feed2js_ck = true;

document.write('<div class="rss-box">');
document.write('<ul class="rss-items">');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/02/lawmakers-want-more-transparency-about-prosecutors-charging-decisions/" target="_self">Lawmakers Want More Transparency About Prosecutors’ Charging Decisions</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:01:35 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('In the wake of Hawaii’s biggest corruption scandal in history, lawmakers are proposing that county prosecutors be required to collect and publish data about criminal defendants and how they make their charging decisions. House Bill 2749 was in large part prompted by the sweeping federal investigation that led to the convictions of Katherine Kealoha, a former Honolulu deputy prosector, and her husband Louis Kealoha, the former Honolulu police chief. The case has also entangled Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro, who has been on paid leave since March after receiving a target letter in the federal investigation. “The intent of the bill is generally to bring more transparency to the process in prosecutor’s offices to make sure the public can have faith and confidence that the right people are being prosecuted,” said House Judiciary Committee Chair Chris Lee, sponsor of the legislation. At the same time, it would protect prosecutors from “unfair misconceptions,” he said. House Judiciary Chair Chris Lee says he wants to “make sure the public can have faith and confidence that the right people are being prosecuted.”Cory Lum/Civil Beat The bill states that prosecutors are the “most powerful actors in the criminal justice system.” Prosecutors are in charge of deciding whether to charge people and with what crimes, and their decisions have a “lasting impact on people accused of crime, victims, families, communities and Hawaii’s economy.” If passed, the bill would require a prosecutor’s office to collect and publish data about a defendant’s race, gender, disability status, where they were arrested, whether diversion was offered, bail or bond information, pleas offered and substance abuse history screening, among other things. It would also require the state Criminal Justice Research Institute to collect that data from all the prosecuting attorneys’ offices and publish that data online every year, as well as producing an annual report. Contact Key Lawmakers House Judiciary Committee Chairman Chris Lee  replee@Capitol.hawaii.gov 808-586-9450 Additionally, the bill would require the governor to establish a prosecutorial transparency advisory board. During the last few years as the case against the Kealohas and five HPD officers unfolded, there were a lot of questions raised about whether or not cases were being fairly handled in prosecutors’ offices, Lee said.   “In general, everybody supports more transparency and everyone stepped up to try to improve the process,” he said. “The question is how it’s done and logistically, what makes sense.” A Burden For Prosecutors Although the bill has gained widespread support from various civil rights and advocacy organizations across the state, prosecutors from all four counties voiced concerns about it. While they all agreed that prosecutorial transparency serves the public interest, they each wrote in their comments to the committee that complying with the bill’s mandate would require additional staff. None of the offices submitted opposition letters, but Maui County Prosecutor Don Guzman said he was in “strong opposition” to the bill. “This bill creates an unfunded state mandate with an effective date of July 1, 2020 without any significant consultation with the affected agencies,” Guzman wrote in his letter to the House Judiciary Committee. Proposed legislation would require county prosecutors to publish a range of information about the background of defendants. Those concerns were not ignored, Lee said. Legislators got together with stakeholders and narrowed down the data points from more than 50 to 11. The point, he said, was to make sure that the maximum amount of transparency is secured while minimizing the burden for the prosecutor’s offices that have to provide the data. The bill was developed by a national policy expert as a way to increase transparency around prosecutorial decision-making nationwide, said Mandy Fernandes, policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, which supports the bill. Similar laws have passed in Florida, Colorado and Arizona, according to a national ACLU report on prosecutorial transparency. “As taxpayers, we should have the right to know what’s going on,” she said. “We should know the rationale behind their decision-making.” Data collection could enable policymakers to start effectively targeting decades-old problems, such as the disproportionately high numbers of Native Hawaiian inmates in the prison system, she said. Right now, without the data, policymakers and advocates don’t really understand where the problem starts so they can’t effectively address the problem, she added. “To make good policy first we need to start with information,” Fernandes said. “We can’t have information if the prosecutors are operating in secrecy.” The bill passed through the Judiciary Committee last week by a 7-0 vote and has been referred to the House Finance Committee. The post Lawmakers Want More Transparency About Prosecutors’ Charging Decisions appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/02/tulsi-gabbard-continues-to-spend-heavily-on-long-shot-presidential-bid/" target="_self">Tulsi Gabbard Continues To Spend Heavily On Long-Shot Presidential Bid</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:01:32 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('WASHINGTON — Despite poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, there’s no indication U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is ready to give up her presidential ambitions. The Hawaii congresswoman has already hosted a series of events in South Carolina, Virginia and Maine to try to whip up support for her campaign, which by most accounts is struggling to stay afloat. Gabbard raised $12.6 million in 2019, but that’s far behind other more viable candidates in the field, including former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard speaks at a town hall in Greenland, New Hampshire, as part of her presidential campaign.Nick Grube/Civil Beat Even entrepreneur Andrew Yang, who dropped out of the race last week, has pulled in more money than Gabbard. Despite the long odds, Gabbard’s campaign is continuing to call on her supporters to give the congresswoman more money. So far she’s already spent millions of dollars, and, if she continues, is primed to spend millions more even if her chance at winning the nomination is extremely slim. Gabbard’s campaign did not respond to requests for interviews for this story. Civil Beat took a look at how Gabbard’s campaign has spent its money so far based on available Federal Election Commission records detailing expenditures from Jan. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31. Here’s some of what we found: Almost A Half Million To Stehekin Gabbard’s campaign continues to funnel money to a vendor based in Stehekin, Washington, a remote mountain village only accessible by foot, horseback, ferry or float plane. Kris Robinson and his company, Northwest Digital, were paid nearly $490,000 by Gabbard’s campaign in 2019 for website management, internet advertising and polling. There are no roads to Stehekin. One of the few options to get into the valley include horseback.Nick Grube/Civil Beat Outside of Google, Facebook and iHeart Media, that makes Northwest Digital the campaign’s top paid vendor despite the fact Robinson has almost no political experience. Records show Gabbard is the only federal candidate Robinson or his company have worked for. Like Gabbard, he grew up in the Science of Identity Foundation, a fringe sect of Hare Krishna founded by Chris Butler, a Hawaii-based surfer known for his secrecy, political ambitions and staunch anti-gay views. Former members of the Science of Identity Foundation have likened it to a cult. ‘I’d Love To Do That’ Robinson isn’t alone. There are others with ties to Butler and the Science of Identify Foundation who are taking in campaign cash. Among them is Abraham Williams, Gabbard’s husband, who works as a campaign cinematographer. Records show the campaign paid Williams $3,119. A Hawaii-based video production company he used to work for, Blue River Productions, which is run by affiliates of the Science of Identity Foundation, received another $158,763 from the campaign. Ajita White of Blue River Productions and Abraham Williams, in the yellow hat, both get paid by U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign.Nick Grube/Civil Beat According to Gabbard’s FEC reports, a man by the name of Geoffrey Silva received more than $8,000 for travel, supplies and fieldwork. A Des Moines Register article in August 2019 profiled Silva and his wife, Kareen, two volunteers who said they moved from Arizona to Iowa to help with the congresswoman’s presidential campaign. He told the newspaper he drove five hours from his home to see her speak in Nevada. After the event, Gabbard invited him and his wife to lunch where she pitched them on the idea of relocating to Iowa. “I go, ‘Well, heck, I’m not doing anything, I’d love to do that,’” Silva said. The Silvas ended up spending months in the Hawkeye State, working 40 hours a week as campaign volunteers, knocking on doors and planting yard signs. What Geoffrey Silva didn’t say, at least not in the article, was that he and his wife were closely linked to Butler and his organization. In fact, business records from Arizona show Kareen Silva was named as the registered agent for the Science of Identity Foundation when it was incorporated there in 1989. Gabbard’s mother, Carol, is listed in those documents as the secretary. All In On Billboards The billboard became a signature of Gabbard’s campaign, mostly because she blanketed some of the earliest voting states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, with her image. A Tulsi Gabbard billboard in Manchester, New Hampshire peers out over a crowd of Donald Trump supporters.Nick Grube/Civil Beat Federal Election Commission records show Gabbard’s campaign spent at least $828,000 with companies specializing in billboards and other outdoor advertising in 2019. That includes nearly $200,000 with The Driving Media, a company based out of South Carolina, where the primary is scheduled for Feb. 29. Other ways Gabbard tried to get her name — and face — in front of voters was with her campaign van. According to records, the campaign spent $118,700 in Ohio on a new set of wheels that the congresswoman used to criss-cross parts of the country. The campaign also purchased swag to hand out at various events. According to FEC records, Gabbard’s campaign paid a California company, WWWB Inc., nearly a quarter-million dollars for merchandise, postage and fees. $60K For Lawsuits And Crisis Response Gabbard has used campaign cash to sue people and companies that she believes interfered with her campaign. In July, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google, saying that when the tech giant suspended her advertising account for six hours after the first Democratic debate — something officials there said was due to unusual activity — that it was an attempt to censor her political speech and influence the election. She filed another $50 million lawsuit last month against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who Gabbard says defamed her when, in a podcast interview, she described the congresswoman as a “favorite of the Russians” and someone who was being groomed by Republicans to run as a third-party candidate. Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard bought a van so that she can criss-cross the country while she campaigns.Nick Grube/Civil Beat Gabbard hired the California law firm, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht to represent her in both cases. Records show Gabbard’s campaign paid Pierce Bainbridge $50,000 in July 2019. Bainbridge describes itself as a “high stakes litigation force” that’s “dedicated to the lost art of combat by trial.” Among its high-profile clients are President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giulianni, and Michael Avenatti, a recently convicted lawyer who also represented porn star Stormy Daniels in her legal battles against the president. According to Gabbard’s FEC reports, she spent another $10,000 to hire Pivot Hound Communications, a California-based crisis response and reputation management firm. Where Is Gabbard’s Golden State? California companies, particularly those that specialize in social media and the web, have benefited from Gabbard’s campaign spending.  According to FEC data, the campaign spent more than $3 million in the Golden State. Much of the cash went toward internet advertising with Google and Facebook and Twitter, which no longer allows political advertising on its platform.  She also spent a lot of money in Texas, where she bought more than $815,000 in radio advertising through iHeart Media. Records show she paid another $185,000 to Accelevate 2020, a firm that focuses on petitions and getting presidential candidates on state ballots. Gabbard’s campaign has spent nearly $60,000 on additional ballot access fees, from Washington, D.C., and Vermont to Alaska and American Samoa, where she was born. Gabbard’s campaign sent nearly half a million dollars to people and firms in the Aloha State, with much of it going to Blue River Productions. Her longtime campaign advisor, Erika Tsuji, was also on the payroll, receiving more than $33,000 in 2019. The congresswoman also sent another $33,000 to Cristina Moon of MHodge LLC, which lists an address at the Chozen-ji International Zen Dojo of Hawaii in Kalihi. Targeting The Indian American Community Gabbard’s campaign has relied heavily on consultants, which has allowed her to avoid spending her limited resources on payroll taxes and benefits. The campaign shows it spent roughly $210,000 on staffer salaries plus an additional $118,000 on payroll processing and taxes. Compare that to a candidate such as Yang, who records show paid in excess of $6 million on payroll and taxes. Gabbard has relied on a wide range of consultants to buoy her bid for the White House, from Rania Batrice, who was Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ deputy campaign manager in 2016 to Noland Chambliss, a former chief of staff for Van Jones, who now has his own show on CNN. Among the other consultants working for Gabbard in 2019 were Henry De Sio, who was the chief operating officer of Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and Shomik Chaudhuri, whose firm specializes in helping businesses and candidates make inroads with Asian Indians. Gabbard, who is a practicing Hindu, does particularly well with Indian Americans, more so than other candidates still in the race. According to early 2019 fundraising figures, the congresswoman has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from Indian Americans during her run for president. Her campaign even offered donors the chance to win a round-trip ticket to India, a promotion that was advertised with an image of Gabbard draping Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a lei. The post Tulsi Gabbard Continues To Spend Heavily On Long-Shot Presidential Bid appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/02/danny-de-gracia-forget-the-blue-ribbon-commission-just-fix-the-problems/" target="_self">Danny De Gracia: Forget The Blue-Ribbon Commission. Just Fix The Problems</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:01:22 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('Earlier this month, while I was walking in downtown Honolulu, a Native Hawaiian kupuna visiting from the Big Island reached out with his hand and stopped me as I almost passed him by. “Excuse me brah, I like ask you one question,” he began. “Who cleans this place?”   “No one!” I answered, much to his surprise. “As you can see, there’s dead animals on the ground; trash all over here; and someone even left their dirty underwear in the bushes!” Stunned by how aware I was of all the surrounding details, the man told me how Oahu was “a disgrace” and a perfect example of how the state has failed to do its basic duty. On his way to visit the Legislature to raise concerns, he revealed to me that he believed all of this was a result of the overthrow of the Kingdom, and that he was putting me and everyone else “on notice.” I told him I agreed wholeheartedly with him, asked if I could pray briefly with him, and after invoking a blessing of success upon his efforts, we shook hands, and went our separate ways. Though I would not consider him a sovereignty activist, a perception that the state has mismanaged the islands and brought about poor outcomes for Native Hawaiians is a key fissure in the many fault lines that divide locals today. A perception that the state has mismanaged the islands to the detriment of Native Hawaiians is one of Hawaii’s most critical fissures.Cory Lum/Civil Beat This session, the Legislature has proposed with House Concurrent Resolution 37 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 to “convene a blue ribbon reconciliation commission to examine and formulate a reconciliation process relating to issues of past, present, and future importance to the Native Hawaiian people, the State of Hawaii, and the United States of America.” The contentious Thirty Meter Telescope project brought to the surface a lot of pent up emotions over culture and religion, and served as a spark for public demonstrations all across the islands over not just the telescope, but over Native Hawaiian outcomes in general. Unfortunately, yet another commission will have little actual impact on “reconciliation” between Native Hawaiians and the state of Hawaii. The Legislature has a historic habit of creating task forces stuffed with hand-picked stakeholders who come up with a glorified wish list of objectives and best practices that at the end of the day are ignored. Not Getting A Fair Deal The divide between Native Hawaiians and the state is more than just debating the historical details of what has happened since 1893 or how to make people feel better. Native Hawaiians experience significant disparities compared with other groups in Hawaii, particularly in their socio-economic status, educational attainment and health outcomes. Until one addresses these disparities, animus toward state and federal government is only going to continue. Hearing Native Hawaiians oppose the TMT, Homeland Defense Radar and other projects over ancient graves, cultural artifacts and environmental concerns is not only predictable, it is inevitable under poor economic conditions. This is not a local phenomena; it is a historical pattern repeated the world over. The ongoing assertions of Native Hawaiians against local development are reminiscent of Shakespeare’s King Richard II who bemoaned, “We can call nothing our own except for our deaths and that little patch of earth that will cover our buried bodies. For God’s sake, let’s sit on the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings, how some were overthrown and others killed in war.” When people feel that they don’t have a place in the system and that nothing they do, good or bad, can result in progress, the only thing left is conflict. Forget a blue-ribbon commission. First and foremost, Hawaii must solve the housing crisis. Native Hawaiians need to be home owners, not just renters, to have a long-term stake as active participants in the community. And while I can hear in my mind detractors saying, “but Danny, in ancient Hawaii we didn’t own the land, sea or sky” my response is thinking like that is precisely what the establishment uses as a convenient excuse not to remedy the crisis. Second, Hawaii needs to stop penalizing poverty. When we have a government that wants to tax stormwater, tax miles driven on the road, tax visits into Honolulu, tax property to pay for education, tax healthcare, and tax everything else imaginable, we aren’t raising revenues, we are suppressing impoverished people from climbing the economic ladder. Tell us what you think! Join the Conversation Between all the fees, fines, taxes and the already expensive cost of living, locals are treated like serfs on a feudal plantation. Like Rocky Balboa, Hawaii residents have to ask, “Yo, don’t I get some rights?” Last and most importantly, we need to all recognize that Hawaii in 2020 is not a fair place to work, live and play. We are living in a palace economy where the next big success depends on a law passed by the Legislature, or a contract issued by government, rather than the innovation of local ideas and the triumph of local people. In Hawaii, rather than enforcing existing laws or taking care of our current responsibilities, our government just creates new laws on top of defective ones and more responsibilities on top of unfulfilled ones. And what is the result? Our people are impoverished, our lands are covered with trash, and politicians live as career barons and kingmakers. Native Hawaiians can’t take pride in a state that is falling apart. We don’t need “reconciliation” in Hawaii. We need the existing Hawaii government to do their damn job and get this state working again. You’ll be surprised how well that brings everyone together again. The post Danny De Gracia: Forget The Blue-Ribbon Commission. Just Fix The Problems appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/02/what-happens-to-all-that-leftover-presidential-campaign-cash/" target="_self">What Happens To All That Leftover Presidential Campaign Cash?</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:01:17 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet have ended their campaigns for president. What happens to the money they have raised, but not yet spent? The amounts could be substantial. Financial reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission indicate that as of Dec. 31, candidates who had already dropped out still had plenty in the bank. Former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke dropped out Nov. 1, but at year’s end still had $360,000 in the bank. Sen. Kamala Harris, who dropped out Dec. 3, reported having $1.3 million available. Other candidates who dropped out in January had large sums on hand not long before they ended their campaigns: Julian Castro had $950,000 on Dec. 31, and dropped out two days later. Less than two weeks before they exited, Marianne Williamson had $330,000 and Sen. Cory Booker had $4.2 million. I teach and write about campaign finance law. There is one clear rule about that money: Candidates can’t use it for personal expenses, like mortgage payments, groceries, clothing purchases or vacations. But there are a lot of other options, both within politics and outside of it. California Sen. Kamala Harris has already dropped out of the 2020 presidential race while Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is still hanging in there despite lack of support. They have raised millions in campaign contributions.Screen shot Paying What’s Owed The first use for money from a candidate who has just quit the campaign is generally to pay the cost of winding things up. Just because someone announces they’re out, their expenses don’t stop right away. They may still owe rent on office space, as well as fees for services like polling and transportation and for staff salaries. Some campaigns max out their credit cards, or take out loans to fill their accounts, and those still need to be repaid. Candidates whose campaigns have ended but who are still handling outstanding expenses need to keep filing campaign finance reports with the FEC. Once those expenses are paid, there may not be much left. At times, candidates need to keep fundraising after they drop out, just to pay off the bills they ran up while running. Six months after they dropped out of the 2012 presidential nomination race, failed Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were still working to pay off their campaign debts. Former presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards took years to pay off their campaign debts. Saving For The Future If there’s anything left over after all the bills are paid, the candidate has a few options. For some politicians, the most likely use is to help pay for their next campaign. Booker, for instance, is up for reelection to his Senate seat. Once his presidential campaign has paid off any debts it may owe, he can transfer the remaining money to his senatorial reelection campaign fund. If he, or any other candidate, wants to run for president again in the future, it’s easy enough to transfer the funds to a committee for the 2024 campaign season. For some politicians, the most likely use is to help pay for their next campaign. A former candidate can also use any excess funds to create a so-called “leadership PAC,” which is a political committee that can be controlled by the former candidate but is not used to support that person’s campaigns. Instead, it backs a political agenda – including other candidates – the candidate supports. Leadership PACs have been criticized for functioning as “slush funds” for politicians to spend on travel and entertainment they can’t buy with regular campaign donations. Sharing The Wealth Instead of using the money for the candidate’s own political purposes, people who drop out can donate their money to other campaigns or candidates. There are no limits on how much they can give to a national, state or local party committee – such as the Democratic National Committee. They can also give money to state and local candidates, depending on state campaign finance laws, or up to $2,000 to each of one or more candidates for federal office. A former candidate can also donate surplus funds to charity. This seems most likely to occur when a candidate is retiring from public life. For instance, former Sen. Joseph Lieberman transferred funds from his Senate campaign fund and his leadership PAC to a college scholarship fund for high school students from his state, Connecticut. He used other leftover campaign money to organize his political and campaign papers to donate to the Library of Congress. A former candidate with excess funds has two more possibilities. She can do nothing at all and just keep the cash in the bank. In 2014, an analysis found ex-candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, had as much as $100 million in unused campaign funds just waiting for account holders to decide what to do. If the person really doesn’t want all that cash on hand, the law is vague on what’s next – it can be used “for any other lawful purpose,” besides personal use. For example, former Democratic Congressman Marty Meehan of Massachusetts helped fund a document archive for his former colleague, Barney Frank. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post What Happens To All That Leftover Presidential Campaign Cash? appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/02/want-to-build-affordable-housing-more-quickly-this-bill-would-sidestep-public-input/" target="_self">Want To Build Affordable Housing More Quickly? This Bill Would Sidestep Public Input</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:01:16 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('Affordable housing developers would be allowed to sidestep a process designed to protect Hawaii’s lands if a bill backed by Hawaii’s top political leaders becomes law.  Developers argue bypassing the Land Use Commission for projects covering 25 acres and less will allow them to build desperately needed affordable housing more quickly. But the legislation is alarming some community members.   Opponents warn the bill will make it easier to pave over open spaces. It would also eliminate opportunities for public input at a time when the citizens – from Mauna Kea to Kahuku – are demanding more of a voice in land use decisions. Plus, they say, the Land Use Commission is not the cause of slowdowns for affordable housing projects. The commission is already required to act on those cases within 45 days. According to testimony from LUC Executive Officer Daniel Orodenker, the group has consistently met this time frame. “After all these protests, it is unbelievable that legislative leaders want to reduce public participation in decision making,” said David Frankel, an attorney who has worked extensively on environmental and land use issues. “It’s incredibly frustrating and disappointing.”  The original form of the bill, Senate Bill 3104, would allow developers to petition the county instead of the commission for projects up to 25 acres, increased from the current 15 acres, if the majority of the development is for affordable housing. The bill provides no definition for “affordable.”  What is Fault Lines? “Fault Lines” is a special project that throughout the coming year will explore discord in Hawaii and what we as a community can do to bridge some of the social and political gaps that are developing. Read more here. As it is now, going before both the county and the LUC is duplicative, according to David Arakawa, executive director of the Land Use Research Foundation, a group that advocates for major landowners and developers. “The Land Use Commission serves a purpose, but in this particular situation, we believe that all the land use protections, all the concerns could be addressed in the county process,” he said. “And people will still have the right to sue if they don’t think the process was followed.” An amended version of the bill was approved last week by the Senate Housing Committee and Senate Water and Land Committee.  It accepts the threshold of 25 acres but says developers can only skip the LUC for projects that are contiguous with an urban district and don’t involve conservation land or important agricultural lands. Instead of requiring such projects to be “affordable,” it requires the majority of the square footage of the development to be for Hawaii residents who are owner-occupants and who own no other property. It also grants the LUC power to impose fines up to $50,000 per day to enforce developers’ commitments. “We’ve tried to include a lot of safeguards to address those concerns,” said Senate Housing Committee Chair Stanley Chang.  Whether it strikes the right balance between supporting affordable housing projects and allowing for public review and input, Chang said: “I don’t know.”  A State Perspective On Land Protection Hawaii created the Land Use Commission in 1961. At the time, lawmakers determined the status quo had allowed a small group of wealthy landowners to develop the state’s limited and valuable land “for short-term gain,” according to the LUC’s website.  “Development of scattered subdivisions, creating problems of expensive yet reduced public services, and the conversion of prime agricultural land to residential use, were key reasons for establishing the state-wide land use system,” the agency’s history says.  Ever since the LUC’s creation, the development community has been trying to weaken it, Frankel said. In 2015, then Senate President Donna Mercado Kim even unsuccessfully advocated to eliminate the Land Use Commission altogether. Subsequent proposals to limit the LUC’s reach in 2017 and 2019 also went nowhere. Gov. David Ige and top leaders at the Hawaii Capitol kicked off the 2020 legislative session with a message of unity. Limiting the Land Use Commission’s reach is part of their agenda.Cory Lum/Civil Beat This year’s proposal should be taken seriously, Frankel said. It’s baked into the joint legislative package the House and Senate leadership, along with Gov. David Ige, unveiled in a rare display of apparent consensus last month. In other words, Hawaii’s most powerful politicians appear to agree that this is a good move. Another measure, Senate Bill 2620, addresses the Land Use Commission independently from the rest of the joint housing package.   The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii and the Building Industry Association are both in support of the bill. The Chamber referred questions to the BIA, which did not agree to an interview in time for publication. Civil Beat reached out to Senate President Ron Kouchi and House Speaker Scott Saiki for comment. Neither responded.  Contact Key Lawmakers Senate President Ron Kouchi senkouchi@capitol.hawaii.gov 808-586-6030 House Speaker Scott Saiki repsaiki@capitol.hawaii.gov 808-586-6100 Ige’s office said he was unavailable for an interview last week. In a statement, he said the legislation is still being “ironed out” and he looks forward to public testimony.  “We are looking for consensus on ways to identify and accelerate projects that clearly benefit the community and have overwhelming community support,” he said. “At the same time, we will leave in place checks and balances for projects that may have less support.”  From a developer’s point of view, the county permitting process is extensive enough, Arakawa said. But critics of the bill argue that the LUC is needed to address concerns beyond the county’s purview.  Marti Townsend, executive director of the Sierra Club of Hawaii, said counties don’t necessarily consider statewide land use interests like food security, transportation, schools and water as well as natural and cultural resources. “These are concerns the Land Use Commission addresses when they make their decisions and they will impose conditions on developers to ensure these basic needs are met,” she said.  Sierra Club Director Marti Townsend strongly opposes reducing the Land Use Commission’s reach.Cory Lum/Civil Beat The Land Use Commission also offers a quasi-judicial process that allows developers to be cross-examined and forbids commissioners from having conversations behind closed doors with petitioners, Frankel said. As appointed volunteers, the commissioners also can’t accept campaign contributions, Frankel noted. County council members can.  Counties as a whole have a property tax interest in increasing residential development, Townsend said.  “They have a perverse incentive to develop as much as possible because they make more off of homes than they do off of farmland,” she said. “The development pressure is so intense in Hawaii that without the Land Use Commission, the risk of developing the entire island in each county is real because there is just so much money at stake.”  The Land Use Commission has thwarted many development plans that Frankel said were not the right fit for communities. In 2007, Molokai Ranch withdrew plans to build multimillion-dollar estates on Laau Point after the Land Use Commission rejected the company’s environmental impact statement for inadequately addressing water treatment.  David Arakawa of the Land Use Research Foundation wants to speed up the housing development process.Cory Lum/Civil Beat The commission nixed a proposal in 2010 that would have converted conservation land at Ooma on Hawaii island to urban land to build oceanfront properties. The county later bought the land to protect the parcel.  Plans for a 96-acre industrial park in Nanakuli dissolved in 2011 when LUC members voted against changing the land designation from agricultural to rural, Townsend noted. The site is now owned by MA‘O Organic Farms.   Arakawa emphasized that the bill being considered is aimed at meeting a community need.  “This bill is not about hotels. This bill is not about shopping centers,” he said. “This bill is about affordable housing.” From Townsend’s perspective, people who live in affordable housing deserve to live in thoughtfully planned communities that boost their quality of life. “We want to make sure we have truly affordable housing built and that it’s built well,” she said. Reducing Public Input In the first legislative session after a wave of successful civil disobedience campaigns that prevented developments at Mauna Kea, Waimanalo, Kahuku and Ala Moana, many groups are finding the idea of eliminating a public vetting process unacceptable.   The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is one such organization. In written testimony, the office forcefully objected to raising the LUC’s acreage threshold. Mauna Kea kiai chant before state sheriffs’ deputies on the Mauna Kea access road in July 2019.Cory Lum/Civil Beat “In many cases, such LUC review may also be the only opportunity for Native Hawaiians to assert their constitutionally-protected traditional and customary rights with respect to development proposals, in a government forum intended and designed to meaningfully address their concerns,” the office stated.  While the public can testify at Honolulu City Council meetings, a time limit is often enforced.  OHA noted that the state wouldn’t be getting much in return for “the loss of the LUC’s careful and comprehensive consideration of the needs of and impacts to both Native Hawaiians and the State.” OHA spokesman Sterling Wong declined an interview request.  “No data or other factual information suggests that the LUC review process contributes to delays in housing development timelines,” the office testified.  The Land Use Commission’s meeting room was packed when it voted to approve D.R. Horton’s Hoopili development in 2012.Sophie Cocke/Civil Beat A 2015 review by the Hawaii Office of Planning concluded the LUC shouldn’t be blamed for project delays. Holdups are generally due to factors outside the LUC process including county approvals, failure to secure infrastructure improvements, changes in the economy, problems with project financing or changes in ownership, the report states. Public interventions in the LUC process are infrequent and when they happen, only extend the process by a few months, the report says.  The report says that streamlining the LUC process by increasing the acreage threshold might appear to shorten the development timetable, but “by itself, will not necessarily result in increased efficiency in the land use system overall.”  Orodenker, the LUC executive officer, did not respond to a request for comment. Jeff Gilbreath, director of lending and development at Hawaii Community Lending, said the focus should be on finding the sources of backlogs at the county level.   “We have to have the right solutions for the right things,” he said.  Hawaii’s policymakers should recognize that “public opinion matters,” Townsend said.  Members of the public attend Land Use Commission meetings, sometimes in numbers that fill the room, forcing them to sit on the floor and line the hallways, according to Townsend. Taking that opportunity away for certain projects is helpful to no one, she said.   “People feel so disregarded and ignored to the point that they no longer consent to whatever the arrangement is,” she said.  “When we have good public engagement, an opportunity for the public to provide their unique perspective and knowledge, when they feel engaged and heard and a part of the decision-making process, we come out with better decisions and we have a stronger society as a result of that.” The post Want To Build Affordable Housing More Quickly? This Bill Would Sidestep Public Input appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('</ul></div>');