Latest news with #CoralieChunMatayoshi
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New fireworks legislation after New Year's Eve disaster
Deputy Attorney General Tricia Nakamatsu joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss key bills passed this legislative session to enhance law enforcement's ability to apprehend buyers and sellers of illegal fireworks, enable more successful prosecution of violators, and increase penalties for repeat offenders and those whose violations result in serious or substantial harm or death. The Governor's deadline to veto any of the bills passed is July 9, New Year's Eve, the deadliest fireworks disaster in Hawaii's history occurred. Six people died in two separate incidents, including a 3-year-old child. Over two dozen others were left disfigured and face long, difficult roads to recovery. Although aerial fireworks have been illegal statewide for 30 years (except by license or permit), dozens of people are treated for fireworks-related injuries every New Year's, and more throughout the year, in emergency rooms across the state. 7 tips to get your family safely through Hawaiʻi's hurricane season Q. Because of tragedies like this, an interagency Illegal Fireworks Task Force was created within the Department of Law Enforcement in 2023 (Act 67), to detect and seize illegal fireworks. Funding for the Task Force was due to sunset so the Legislature this year extended it until 2030. I want to talk about legislation that was passed this year to help catch buyers and sellers of illegal fireworks. First, what are illegal fireworks – and let's focus on consumer fireworks that people set off on New Years Eve. Consumer fireworks are basically things that stay on or near the ground, sparklers, and firecrackers like the type used for Chinese cultural events. In Maui, Kauai, and Hawaii Counties, anyone with a permit can legally use these for 4 hours, from 9pm on New Year's Eve to 1am New Year's Day. Under a new law that may go into effect this year, each person will be limited to 50 permits per year. On Oahu, the City & County ordinances are much more restrictive about consumer fireworks, so only firecrackers are allowed. Q. Walk me through typical scenarios of how law enforcement catches people setting off illegal fireworks. If someone personally witnesses what they believe to be illegal fireworks being set off, they can call 911 to report it, and the responding officer will most likely take a written statement, ask witnesses to identify the person that did it, and try to collect any additional evidence such as videos (HRS 132D-20) or physical evidence. But in order for the case to be prosecuted, a witness must be willing to testify in court, if the case ends up going to trial. Because many people in the community are reluctant to do this, I believe most fireworks cases rely on law enforcement officers who personally witnessed the illegal activity. Q. A 2023 investigation by a news organization found that between 2018 and 2022, 94% of the citations on Oahu ended in dismissal or dropped prosecutions and the 15 successful cases generated only $1,000 in fines. What are the obstacles to prosecuting violators under the current law and how might these obstacles be overcome by bills just passed by the Legislature? Definitions – Current definitions for the terms 'fireworks' and 'aerial device' are very technical, requiring prosecutors to prove that the fireworks contained 130 milligrams or less of explosive material, and that it met certain federal parameters. There are a number of reasons why this is challenging, but it's particularly difficult when fireworks are set off and destroyed in the blast. HB 1483 adds alternative definitions that are more common sense, so an aerial device could basically be anything that 'rises more than twelve feet into the air' after being set off, then 'explodes…in the air, shoots or emits flaming balls, or shoots or emits sparks.' Standard of proof – Another issue that presented challenges in some fireworks cases was having to prove the case 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Again, if the fireworks already exploded, and there's no physical evidence collected, it's very difficult to reach that level of certainty & meet the legal requirements for a criminal conviction. HB 1483 creates the first non-criminal fireworks offenses in Hawaii—fireworks infractions—which have no possible jail, can only result in a fine, and have a much lower standard of proof in court, called preponderance of evidence. That basically means it's more likely than not that the offense occurred. Another benefit of fireworks infractions is that they can be issued by law enforcement officers very quickly and easily, with just a citation, if the officer witnessed the incident themselves. And they'll probably be processed by the courts much faster too, because they'll be handled like traffic tickets, where people can just mail-in their fine, mail-in a written explanation, or request a hearing with the judge. Of course, the bill also increases a lot of penalties and creates or expands a number of offenses, so we hope that will serve as a deterrent to illegal fireworks as well. Q. Will HB 1483 increase the penalties for buying, selling, or setting off illegal fireworks? Consumer fireworks – Yes and no. Buying or setting off consumer fireworks without a permit will technically be a lower penalty, because that'll be an infraction now with a $200 fine. Importing, storing or distributing – But importing, storing, or distributing consumer fireworks or aerials without a permit, will either be a class C felony—up to 5 years in prison and/or up to $10,000 fine—or if it involves 25 pounds or more, that will be a class B felony, which means up to 10 years prison and/or $25,000 fine. Class C Felony – punishable by up to 5-year maximum prison sentence and no more than $10,000 fine. Distribution to a minor is a Class C felony. Class B Felony – if total weight of aerial is 25 lbs. or more. Punishable by up to 5-year maximum prison sentence and no more than $10,000 fine. Buying or setting off aerials – Buying or setting off aerials without a permit would now range from an infraction—which is subject to a $300 fine—all the way up to a class B felony which can get up to 10 years prison and/or up to $25,000 fine, depending on the weight of the fireworks. $300 fine – if total weight of aerial is less than 5 lbs. or cannot be determined. Lower standard of proof (more likely than not versus beyond a reasonable doubt). Akin to a traffic ticket. Misdemeanor – if the total weight of aerial is 5 lbs. or more. Punishable by up to 1 year in prison and/or $2,000 fine. Class C Felony – if the total weight of aerial is less than 25 lbs. or more. Punishable by up to 5-year maximum prison sentence and no more than $10,000 fine. Class B Felony – if the total weight of aerial is 50 lbs. or more. Punishable by up to 10-year maximum prison sentence and no more than $25,000 fine. Increased penalties for repeat offenders, serious/substantial injury or death –HB 1483 also does something very unusual, by increasing all of these criminal penalties—across the board—if those fireworks cause any major injuries, such as second-degree burns, broken bones, or serious permanent disfigurement, or if someone dies as a result of those fireworks. So, offenders could potentially be charged with a class A felony, which is subject to up to 20 years in prison and/or up to $50,000 fine. That applies to everyone in the chain, including anyone who illegally imported, distributed, stored, purchased, or set off those fireworks. There's also increased penalties for repeat offenders who had a prior fireworks conviction within the past ten years. Violators shall be guilty of the offense one class or grade higher if convicted one or more times for any offense under HRS 132D within 10 years or the fireworks cause substantial bodily injury Violators shall be guilty of the offense two classes or grades higher if the fireworks cause serious bodily injury or death. Q. So in order to increase the penalties, the Prosecutor just has to prove that the person had a prior conviction within 10 years of the current conviction or that the fireworks caused serious or substantial injury or death? All of the increased penalties mentioned above would require some additional proof (i.e. proof that the person actually had prior fireworks convictions, or that the fireworks connected to their illegal actions actually caused the injuries or death), but it would not have to be proven that the offender knew that would be the result. Q. What about violators with multiple infractions – are they subject to increased penalties too? Infractions will not be subject to any of these increased penalties, because infractions are not crimes, so they're on a separate track. However, HB 1483 does expand an existing crime that prohibits setting off aerials less than 500 feet from a hotel…so now it will be a misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail and/or up to $2,000 fine) to set off aerials less than 500 feet from any dwelling (e.g., house) unless you have a permit. If you're a repeat fireworks offender, that becomes a class C felony. If someone suffers substantial bodily injury, it's a class B felony. And if someone suffers serious bodily injury or death, that could be charged as a class A felony. Q. What about liability for property owners, managers, and renters who allow people to set off or store illegal fireworks on their property? I can only speak to criminal liability, and HB 1483 expands that as well, making it a petty misdemeanor (up to 30 days in jail and/or $1,000 fine) to allow anyone to set off aerials from your property without a permit. If you allow others to store aerial devices on your property, that will be a misdemeanor, which can get up to 1 year in jail and/or $2,000 fine. If you allow them to store more than 25 pounds of aerials on your property, that will be a class C felony. In addition, these offenses also qualify for increased penalties if you have a prior fireworks conviction in the past ten years, or if anyone suffers major injuries or death as a result of those fireworks. So, under very bad circumstances, allowing someone to store illegal fireworks on your property could actually result in a class A felony, which can get up to 20 years in prison and/or up to $50,000 fine. H.R.S. Section 132D-14.5 [became law in 2019] – a homeowner, renter, or person otherwise responsible for the real property who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly allows an individual, while on the real property, to possess, set off, ignite, or otherwise cause to explode any aerial device shall be deemed to be in violation of this chapter and shall be subject to the penalties as those who possess or set the fireworks off. HB 1438 adds 'negligently' and increases penalties for violators: Petty Misdemeanor – Punishable by up to 30 days in jail and $1,000 fine. Misdemeanor – allows aerial devices, articles of pyrotechnic, display fireworks or pyrotechnic composition to be stored in the real property without a license. Punishable by up to 1 year in jail. Class C Felony – allows 25 lbs. or more of aerial devices, articles of pyrotechnic, display fireworks or pyrotechnic composition to be stored in the real property without a license. Punishable by up to 5-year maximum prison sentence and no more than $10,000 fine. HB 1438 increases penalties for all habitual offenders Violators shall be guilty of the offense one class or grade higher if convicted one or more times for any offense under HRS 132D within 10 years or the fireworks cause substantial bodily injury Violators shall be guilty of the offense two classes or grades higher if the fireworks cause serious bodily injury or death. Q. Is there any criminal liability for parents and guardians of minors who knowingly allow them to possess, purchase or set off fireworks? In general, distribution of fireworks (consumer fireworks or aerials) to a minor will be a class C felony. There is an exception for parents or guardians who allow minors under their care to use consumer fireworks, as long as the minor is under the immediate supervision of an adult. Other than this exception, however, any parent and guardian who knowingly allow their minor to purchase, possess, or set off aerials or consumer fireworks: Misdemeanor – punishable by up to 1 year in prison and/or up to $2,000 fine. Class C Felony – if fireworks cause substantial bodily injury. Punishable by up to 5 years prison and/or up to $10,000 fine. Class B Felony – if fireworks cause serious bodily injury or death. Punishable by up to 10 years prison and/or up to $25,000 fine. Q. Twelve people were arrested in connection with the Aliamanu New Year's Eve blast, for various felonies including first degree endangering the welfare of a minor. No charges have yet been filed. If the case results in convictions, can the defendants receive higher sentences as outlined in the legislation that just passed (assuming the Governor signs it into law)? As with many bills, HB 1483 has a savings clause that expressly prohibits these new laws from being used retroactively. Q. Was any other legislation passed this year to help catch people who possess or set off illegal fireworks and make it easier to prosecute them? HB 806 – Provides funding to the State Department of Law Enforcement, to conduct fireworks sting operations and establish an explosives and firearms laboratory. Sting operations can be effective in apprehending buyers and sellers, and may also deter illegal activity, because one of the parties could be an undercover officer. Having an in-state explosives laboratory would also help to prosecute certain types of fireworks cases. HB 550 – Allows drone footage made by law enforcement agencies to be used to establish probable cause in arrests, for fireworks offenses, if the drone was directly above public property and the act leading to the arrest was committed on public property. To learn more about this subject, tune into this video 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Yahoo
Can Hawaiiʻs child welfare system be fixed?
Attorney Laurie Tochiki joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss the Malama 'Ohana Working Group's recommendations to the Legislature to improve the child welfare system, and how we can and must do a better job in supporting families and preventing child abuse and deaths. Laurie Tochiki is an attorney, mediator, consultant, and principal of Pilina Pathways. She previously served as Executive Director of Epic Ohana (a non-profit organization serving families in the child welfare system) and Associate Dean for Student Services at the William S. Richardson School of Law. She currently serves as Vice-Chair of the University of Hawaii Board of Regents and Co-Chaired the Mālama 'Ohana Working Group, established by the legislature in 2023 to recommend improvements to the child welfare system. In the last fiscal year (July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024), five Hawaii children including Ariel Kalua, Geanna Gradley, Sarai Perez and Azaeliyah Pili-Ah You have tragically died due to abuse and neglect at the hands of their parents, relatives or legal guardians. All but one were known to the Child Welfare Services (CWS). Q. First, what is Child Welfare Service and when do they get involved? The 'child welfare system' is broad and ill-defined. Child Welfare Services (CWS) is an agency, not a system. In Hawaii, CWS is the branch of the Department of Human Services (DHS) responsible for the protection, care, and permanency of abused and neglected children. The broader child welfare system includes CWS, family courts, the Department of the Attorney General, law enforcement officers, and nonprofit service providers. It intersects with the education system, criminal justice system, healthcare systems, crisis response systems, and many other systems. In all our community meetings and working group meetings, we emphasized that our hope is for shared kuleana in the child welfare system for our families and children. In this report, 'child welfare system' refers to the broader system, while 'CWS' refers to the state agency. Malama 'Ohana Working Group Report, December 2024. These are all such sad situations, and it is the responsibility of all of us to keep children safe. Government and the Family Court steps in to protect children when the actions of parents are deemed to be unsafe. CWS is a branch of the DHS with offices on every island. Government becomes involved when there is harm or threat of harm either because of abuse or neglect – most cases that CWS handles are neglect rather than abuse. Q. How does CWS find out about problems? Hotline: (808) 832-5300 There is a mandatory reporting requirement for teachers, doctors, military, etc. and failure to report can result in criminal liability Anyone who is concerned about something they see should make a report. For those who are not mandatory reporters, reports can be made confidentially. If the report requires an investigation, then an investigator will go out to the home to investigate. Q. What if a child is harmed or in imminent danger of being harmed? Can they be removed from their home? Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 587A – children are removed when children are harmed or are in danger of imminent harm. Police will remove or assist CWS with the removal. If CWS is doing an investigation without the police there, the parent does not have to let the investigator in, but if they don't cooperate and CWS is concerned about the safety of the children then they can call the police, and the police have the right to remove without notice or a court order. No prior notice is required because police are using their police power at that point. Most are neglect cases but there are cases of physical, sexual or psychological harm. Most cases involve substance use disorder, domestic violence and/or mental health issues. Poverty is also a factor that makes families unstable. Children should not be removed if the only problem is that the family is houseless but securing a safe and stable place for the children is a factor in reunification. Q. What did the Malama 'Ohana Working Group recommend to the Legislature? Transforming Hawaii's child welfare system requires deep, systemic change across three levels: • Commitment, values, and mindset: The foundations of our work • Policies, laws, and resources: The fundamental structures that govern our system • Practice and relationships: How we work with and support families and system partners This transformation must rest on three foundational elements: A system grounded in traditional Hawaiian values A trauma-informed and culturally responsive approach Excellent workforce, sustainable funding and modern data systems Recommendation 1: Address Historical Trauma and Persistent Disproportionality System Critique: State and social services systems, particularly those involving CWS, lack adequate awareness of historical contributors to current situations and appropriate trauma informed responses to both historical and present trauma. Full Recommendation: Acknowledge and address historical and present conditions and barriers that perpetuate the overrepresentation of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Island people in categories of need or distress. Path Forward: • Ground child welfare work in the values and culture of Hawaii. • Incorporate traditional Hawaiian practices into the system. • Support collaborative innovation with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander organizations. • Provide comprehensive cultural competency training. • Improve outcomes for all families through culturally responsive approaches. Recommendation 2: Build Family Resilience System Critique: Hawaii has a shortage of resources dedicated to prevention, especially primary prevention and universal supports. Many struggling individuals are unaware of available services or how to access them. Full Recommendation: Prioritize thriving families above all other commitments by providing universal family supports aimed at ensuring a stable foundation and opportunities for growth. Path Forward: • Shift our mindset and value to prioritize 'mandatory supporting.' • Create accessible pathways to concrete supports like food and shelter. • Establish community-based resource centers (Ka Piko) staffed by individuals with lived experience. • Meet families' basic needs for housing, childcare, and physical and mental healthcare. • Expand Family First Hawaii services. Recommendation 3: Provide Comprehensive Specialized Support Services System Critique: Seeking help for substance use disorders, mental health issues, domestic violence, and even basic supports feels too risky due to mistrust of systems and fear of CWS involvement. The process of accessing these services is often overly complicated. Full Recommendation: Provide accessible, trauma-responsive, specialized supports and interventions outside the child welfare system for parents facing intense challenges. Path Forward: • Create accessible pathways to services that minimize the risk of family separation when parents are facing challenges or crises such as: severe poverty, substance use disorders, domestic violence, serious mental and physical health conditions. • Enhance CWS workers' abilities to properly understand and address these issues and support families with a trauma-responsive and culturally informed approach. Recommendation 4: Develop a Trauma-Informed System System Critique: Families involved with CWS find it challenging to navigate the complicated system and related services. The experience often feels adversarial, confusing, secretive, and isolating for both children and parents, causing further trauma. Full Recommendation: When CWS intervenes in a family, ensure that the intervention is respectful and supportive, minimizes trauma, and does not create more harm than the original issue they hoped to address. Path Forward: • Create a comprehensive trauma-informed culture throughout CWS. • Build expertise in trauma-informed care and cultural competence throughout the child welfare system from front-line staff to top leaders, including in CWS, courts, and service providers. • Transform policies and procedures to prioritize family support and communications. • Address secondary trauma among helping professionals. Recommendation 5: Build Excellence Through Accountability System Critique: The child welfare system and related systems are not user-friendly for staff or families, lack sufficient accountability measures, and suffer from fragmentation and isolation between different components. Full Recommendation: Ensure that systems, services, processes, and procedures are coordinated, accountable, and efficient with robust oversight, adequate funding, appropriate staffing, and high operational standards. Path Forward: • Improve core CWS processes, staffing, training, supervision, data systems, and technology. • Ensure a commitment to excellence from the legislature, the Governor and Lt. Governor, and the DHS Director. • Prioritize supporting the child welfare system through the Departments of the Attorney General, Accounting and General Services, and Human Resources Development office. • Maximize state and federal resources and eliminate waste. • Establish independent oversight mechanisms, such as an independent ombudsperson, Child Advocate, or grievance office. • Create robust advocacy systems for children, parents, and families. Q. What bills recommended by the Working Group are still alive at the Legislature? There were more than 15 bills introduced relating to various aspects of the Malama Ohana report. Bills ranged from training for domestic violence and trauma informed care, a pilot project to test some of the ideas for community based prevention and community collaboration, the definition of child abuse and neglect, and a bill that would work to develop a program where children in child welfare cases would have an attorney representing them. A few bills await either final committee, or possible conference committee decisions. Eliminating poverty from the definition of abuse and neglect was scheduled for a final committee hearing on April 3. The pilot project was passed by the finance committee and will not head to conference. Trauma informed care training is still working through the legislature with a decision from the Senate Ways & Means Committee. We are grateful for the support of Representative Lisa Marten and Senator San Buenaventura. The Legislature is very concerned about the negative effect of federal executive orders on child welfare funding. Senator San Buenaventura has scheduled another information briefing on the issues on April 9. The working group is not able to address the legislature because sunshine law prohibits members of the group from discussing the issues outside public meetings, and the group itself completed its work when the report was published. Therefore, co-chair Venus Rosete Medeiros and I, as well as other individual members of the working group, and community members who were very active in the working group process, have been testifying as individuals. Q. Could the 5 recent child abuse deaths have been prevented? Most of these children were known to CWS and some had come through the foster system. Weren't there red flags that should have been prioritized for intervention? Ariel Kalua (6 years old) – was in foster care then got adopted by foster parents who are accused of starving and abusing her. Known to CWS. Geanna Bradley (10 years old) – foster parents and grandmother accused of starving and physically abusing her. Known to CWS. Azaeliyah Pili-Ah You (11 years old) – was in foster care then got adopted by foster parents, mother accused of beating her and father is under investigation. Known to CWS. Sarai Perez-Rivera (3 years old) – biological mother and her girlfriend accused of starving and beating her. Grandmother reported suspected abuse to CWS. 3 year old boy- no prior reports to CWS. To some extent, tragedies like these might be avoided with a child welfare services agency that is well trained, adequately staffed, and where accountability processes are in place. Many of our recommendations address the culture of CWS, and the imperative need for training, staffing and accountability. For instance, there are requirements for regular face-to-face visits with children and resource caregivers. But if staff members are so stretched that they have to address crisis after crisis, they cannot keep up. Our report suggests that solutions need to address root causes of the many concerns raised. There are no simple solutions. There are many administrative barriers for nonprofit organizations working with CWS as well including contract delays, late payments, and contracts that do not cover the cost of the work performed. There are some bills that are still alive in the Legislature to address this, as supported by a coalition of nonprofit organizations called the True Cost Coalition. And we do not have a good process for addressing grievances and concerns. So, the heart breaking stories of family members who begged for help but did not receive it are not adequately addressed. We also do not have a good process for death reviews. But even with these interventions, there will still be situations we do not address in time, people who disappear from the safety net of school, medical care, or community. The tragedy of those deaths at the hands of who were entrusted with the children after CWS involvement does put a light on many places where CWS practice needs improvement. But I want to end this segment with an emphasis that our community meetings and interviews and conversations included many stories of individual heroes. Social workers who go above and beyond and continue to work in excruciatingly difficult situations. Foster parents who year after year open their hearts and homes to children and become loving forever family. Birth parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles who keep showing up and are doing the best they can to protect their children. So much more could be done with prevention. Families want help and they need specialized services. It is our kuleana that all children in Hawaii can be safe and healthy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Affordable housing bills still alive at Hawaii legislature
Scott Settle, managing principal at Settle Meyer joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss bills still alive in the legislature after first crossover, including subsidy reforms to make housing development more financially viable by making changes to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF), Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), and Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF), permitting and historical review reforms, and land use and zoning reforms, as well as some creative new bills to ease the severe housing shortage in Hawaii. He also serves as Chair of the Affordable Housing and Economic Development Foundation which promotes access to affordable housing for lower income families. Q. There's been a lot of discussion this session about reforming affordable housing programs. What's different about the approach lawmakers are taking this year? Affordable housing is a complex problem—there's no single fix—so we're seeing proposals that address financing, permitting, land use, and even some new, creative strategies. The state's understanding of what drives the housing shortage and solutions has improved over time, and that's reflected in the legislation moving forward this session. Q. So, now that we've passed the first crossover deadline, what's still on the table? There are a lot of bills still alive that aim to increase the stock of affordable housing. Some focus on subsidy reforms, like changes to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF) and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), to make development more financially viable. Others look at streamlining permitting and historical review to speed up approvals. We're also seeing land use reforms that could open up more areas for housing, as well as some innovative new ideas. And, of course, there are a few controversial bills that didn't make it past crossover—so we can talk about what's still in play and what's off the table for now. Subsidy Reforms: Making Affordable Housing Development Financially Viable Q. Several bills this session focus on reforms to key financing programs like the Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF), the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), and the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF). What changes are being proposed, and how would they make it easier to build affordable housing? This session, lawmakers are looking at ways to make affordable housing financially viable both for middle-income earners like teachers, firefighters, and healthcare workers (who often make too much for subsidized housing but not enough to comfortably afford market rate rentals) and for those who need more deeply affordable housing (e.g. those earning less than 50% or even 30% of the area median income). The legislature is trying to come up with a number of tweaks to subsidy programs with good intentions, but whether they will be counterproductive or successful is hard to predict. Some of the proposed subsidy reforms aim to address both needs, but there are concerns that certain changes could have unintended consequences. Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF) Reforms SB71 is a particularly controversial change to the RHRF program and a good example to showcase some of the debates happening right now. It proposes a major shift in how the Rental Housing Revolving Fund awards loans, including through efforts to target different income groups, reducing the amount spent per unit, and replacing the current method of determining how funding awards are allocated. For example, it would: Remove financial feasibility and project readiness requirements (which currently ensures projects are financially and practically viable and ready to proceed within one year, reducing the chances that funds are wasted on projects that end up falling through due to unrealistic budgets or schedules) Prioritize fund allocation in the following order: First, projects with perpetual affordability commitments Then, projects with additional subsidies through HUD programs or LIHTC (provided that the prioritization of these first two categories only applies until awards equal the forecasted housing demand for families earning between 50-60% of the AMI) Third, mixed-income projects (only until awards equal the forecasted demand for 120-140% AMI units) Finally, all other projects that are limited to 'qualified residents' (defined as Hawaii residents that don't already own other residential properties) Within these categories, preferences would be given to: Multifamily units near transit stations Projects owned by an organization required to reinvest surplus back into housing, owned by a government entity, or required to be eventually conveyed to a government entity; Perpetually affordable projects; Developers who request loan terms under five years; and Projects requiring the least amount of state funding per unit. On the plus side, this bill would likely steer more RHRF funding to projects located on state lands and projects that will stay affordable in the long term due to perpetual income-based rent restrictions. It might also help steer some funds towards 120-140% AMI projects, which could help increase housing stock for the missing middle, which is a real need. The downside is that a five-year loan term is unrealistic for most affordable housing projects, which already face tight financing constraints. If this passes, many private developers may shift to building market-rate housing instead. The total removal of readiness and feasibility criteria further risks wasting resources on projects that are destined to fail. Prioritizing the lowest per-unit cost could also make it much harder to build the more deeply affordable units we need for those making smaller incomes. When combined with the preference for perpetual affordability, it could also lead to poor-quality housing that will likely fall into disrepair over time with no incentive to renovate. Several other bills have also proposed more targeted changes to RHRF, with some similar goals: HB1409 – Prioritizes funding for affordable housing near transit hubs HB432 – Creates a Mixed-Income Subaccount within RHRF to support workforce housing (up to 140% AMI) HB417 – Establishes a Housing Efficiency and Innovation Subaccount to allow HHFDC to create new financing tools, similar to the DURF program. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF) loans SB944 (LIHTC) – Expands the LIHTC program by allowing credits to be transferred, sold, or assigned, making it easier to finance projects. HB1009 / SB1229 (Extending DURF Equity Pilot Program) – HB would make a DURF pilot program permanent, allowing repayment of DURF loans through unit equity and giving the state long-term stakes in projects (SB1229 is similar but instead extends the program through 2030 and gives preference to projects developed using Section 201H). SB40 (HHFDC Bond Recycling) – Authorizes HHFDC to use revenue bonds for bond recycling, which could increase available financing. HB1411 – (Prioritizing Local Residents) Authorizes prioritization of potential tenants who live or work within five miles of a project. HB1096 – (Changes to LIHTC Tenant Preferences) – Removes existing tenant selection preferences in the LIHTC program for disabled veterans and spouses of deceased veterans. HB1325 (Tenant Relocation Assistance & Right of First Refusal) – Requires developers of affordable housing projects under HHFDC to assist tenants facing displacement by: (1) Granting a right of first refusal for a comparable unit at an affordable rate or (2) Providing relocation benefits and support services. Developers must also provide clear information on how tenants can access assistance and maintain communication with displaced tenants. Permitting and Historical Review Reforms: Speeding Up Development Q. The permitting process is a well-known bottleneck for housing development in Hawaii. What legislative efforts are moving forward to make permitting faster and more predictable? One of the biggest challenges to building affordable housing in Hawaiʻi is the long and unpredictable timeline for approvals—especially when projects get caught in long environmental or historic preservation review processes. For example, Hawaiʻi's State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) plays an important role in protecting historic properties, but the review process is slow and backlogged. This delay makes financing difficult because developers can't predict whether a project will take months or even years to clear. The problem is also growing as more buildings from the 1970s and later become technically 'historic,' even when many don't have significant cultural or architectural value. This session, lawmakers are looking at ways to speed up reviews while ensuring real historic resources are protected. For example: Key Historic Review Reform Bills HB830 / SB1002 – Requires third-party review if SHPD can't process an application within 60 days (SB1002 requires the applicant or a sponsor/housing authority to cover the cost of the third-party consultant). HB1008 / SB70 – Requires DLNR to determine the impact of a proposed housing project within 90 days (HB1008 applies to state affordable housing projects; SB70 applies to all housing projects). HB1144 – Allows DLNR to hire non-civil service technical and professional staff to speed up processing. SB15 – Updates the definition of 'historic property' so that a building must actually qualify for the historic register or have cultural significance to Native Hawaiians or other ethnic groups. Other Permitting Reforms to Speed Up Housing Development – beyond historic review, there are also efforts to streamline the broader permitting process, some of which are more controversial than others: SB66 – Requires counties to approve certain building permits within 60 days if plans are stamped by a licensed engineer or architect. HB367 – Exempts certain types of structures from permit requirements if they aren't located within Special Management Areas (SMAs) HB661 / SB1074 – Allows already-approved projects to continue while environmental review challenges are being resolved HB732 – Raises the cost threshold for SMA permits to $750,000 and allows single-family homes under 3,500 square feet to qualify for minor permits, which could reduce red tape for smaller projects. Land Use Reforms: Changing Where and How We Build Q. Several bills this session deal with zoning and land use. What are the biggest proposals that are still alive? Compared to past years, there are fewer major land use reforms in play this year. However, two notable proposals could impact agricultural workforce housing and county authority over development costs: HB826 – Expanding Housing Options on Agricultural Land – would allow county planning commissions to issue special permits for agricultural workforce housing and other residential uses (long-term rentals and fee-simple ownership) on agricultural land; aims to address the housing shortage for agricultural workers while maintaining some county-level oversight. SB38 – Restricting County Authority to Raise Development Costs – would prohibit county councils from modifying or imposing conditions on housing projects that would increase their cost; applies to 201H developments (affordable housing projects that receive regulatory exemptions); critics argue this would undermine local control over housing policies and limit a county's ability to address infrastructure concerns, while proponents argue that by the time a project reaches the county council approval stage, it has already gone through an extensive planning and negotiation process such that having to retool budgets at the final stage introduces unnecessary risks and uncertainty into the approval project. New Ideas Q. Beyond the traditional subsidy and regulatory reforms, are there any new or creative proposals still moving forward? Yes – in addition to traditional subsidy and regulatory reforms, some outside-the-box proposals are still in play. They are a mixed bag: these bills explore rent caps, private equity restrictions, deed restrictions, zoning safeguards, supportive housing funding, algorithmic pricing bans, and pro-housing initiatives. Rent Controls & Tax Incentives SB1133 – Rent Cap & Long-Term Lease Tax Credit – would allow counties to cap rent increases based on the Consumer Price Index, landlords would be prohibited from raising rent beyond the county-determined percentage, would also create a Long-Term Residential Lease Tax Credit for landlords who lease units for at least a year, with credits that can be carried forward for up to three years. Private Equity & Speculation Taxes SB1033 – Private Equity Homeownership Restrictions Would impose a steep excise tax on hedge funds, private equity firms, and large trusts (those with over $50 million in assets) that hold single-family homes instead of selling them. The revenue would go to a Housing Downpayment Trust Fund to help local buyers afford homes. Programs to Preserve Local Homeownership HB739 (Kamaʻāina Homes Program) – would provide funding to counties to purchase voluntary deed restrictions from eligible homeowners and homebuyers. Zoning & Housing Supply Protections SB25 (No Net Loss of Housing) – Would require counties to offset any housing density reductions by increasing allowable housing elsewhere, with the aim of preventing an overall reduction in residential capacity. Funding for Affordable & Supportive Housing HB1410 – Supportive Housing & Infrastructure Funding – would restructure the conveyance tax to a marginal rate system and adjust taxation for multifamily properties based on per-unit values; revenue would go to: A new Supportive Housing Special Fund for services supporting affordable housing; The Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF) to finance infrastructure in high-density, transit-oriented areas. Regulating Algorithmic Pricing & Pro-Housing Policies SB157 – Ban on Algorithmic Rent Pricing – would prohibit the use of algorithm-driven rent pricing tools (which some say artificially inflate rents); the Attorney General's Office would oversee enforcement and launch a public education campaign. SB1632 – Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) Working Group – would require the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) to create a statewide pro-housing action plan under the 'Yes In My Backyard' initiative; aims to streamline housing approvals, expand zoning capacity, and increase homebuilding in urban areas. New Housing & Financing Programs SB572 – Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) Loans – would expand financing options by allowing nonprofit Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to administer loan funds for housing. HB1298 – Government Employee Housing – would create a revolving fund and rent-to-own program specifically for state employees. HB1007 – HCDA Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program – would expand the role of the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) in transit-oriented development and infrastructure improvements. HB89 – Teacher Housing Vouchers – would provide financial assistance for teachers struggling to afford housing. Specialized Housing & Affordability Measures SB1462 – Historic Properties Income Tax Credit Program – would reestablish a tax credit program for restoring historic properties, aiming to incentivize adaptive reuse of older buildings. HB1294 – Agricultural Workforce Housing Working Group – would establish a task force to address housing challenges for agricultural workers. HB741 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Financing & Deed Restriction Program – would allocate funds to counties for grants to help homeowners finance ADU construction and purchase deed restrictions to keep ADUs affordable. HB833 – Community Land Trust Equity Pilot Program – would authorize HHFDC to create a five-year pilot program offering a line of credit to community land trusts for acquiring, renovating, or building housing. Would be fundedthrough the Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund (DURF) and sunset in 2030. What's Off the Table (For Now) Q. Not every proposal made it past crossover. What are some of the most notable affordable housing bills that didn't move forward? A number of bills that aimed to reshape housing policy stalled this session, including efforts to tax vacant homes, restrict rent increases, and change affordable housing financing rules. These proposals stalled for now, but some of them tend to resurface over and over. Issues like vacant homes, zoning policies, and rent stabilization remain part of the broader housing debate, so we may see modified versions of these bills reintroduced in future sessions. Here's a rundown of some key measures that didn't advance: Vacant Homes Tax SB1214 – Would have imposed a General Excise Tax (GET) surcharge on residential properties left vacant for 180 days or more to discourage long-term vacancies and encourage more housing availability. Building Code & Zoning Changes HB1 / SB120 – Would have blocked updates to the state building code (a move seen as potentially making housing construction cheaper but also potentially slowing the implementation of the latest safety and efficiency standards). SB48 – Would have required a cost impact assessment of new building code updates before they take effect. SB67 – Would have banned inclusionary zoning requirements (which require developers to include affordable housing in their projects) for housing designated for Hawaiʻi residents. Affordable Housing & Rental Market Policies SB70 / HB762 – Would have restricted access to the Rental Housing Revolving Fund by only allowing government agencies or nonprofits with a mandate to reinvest all financial surpluses into housing to apply for funding. SB156 – Would have given tenants, nonprofits, and government agencies a first right of refusal (ROFR) to purchase affordable housing properties when their LIHTC restrictions expire. HB693 – Another attempt at rent control, this bill would have capped how much rent can increase over a 12-month period to prevent rapid spikes in housing costs. Takeaways Q. What's the big picture takeaway so far from this legislative session? I think we have a mixed bag – some ideas are better than others, but overall, I think there's a shift towards balancing immediate housing needs with long-term sustainability. The bills moving forward reflect a mix of traditional subsidy reforms and creative new proposals to make affordable housing development more realistic. The state is starting to think more comprehensively about affordability, not just in terms of direct subsidies, but also through streamlining regulatory barriers. For everything that does make it through this session, the next step will be ensuring that the reforms get put into practice effectively, which means a strong focus on how these bills are executed, monitored, and funded. Public-private partnerships will be crucial to turning these ideas into tangible results and making sure we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot. To learn more about this subject, tune into this video 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Laws unique to Hawaii
Dr. Troy Andrade, Law Professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law, joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss unique Hawaii laws that protect the beauty of our natural environment and wildlife and even laws regarding the Aloha Spirit. Q. Hawaii is the most isolated population on the face of the earth with a distinctive history and legal system. And we have some unique laws, including those that prohibit certain behavior in parks, protect natural resources, and address safety concerns. Today we're going to dive into a few of these unique laws. Can you give us an example of a unique law in Hawaii that perhaps folks don't realize is a law? I would start with billboards! You travel throughout the continental United States, and you will see huge billboards lining the freeways on top of building. These billboards are advertising, especially for legal help. The ban really came about in the 1920's as a response to advertising efforts and the ways in which that conflicted with the state's natural beauty. I think we can all agree that we have some pretty unique natural features in our islands. Lush green mountains, bright rainbows, scenic ocean views, and beautiful waterfalls. We also know that it is generally these natural features that bring others to our shores, which obviously helps our economy. So, the ban on billboards was to accomplish many different purposes, including preserving the sightline of natural beauty for residents and tourists alike, and to a small extent preserving cultural and environmental rights. As you can see there really is a rich context to this unique law. Q. What has the impact of the billboard ban had on Hawaii? Well, I think obviously Hawaii would be a very different place if along the H-3 or the Pali Highway there were large billboards advertising for personal injury lawyers or accountants – no offense to lawyers and accountants. Imagine having large billboards that blocked the ocean view as you drove along the west side of Oahu. I don't think it would be beneficial for anyone. So, I think it has had a positive impact for all of us. It does also promote our wellbeing and connection to this place we call home. To be honest I think tourists don't even notice that we don't have billboards, but I think if we did have billboards, I imagine that tourists would notice. But you know businesses have had to find workarounds to advertise (and I think they've been fairly successful). Some now have wrapped their vehicles in ads or focused on traditional print and now digital advertising avenues. Q. While we're on large billboards, are there other unique laws to protect the beauty of our natural environment? I've heard some talk about a law in Kauai that precludes buildings from being taller than a coconut tree. I was just on Kauai and you look around and there really aren't a lot of tall buildings. I checked the building code and there is a four story height limitation on buildings in Kauai County. I didn't see anything about coconut trees. But, these types of height limitations are, like billboards, generally intended to protect the view plane so we all can enjoy the beauty of the mountains, oceans, and natural environment. To assure our peace of mind, there are also unique noise laws that prohibit loud amplified music. Recently, for example, the Honolulu City Council passed a law that prohibits loud amplified music from playing near homes or hotels in Waikiki after 7:00 pm. The City Council wanted to ensure peace of mind and tranquility for Hawaii citizens and tourists alike. Q. Not every state has monk seals, whales, and turtles that people want to post Instagram photos of themselves with. Are there laws to protect our wildlife? We have other laws that protect our unique wildlife. We have, for examples, laws that require people to keep their distance from humpback whales and laws that prohibit feeding monk seals and other marine mammals. Technically, there are no formal distances to keep away from other animals like turtles, or monk seals, but the government does provide some recommendations for distances from animals to protect you as well as the animals. They recommending staying at least: 10 feet away from sea turtles 50 feet away from Hawaiian monk seals 50 yards away from dolphins or small whales Over the last few years, we have seen some folks getting into trouble with monk seals. All of which could have been avoided if they just kept their distance. To protect our reefs and oceans, our Legislature passed a law right to ban certain types of chemicals to be present in sunscreen. They banned sunscreens with the chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate as those chemicals caused genetic damage to marine life, including coral reefs. This new law forced the sunscreen industry to provide alternative sunscreens with more mineral-based components. We still have some tourist bringing in sunscreens that don't satisfy the law, but stores have quickly adjusted and no longer sell these harmful sunscreens. Q. Is there really a law regarding the Aloha Spirit? One of my most favorite and absolutely unique laws to Hawaii is often called the 'Aloha Statute' or the 'Aloha Spirit Statute.' And this law is found in Hawaii Revised Statues Section 5-7.5. The law defines the 'Aloha Spirit' as 'the coordination of mind and heart within each person. It brings each person to the self. Each person must think and emote good feelings to others.' The law asks lawmakers in Hawaii, including the legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, executive officers, and all justices and judges to 'contemplate and reside with the life force and give consideration to the 'Aloha Spirit,'' when they are making decisions that affect all of us. Interestingly, the law, which was crafted by Aunty Pilahi Paki, uses the word aloha as a pneumonic to describe various traits that comprise aloha, and I think it's worth sharing those traits with your audience because it is in the law. Q. What are those traits? So, the first 'A' in aloha stands for akahai, which kindness to be expressed with tenderness. The 'L' stands for lōkahi, meaning unity, to be expressed with harmony. The 'O' stands for 'olu'olu meaning agreeable, to be expressed with pleasantness. The 'H' stands for ha'aha'a, meaning humility, to be expressed with modesty. The final 'A' in aloha stands for ahonui, meaning patience, to be expressed with perseverance. These five character traits, according to the law, express the charm, warmth and sincerity of Hawaii's people. In the law, 'aloha' is more than a word of greeting or farewell or a salutation. 'Aloha' means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return. It is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence. Again, these traits are what the law expects of our decision makers and, to a large extent, all of us as members of this community. Q. Sounds nice, but has this law ever been used? There are examples of a few cases where judges have used this law to throughout history as a way to provide an obligation on decision-makers in our beloved Hawaii. Earlier this year, for example, in a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that, in essence, concluded that there was no state constitutional right to publicly carry a firearm. Among his many arguments was a reference to this Aloha Spirit law. He wrote, 'The spirit of aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. … We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. … The history of the Hawaii resident Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.' In another example, from 1996, Judge Daniel Heely used the Aloha spirit statute to conclude that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was entitled to a portion of revenues from public lands. In ruling in favor of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on its request for the state to provide it funding, Judge Heely wrote '[t]he court cannot conceive of a more appropriate situation in which to attempt to apply the concepts set forth in the Aloha Spirit law, then ruling on issues that are directly related to the betterment of the native Hawaiian people.' So, this law is really unique and special to Hawaii. Q. How do you see these unique laws continuing to play a role in Hawaii? I would say that most 'unique' laws are created in response to addressing some critical need or to protect something of vast importance. I think these examples I've shared are special and uniquely designed and tailored around protecting the things that make Hawaii unique. Especially on the 'Aloha spirit' statute, I hope lawmakers and judges continue to practice these values. We should make large posters and post them in every government office to constantly remind our civic leaders of their larger obligations to everyone in Hawaii. To learn more about this subject, tune into this video 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hawaiian Home Lands: Is there hope for the future?
Kali Watson, attorney and Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands & Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, joins producer/host Coralie Chun Matayoshi to discuss new options and tools to get Hawaiian home land beneficiaries off of the waitlist, including rent-to-own housing, subsistence agricultural lots, zoning exemptions, 'in house' building permit approval, and 'paper leases.' Q. Over 24,000 Native Hawaiian beneficiaries are still waiting for housing and 2,000 have died while on the waitlist. You have dedicated 30 years of your life trying to solve this problem with some 'out of the box thinking.' In order to provide new options, instead of the traditional one dollar 99-year lease for a plot of land, the Hawaiian Homelands Commission in 2018 amended its rules to allow DHHL to run rental properties. Are they rent-to-own and how does this work? · La'i 'opua, Hawaii (34 single family Akau LIHTC with Option to Purchase) · Courtyards at Waipouli in Kapaa, Kauai (purchase of existing 82 existing townhouses and awarded to Kauai residential wait listers. Awarded homestead lease with a 10 to 15 year rent to own option on the vertical construction.) · Hale O Moiliili (23 story high-rise of affordable rental 271 condo units and 7 townhouses – to be built on Bowl-o-Drome site) – HUD's initial concern that demand from beneficiaries may fall short and idea of allowing nonbeneficiaries to participate which could run into breach of trust problems but resolved. Over 11,400 Oahu residential wait listers. And over 13,000 backup outer island wait listers. · Kupuna Housing – Kalamaula, Molokai and Waianae Comp kupuna housing with Lunalilo Homes · ADU's and Supplemental Rental Units Q. What are your plans to develop single family homes and what kind of challenges are you facing? · Kauluokahai, Kapolei, Oahu 700 SF · Kaupea, Kapolei, Oahu 60 SF · Ewa Beach (220 single family residential) – had to revise plan due to sea level rise · Villages of Leiali'i (Lahaina) (second phase of 181 units – $376,000 per lot infrastructure cost · Puuhona, Maui – 161 SF · Wailuku Sindle Family 207 · Waiehu Mauka, Maui 311SF · Honokowai – 50 Subsistence Ag · Kamalani, Maui 400 SF · Lanai – 75 SF · Hanapepe, Kauai 82 SF · Anahola, Kauai 115 Pastoral · Lihue, Kauai – 1000 SF & 100 Subsistent Ag Q. You recently granted 68 subsistence-ag lots on the Big Island and plan to award more of them. What are agricultural lots and why haven't more of them been awarded since the late 1980's? Subsistence-ag lots are less than three acres in size and near existing infrastructure. This homestead model allows beneficiaries to live and grow food on their lots for home consumption or small-scale economic agricultural activity. Beneficiaries who opt to grow produce and other crops commercially must create a farm plan, like a business plan, as part of their lease, and lessees must cultivate at least two-thirds of the land with both lot types, beneficiaries have the option of constructing a single-family home or supplemental dwelling unit. Since there are no requirements to build a house, there are no financial qualification requirements; this means the department can get beneficiaries on the land faster. An additional 40 subsistence agricultural lots are slated for development in Honomū within the next two years. Q. Can you explain how you are using zoning exemptions and 'in-house' building permit approval to expedite the building process? DHHL is not subject to County permitting requirements. Therefore, we are in the process of developing our own in-house permitting system to avoid the long delays caused by the counties requiring zoning review/approval before a building permit can be issued. DHHL will review and approve the zoning requirements for its 'in-house' building permits. Because DHHL is required to meet all Federal and State laws especially ones to the protection of the environment, the 'in-house' building permit process will address those concerns. DHHL is committed to building communities for its 'beneficiaries' which are sustainable and 'smart'. As DHHL permitting will not be subject to the County's zoning review requirements, many of which are intended to protect the environment, DHHL will be subject to the zoning processes which each of the counties have created to regulate those issues but do it in house. The elimination of that portion of the County permitting process will greatly reduce the permitting processing time. Q. What are 'paper leases' and how will they help beneficiaries pass property down to their heirs? 'Paper leases' are actual homestead leases issued to beneficiaries coming off the wait lists. They can be a residential, pastoral, or agricultural homestead lease. They are awarded for specific projects the DHHL is designing, building and issuing homestead leases in the coming years under Act 279 ($600 million 2022 legislative award). They are not for specific parcels within the projects, but for the project as a whole. Should the recipient die before the Project is built, this allows the recipient to pass his lease on to his designated successor who need only be 25% Hawaiian, unlike an applicant on the wait list who can only pass on 'his place' on the wait list who is 50% Hawaiian. As the project moves through the development process, relative and reflective of the makeup of the paper lease awardees, the Developer will create various categories that address the specific economic status of the various paper lessees. Those that want to build their own houses will receive a finished lot. Those that want to contribute 'sweat equity' and build their own lots with a self-help contractor such as Habitat for Humanity, will participate in that program assuming they qualify based on their income. Those that are under 60% Area Median Income may, if they desire, participate in the Low-Income Tax Credit with Option to Purchase program. They will receive a paper lease which is separate from the financing package cover the vertical construction of their house, which has a 15-year compliance period. And finally, those that qualify for one of the loan programs will participate in the turn-key housing program. Q. How successful have you been in acquiring funding and what more do you need? A constant battle. Working with federal, state and county governments. With our long wait lists, which will grow, DHHL needs another $5.5 billion to eliminate the wait list. To learn more about this subject, tune into this video 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
