, inequity, and entrenched bureaucracy at Honolulu Hale. This Power of Sale will expose every property owner to the possible whim of politicians, government officials and its powerful political machine. 

Although there is supposedly a fair “process” in place, our decades of participating at Honolulu Hale and the records have shown otherwise. Repeatedly we have witnessed that this same “process” has been unfair and inequitable to ordinary citizens. No matter how thin the cheese is sliced, there are always two sides to it. But the government almost always wins because it has the upper-hand, resources and a legal corporate team to ignore or fight ordinary citizens.

Most ordinary citizens are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They work their tails off to achieve real property ownership. The County’s role ought to be helping property owners correct their violations and be in compliance; not be too eager to seize private properties through fines. 

Unfortunately, the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) does not have a consistent and good record. This is no way to live in a Democracy where Big Brother and its long arm of government continues to become more powerful and subvert Due Process due its citizen.

This POWER of SALE is NOT about a mortgage company foreclosing based on non-payments of a borrower. This is about the government seizing properties, based on DPP fines.

There is an alleged reason or justification that this Power of Sale is needed to enforce “monster homes” or “illegal vacation rentals”.

The isolated problems with monster homes and illegal vacation rentals are not compelling enough to provide counties with this unfettered powers. DPP needs to examine why monster homes are approved for permits in the first place. There was a time when a property owner could only build up to 50% of its land area. Incrementally, the city has approved regulations and ordinances that allow increased density in its land-use legislation.

As a matter of public policy making and with a bigger picture, providing all counties with this Power of Sale for the above alleged reason is akin to tearing down a Cathedral to fry an egg.

Ordinary citizens cannot afford expensive legal representation to make sure their side of the story is heard and fairly considered in the legislative decision-making.

Affluent and well-connected citizens have the means to circumvent DPP. Ordinary citizens will become the casualties of this powerful and overreaching legislation.

This Power of Sale (aka Non-judicial Foreclosure) is overreaching and tyrannical. This Power of Sale authority makes every property owner a sitting duck at the whim of the city.

Basing a POWER of SALE ( aka NON-Judicial Foreclosure) through DPP fines and recorded liens is the worst possible exposure for more corruption and possible political retaliation.  

The City and County of Honolulu requested this same power aka “non-judicial foreclosure” in 2022. 

Please read the 2022 written testimonies that provide a very brief summary of this issue. This far-reaching governmental power will affect all Counties but it was one of the best-kept secrets in 2022. It is the same in 2023.

Please protect Due Process and protect private property rights. As if Eminent Domain is insufficient for the government, the Honolulu County is again asking for a quick Power of Sale aka non-judicial foreclosure.

This governmental power is too much to bear in a democratic society. Private Property Rights must be revered as one of Democracy’s foundational pillars. The counties have other options.

Honolulu Planning Commission does not represent mainstream Oahu’s interests

Board and Commissions are meant to provide another level of independent grassroots experiences and understanding to the political decision-makers. However, many of these major Boards have become an extension of the politicians and made up of the lobbyists, political donors, trade industries and legal Oligarchy.

We’re not placing a judgment on the nominated members. They are not elected to represent the people although there are basic requisites and Standards of Conduct expected. But we’re placing the judgment on the Mayors and the City Council members who are the elected decision-makers expected to watch out for the overall public good and public interest.

Is there fairness or a diversified representation of Oahu’s population in these nomination and appointment process? The City Council should not be simply a rubber-stamp of the Office of the Mayor.

This is the Planning Commission that recently reviewed Bill 10 to significantly amend Oahu’s Land Use Ordinances. Bill 10 became controversial because many residents are expressing grave concerns about the lack of grassroots participation.

Here are the members as of this writing:

Brian Lee was appointed by Mayor Kirk Caldwell. Affiliations: Hawaii Laborers & Employers Cooperation and Education Trust Fund. Hawaii LECET -Executive Director
Intnl. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -Director of Research & Communications
Hawaii Construction Industry Association -Executive Director

Ryan Kamo was appointed by Mayor Kirk Caldwell. Affiliations: Design Partners Incorporated.

Hilarie Alomar was appointed by Mayor Rick Blangiardi. Affiliations: Kamehameha Schools – Commercial Real Estate Division, TOWNSCAPE INC.

Melissa May was appointed by Mayor Rick Blangiardi. Affiliations: SSFM International, SSFM International (2013-present) – Senior Planner, Associate Hawaii Fashion Incubator (2006-2017) – Co-founder Group 70 International (2012-2013) – Planner
Lumen Solar LLC (2010-2013)

Ken Hayashida was re-appointed by Mayor Kirk Caldwell in 2019. Affiliations: KAI Hawaii. lnc.-Structural Engineers.

Nathaniel Kinney was appointed by Mayor Rick Blangiardi. Affiliations: Executive Director, Hawaii Construction Alliance. Served on the Honolulu Fire Commission.

Pane Meatoga III was appointed by Mayor Rick Blangiardi. Affiliations: Hawaii Operating Engineers Industry Stabilization Fund, Community Liaison. Polynesian Cultural Center Marketing Manager. He’s in the process of being re-appointed in 2022 as of this writing.

Kai Nani Kraut was appointed by Mayor Rick Blangiardi. Afiliations: QRSE, LLC -Environmental consulting with DTS. Design of projects that require permitting through
DPP. HDR, Inc, Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit Project (HRTP), Sun Edison WindFarm, Honolulu County Deputy Director of Transportation,

Responsibilities and scope of Planning Commission

The Honolulu Planning Commission website says this:

  • Advises the Mayor, County Council, and Planning Director in matters concerning planning programs.
  • Reviews amendments to the General Plan, Development Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and State Land Use district boundaries of 15 acres or less, and after public hearings, transmits findings and recommendations to the County Council for consideration and action.
  • Acts as the authority for the City on State Special Use Permits.

The Honolulu City Charter description of the Planning Commission says this on page 65:

Section 6-1506. Powers, Duties and Functions —
The planning commission shall:

(a) Advise the mayor, council and the director of planning and permitting on
matters concerning the planning programs.
(b) Hold public hearings and make recommendations on all proposals to adopt
or amend the general plan, development plans, and zoning ordinances. The
commission shall complete its review and transmit its recommendations
through the mayor to the council for consideration and action in a timely
manner.
(c) Perform such other related duties as may be necessary to fulfill its
responsibilities under this charter or as may be assigned by the mayor or the
council.
(1998 General Election Charter Amendment Question No. 1(III))

References: Are the appointments contributing to these expectations and ideals for Honolulu’s Boards and Commissions? Is there diversification and a fair representation across Oahu’s population?

ARTICLE XI –
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.

Section 11-101. Declaration of Policy — ( Page 101)
Elected and appointed officers and employees shall demonstrate by their
example the highest standards of ethical conduct, to the end that the public may
justifiably have trust and confidence in the integrity of government. They, as agents
of public purpose, shall hold their offices or positions for the benefit of the public,
shall recognize that the public interest is their primary concern, and shall faithfully
discharge the duties of their offices regardless of personal considerations.

Section 11-104. Fair and Equal Treatment — (page 103)
Elected or appointed officers or employees shall not use their official positions to
secure or grant special consideration, treatment, advantage, privilege or exemption to
themselves or any person beyond that which is available to every other person.
(Reso. 83-357)

Omnibus Bill 10 (22) Proposed Amendments – What is Transfer of Development?

Bill 10 was introduced for First Reading on February 23, 2022 Agenda on page 15. Relating to use regulations. (Addressing the regulation of
uses throughout Chapter 21, Revised Ordinances of
Honolulu 1990 (“Land Use Ordinance”).

The proposed amendments are far-reaching. But it’s a very technical piece of document that covers 239 pages. Bill 10 (22) includes the following:

BILL 10 (2022)
RELATING TO USE REGULATIONS.
PART I. BRIEF SUMMARY BY SUBJECT MATTER

  1. Transfer of development. The agreement running with the land for all donor and
    receiving zoning lots must remain in effect for a minimum of 60 years (instead of
    30 years). Clarifies that for the transfer of development (floor area only) from a
    donor zoning lot with a historic site to a receiving zoning lot, or for the transfer of
    development (floor area or number of dwelling units only) from a donor zoning lot
    within the special management area to a receiving zoning lot, all other
    requirements and standards applicable to the receiving zoning lot and its
    underlying zoning district remain in effect.

What is the above proposed LUO amendment about?

Is the longer version below of “Transfer of development” easier to understand for the public?