Some Hawaii policymakers might say it’s not possible to address Hawaii’s housing crisis without spending big bucks on public construction projects.
But I have exciting news. Not only is it possible, my team at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has produced a roadmap that can help make it happen.
Our latest report, written by Grassroot policy researcher Jonathan Helton, offers an overview of the different policies Hawaii lawmakers could embrace to help boost the state’s housing supply relatively quickly and at no cost to Hawaii taxpayers.
Keli’i Akina
Titled “How to facilitate more homebuilding in Hawaii,” the report does not call for government housing programs, nor does it present a one-size-fits-all “solution” to the housing crisis. Rather, it identifies changes that legislators could make as soon as possible without infringing on property rights or depleting state or county funds.
Many of the proposals in the report do not require the government to do much more than remove the barriers that have prevented innovation and frustrated the construction of new homes to begin with.
For example, a policy called “adaptive reuse” would permit homebuilders to more easily convert existing office buildings to residential use. This is not only financially practical but also more environmentally friendly.
Another helpful reform would be for Hawaii’s counties to expand their mixed-use zoning areas. This would encourage homes and businesses to co-exist on the same block, or even in the same building, which would promote walkable neighborhoods and creative housing solutions.
The new Grassroot policy brief also talks about the importance of making it easier for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, commonly known in Hawaii as ohana units. We often think of ADUs as housing for elderly relatives — hence the term “ohana homes” — but they also have demonstrated great potential as an affordable rental option.
Helton also suggests removing regulations that require a certain number of parking spaces for homes and businesses — because land devoted to parking is land that cannot be used for living.
But perhaps the option with the most potential to increase our much-needed housing supply is “upzoning.” In general, the concept refers to allowing more homes such as duplexes, triplexes and even small “starter homes” to be built where formerly there were only single-family dwellings surrounded by large yards.
Elements of upzoning include lot-splitting, reducing setbacks and adjusting floor area ratios. If applied in a comprehensive manner, upzoning could yield big rewards.
Taken together, all of these policy options are wonderful ideas that Hawaii lawmakers would do well to implement.
But as Helton makes clear, our legislators also need to put an end to Hawaii’s notorious permitting and approval delays. After all, what good is a plan to build more housing if you cannot obtain the permits to build in a timely, cost-effective manner?
Helton suggests two policy reforms to address this issue. First, the counties could adopt self-certification programs that allow qualified architects to vouch for building plans themselves — perhaps subject to random audits by city officials to make sure they are not violating zoning or building code requirements.
Honolulu recently adopted such a plan, following in the footsteps of cities such as Chicago and New York that have successfully been using self-permitting for decades.
The second permitting reform would be to authorize “by right” approvals so projects that meet all the legal requirements can proceed without discretionary approvals from neighborhood boards, planning departments or county councils.
Most important, this new report demonstrates how much we can do to grow housing in Hawaii simply by reforming existing regulations. And it doesn’t reinvent the wheel. These are all tried-and-true solutions that have been proven throughout the nation and around the world to facilitate the creation of new housing.
We cannot solve Hawaii’s housing crisis overnight, but there are plenty of ways we can make housing more affordable and available without burdening taxpayers — and my team’s new report outlines what some of those ways could be. __________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
A recent decision issued by the Hawai‘i Public Utilities Commission (PUC) sparked an upheaval in Hawai‘i’s homegrown clean energy industry because it undervalues the industry’s contribution to our electric grid and our climate goals. This decision threatens to shut down access to rooftop solar for homes and small businesses, which will set off another wave of job losses, and reverse years of progress on Hawai‘i’s clean energy and climate goals.
The decision, issued just over two weeks ago on December 4, 2023, finalized the terms for the next generation of solar programs, called “Bring Your Own Device” or “BYOD,” in which customers can be compensated for using their solar and battery systems to support the utility grid. But the PUC added severely unfavorable provisions to the program that will end up costing people extra money to participate (See decision here).
“This decision is an about-face for Hawai‘i’s leadership and aspirations on clean energy, including the prior work of the PUC. It undoes years of progress to enable customers to lead the way on adopting clean energy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce costs for everyone,” said Rocky Mould, Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Solar Energy Association. “We’re hoping the PUC quickly corrects course to avoid a catastrophe for local industry and a massive momentum killer for clean energy in Hawai‘i.”
Instead of enabling customers’ on-site solar systems to support the grid and lower grid costs for all customers, the PUC’s order forces customers to either pay for more expensive power from the monopoly utility or purchase solar systems that only serve their own needs. This counterproductive outcome increases costs for everyone and motivates customers to leave the grid, instead of encouraging customers to help build the clean energy grid of the future from the bottom up.
The PUC’s decision is all the more surprising and disappointing given the proven successes of distributed, localized energy resources as a catalyst and driver of Hawai‘i’s clean energy progress over the years. Distributed solar has already contributed to half of HECO’s renewable energy portfolio and collectively comprises the largest resource on HECO’s grids.
The Battery Bonus program is the latest distributed energy success story, in which over 46 MW of rooftop solar and battery systems were rapidly enrolled to help support the grid on O‘ahu and Maui and reduce costs when delays in HECO’s plans to add large-scale renewable projects led to a grid reliability crisis and bill spikes from oil prices. The Battery Bonus program, however, recently hit its program capacity limit. Absent an extension of that program by the PUC and a viable successor program in BYOD, the Hawai‘I solar market faces an impending shutdown.
Solar industry leaders Hawai‘I Solar Energy Association (HSEA) and Hawai‘I PV Coalition, represented by clean energy law firms Earthjustice and Keyes & Fox, took swift action and filed a motion late last week asking the PUC to reconsider its decision (see here). In their request, the industry representatives warn that the PUC’s order threatens to derail progress and “cause immediate and lasting market impacts as severe or worse than the fallout eight years ago,” when the PUC’s abrupt closure of the original net-metering (NEM) program forcibly downsized the local solar industry by over 60%, triggering the loss of approximately 2,000 jobs.
“In my 15 years working with this Commission, this decision is the most drastic misstep I have seen—up there with slamming the curtain on net metering eight years ago, but with potentially more disastrous results,” said Isaac Moriwake, an attorney with Earthjustice who has represented HSEA at the PUC since 2009. “It took years for the industry and market to find its footing again after that, and we can’t afford to repeat that history. Whatever is going on, hopefully the PUC can turn this around without delay.”
The PUC’s recent decision adds to mounting questions about the agency’s current direction, including concerns regarding its ongoing silence and inaction in response to the Lahaina wildfire disaster. Over the years, the PUC has taken a leadership role in reforming HECO’s business toward a performance-based model, with a primary focus on shifting the utility’s bias against customer-installed clean energy resources into a recognition of the benefits to the grid and all customers. The recent decision marks a stark reversal of this progress and risks a historically grievous setback for Hawai‘i’s clean energy industry, at a time when the state cannot afford to lose momentum toward its clean energy and climate goals.
About Hawai‘I Solar Energy Association (HSEA)
The Hawai‘i Solar Energy Association is a non-profit organization representing and advocating for the solar and energy storage industry in Hawai‘i. HSEA works to promote the growth of solar energy and storage, advance policies that support clean energy initiatives, and contribute to the overall well-being and resiliency of Hawai‘i’s communities.
Editor’s Note: John Robinson, aka JR, is not only one of the most astute retirement planners in town, he’s one of the few local financial pros with a national profile. He’s become an authority on Genworth Long Term Care Insurance and was extensively quoted in a recent NY Times article, Difficult Choices for Some Long-Term Care Policyholders.
In short, it’s a jungle out there for Boomers who have invested in this vehicle only to find their premiums have dramatically risen and their policies have morphed into bureaucratic nightmares. JR once again zeroes in on this byzantine subject for Hawaii Reporter, providing much needed advice and clarity for Genworth policy holders.
*************************
Over the past few years, I have provided consulting guidance to close to a hundred Genworth (formerly GE) long term care insurance policyholders. In every instance, the impetus for reaching out to me has been the receipt of an ominous letter from Genworth informing policyholders of various options they have to restructure their policies pursuant to a court- approved class action settlement offer and disclosing to them their plans for future major premium increases.
Many of the people who contacted me have paid premiums for ten to twenty years or more and are reaching out in panic and desperation. The root cause of their angst is not so much the potential for premium increases as it is the informational asymmetry that exists between Genworth and its policy holders. The letter they receive forces them to accept incredibly important potentially life and wealth altering policy adjustments without the knowledge base necessary to make rational informed decisions.
Leveling the Informational Playing Field
To help level the playing field, I have compiled a list of eight important pieces of information Genworth LTC policy holders should know before accepting any of the offers presented in the Genworth notification letter.
Most policies have a 45-day grace period. Don’t feel pressured by the response date given in the Genworth settlement options notification letter. It is always safest to verify, so just call Genworth Customer Support at 866-234-9237 to confirm.
The settlement options provided in the Genworth letter are not your only restructuring options. In fact, they tend to be the policy structures that most benefit Genworth and the law firms that brought the class action. Most policyholders I have met are unaware that Genworth LTC policies usually permit policyholders to amend their benefits any time.
Read the long paragraph with bold print on the first page of the letter carefully and use it to inform your decision-making. This paragraph discloses the ungodly percentages that Genworth plans to raise your premiums. It serves two purposes for Genworth. First, it is ostensibly presented to comply with the disclosure issue that was at the heart of the lawsuit. Its second unstated purpose is to terrify policyholders into bailing on the contracts. Policyholders should also know that the percentages listed (sometimes as high as 400% or more) represent the total amount of premium increases Genworth estimates it needs to break even on the policies in that particular policy group in that state over the anticipated duration of the policy class. In most cases, these increases will be requested from the state insurance commissioners incrementally over a period of many years rather than implemented in one fell swoop.
Cast a wary eye on the cash-back settlement options. If you call Genworth Customer Support to restructure your contract, the phone reps will likely caution that any structure you choose outside of the settlement options will not give you any cash back. What they won’t tell you is that the ongoing premiums on the cash-back options are often as much as twice what you would pay if you restructure on your own.
The settlement options are irrevocable. Once you have made your election you cannot make any more changes to the policy. That is not the case if you choose a structure that is not one of the settlement options.
If you qualify for benefits under the policy, in most cases you do not need to pay premiums anymore. I have encountered three policyholders this year who qualified for benefits but were thinking of dropping the policies because they could not afford the premium increases. In all three instances, the policyholders had been formally diagnosed with Alzheimers, but had not filed claims because they did not need full-time custodial care. They did not realize that part time custodial care for as little as a couple days a week was sufficient to trigger the waiver of premium provision.
Your policy can last much longer than the contractually stated benefit period. The benefit period is the amount of time the policy will last from the time the maximum monthly or daily benefit begins paying without interruption. The benefit period can last much longer if care is only needed on a part-time basis and/or less than the full amount of the daily/monthly benefit is needed.
Be aware of the maximum limits of your state’s insurance guarantee fund for long-term care payments. Most states’ insurance guarantee funds allows for benefits claims to be paid if the company that issued the long term care policy should fail. While I do not know the likelihood of Genworth failing, its C+ bond rating suggests that insolvency is a possibility. If the size of the benefit pool in your Genworth policy is far greater than the guaranty fund limit in your state, you may wish to scale back your policy.
Additional Resources
Here are links to other articles I have written on this topic over the past few years:
In this space, we have been writing a lot about grief caused by spending taxpayer money unwisely.
It turns out that lots of grief can also be caused by failure to spend it.
Recently, according to reporting by Civil Beat, the Department of Education approached the Department of Budget and Finance with a list of about $900 million in projects that it didn’t think it could move before the funding for the project ran out of time. You see, legislative appropriations have a shelf life, normally three years. Before the time is up, the agency doing the project normally needs to “obligate” the funds, meaning that it needs to be spending money on the project itself or it needs to be under contract with a person or company that is going to do the project. When the time limit is reached, the funding “lapses,” which means that the appropriation for the money disappears. When that happens, the project can’t and won’t be done unless the legislature passes, and the Governor signs, another appropriation for the project. In other words, those folks who want the project to happen need to start over.
After the DOE and Budget & Finance had a discussion over that $900 million worth of projects, the list got whittled down to roughly half. According to the DOE’s statement, it “submitted a list of projects totaling $465 million that it proposed be allowed to lapse to free up project funding for other state priorities.” DOE explained that it prioritized projects for which construction has already started, projects which were ready to begin construction, and projects needed to comply with federal requirements such as those imposed by gender equity laws or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Despite DOE’s desperate attempt to spin the issue, legislators were outraged. Legislators all try to look good for their constituents by bringing home improvements to facilities within their respective districts. Civil Beat quoted Rep. Sonny Ganaden, representing Kalihi, who was upset that DOE was proposing to lapse more than $57 million that was going to be spent at Farrington High School for new classrooms, a music building, a gymnasium, and related improvements. He noted that his district contains three different schools with projects that are proposed to lapse, and basically accused DOE of discriminating against his district, which has a high percentage of low-income students.
You can see the lapse list here. (I wonder if it’s me they’re actually after? I see my elementary school, intermediate school, AND high school on the list.)
DOE perhaps could have turned around and blamed county permitting agencies for being too slow to cough up the permits that these projects needed. Interestingly, however, it didn’t do that. Other things happened, which may or may not be related. A committee of the Board of Education, which was considering a $10,000 per year pay increase for Superintendent Keith Hayashi, narrowly deferred the proposal on a 3-4 vote. The assistant superintendent in charge of facilities and operations, Randall Tanaka, was given the ax after a little less than four years in his position.
This doesn’t sound like a case of the DOE getting stymied by external factors like county permitting. It sounds like there were some screw-ups at the DOE level, and Randall Tanaka is taking a fall as a result. (Of course, we can’t boot any civil servants; that would be way too hard.) Hopefully, this incident will motivate the DOE to build systems and processes sufficient to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
Editor’s note: Yurika Matsumori is Hawaii Reporter’s newest film critic. A keen observier of Japanese Cinema and a native speaker, she interviewed both Messrs. Kore-eda and Sakamoto about their recent collaboration on Monster, a film just released in the US and screened at HIFF last month. The interview, conducted in Japanese, was translated by Yurika. We look forward to her future contributions.Her bio is posted at the bottom of the page.
**************************************
Matsumori: What inspired you to write this script?
Sakamoto: I discussed the script with the producer when I started writing it. I wanted to create a story where the narrative unfolds many times, and with each twist, what one originally saw would change. The methodological approach for creating such a story came first. I recalled a moment when I was driving and stopped behind a truck at a red light. When the light turned green, the truck didn’t move immediately. I honked the horn a few times, and only then did the truck start moving. Then, I saw someone in a wheelchair in the crosswalk after the truck had passed. I regretted honking the horn despite the fact that the truck was big, blocking my view of the wheelchair. It made me aware how unintentionally one can become a perpetrator without realizing it, and I wanted to turn that experience into a story. I wrote the story also mixing in my early childhood memories.
Matsumori: As a director who has written his own scripts for years, why did you collaborate with Mr. Sakamoto this time?
Kore-eda: My debut work was written by someone else, so it had been about 30 years. Whenever I was asked whom I would want to write a script if not myself, I would mention Mr. Sakamoto. When I heard my name was mentioned by Mr. Sakamoto as a candidate for the director during the development of this film, I wanted to do it before even confirming the details.
Matsumori: How did the collaboration and editing/modifications unfold during the film’s production?
Kore-eda: Initially, the setting was on the outskirts of Tokyo with a large river flowing through the city, but shooting in Tokyo is generally challenging due to difficulties obtaining permits. Then we found a location in Suwa, Nagano Prefecture, with a lake instead of a river, Here the town would be cooperative, for example, when we shot the scenes of the fire engines in action.
Mr. Sakamoto joined me there, and we made adjustments by changing the setting to a lake. As casting became more specific, the script and dialogues evolved to suit each character. Observing Mr. Sakamoto’s scriptwriting process was a valuable experience for me.
Matsumori: The principal in the film deviates from the typical image associated with principals, which is articulate and decisive. Why did you choose to portray the principal this way?
Sakamoto: I had previously created a drama about bullying at school about 15 or 16 years ago. I interviewed individuals who experienced bullying, and what I found was that in many Japanese organizations, revealing problems often leads to the dismantling or closure of the organization rather than addressing and correcting them. Leaders tend to hide issues to avoid negative consequences, and portraying a principal with a similar mindset felt appropriate.
Matsumori: There is a scene where the two children play a guessing game, “Who is the Monster?” What does the monster represent?
Monster Director, Hirokazu Kore-eda
Sakamoto: I think that everyone carries a metaphorical monster within themselves, whether or not it truly exists. It’s an intangible entity, sometimes visible, sometimes not, affecting human relationships. I think of it as an unseen barrier in interpersonal relationships.
Kore-eda: I think that the audience, who has been searching for monsters within the film, realizes upon reaching the third (“children’s”) chapter that the act of seeking monsters was, in fact, their own monstrous behavior.When I first read the plot, I thought, “I am the monster,” especially when I advanced to the children’s chapter. I made the film thinking that it is very important that the audience is made to realize this by the children.
Matsumori: What themes or messages would you like the audience to take away from the film?
Kore-eda: It’s up to the audience to interpret and decide that, not only in this movie but in general. I think this film gives people various emotions, takeaways, and interpretations.
Matsumori: How does this film connect to the global audience, and what common elements do you believe resonate universally?
Kore-eda: I don’t specifically create with a universal audience in mind. Rather, I make the film as if I’m talking to someone specific and I think that it somehow ends up resonating universally. I think Mr. Sakamoto would agree. If something in this film resonates with people globally, I think it’s the sense of disconnection between people or between people and organizations depicted in the film that may echo with those who perceive similar individual experiences occurring globally.
Matsumori: Viewers may perceive differently based on their experiences and circumstances. It’s a subjective experience for each person. Mr. Sakamoto, what do you think?
Sakamoto: As the director said, whether it’s someone in my life or even just an imagined person, I create something with the intent to benefit that one person, trusting that it will reach many people. Aside from that, I don’t think there are many other methods of creation. I believe in creating something for one person, first and foremost, and trusting that it will reach that person. I don’t really consider much else. While creating this work, I thought about a past friend or imagined someone who would love this piece, always keeping them in mind as I wrote.
**********************************
Yurika Matsumori
Yurika Matsumori is a medical speech-language pathologist specializing in cognitive linguistic communication and dysphagia challenges. A native speaker of Japanese who spent formative years in Osaka, Japan, she earned a B.A. in Linguistics from Duke University and an M.S. in Speech-Language Pathology from Columbia University, enriched by study abroad experiences in Germany and Spain.
Yurika’s interest in language and communication extends beyond the clinical setting and into the captivating world of cinema, where she plays a role as a movie reviewer and entertainment writer. She is excited to share stories compelled by her fascination with the narratives unfolding on the silver screen.
Yurika’s commitment to facilitating communication also led to her previous involvement with Toastmasters International for many years. As a member, she undertook various leadership roles and received advanced communication and leadership awards. A mother of four, Yurika enjoys engaging in a wide variety of activities such as being immersed in nature through hiking and kayaking, maintaining physical health and well-being at the gym, expressing herself through singing, or engaging in a challenging game of Scrabble.
She looks forward to sharing her perspective and observations on cinema with Hawaii Reporter readers.
In the upcoming legislative session, which is right around the corner from now, there is going to be tremendous budgetary pressure.
For one thing, lots of resources were used for wildfire relief efforts. This money had to come from somewhere. The Governor said that a bunch of it was just moved from other projects and programs. Which means the the constituents behind those projects and programs are going to want their funding restored, perhaps with some compensation for the temporary “theft.”
But that is actually a minor amount of money, comparatively. There are, and have been for some time, two huge gorillas in the room that need resources too. And there is no getting away from them because they exist because of promises made long ago to people who relied on those promises for years, in some cases decades. The names of the two gorillas are ERS, the Employees’ Retirement System, and EUTF, the Employer-Union Trust Fund. Together they represent assurances made to state workers that after they retire, they would receive a pension, which is what ERS gives them, and health care for life, which is EUTF’s function.
Let’s take a look at the pension side first. According to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts, ERS’ funded ratio is 64%, meaning that the ERS fund has less than two-thirds of the money it needs to pay out its promised returns, according to actuarial estimates. That’s concerning enough, but the number dropped from 69% funded ratio in 2008, a trajectory opposite from what we need. The ERS’ current financial statements show that it had, as of June 30, 2022, about $21.8 billion. This means ERS is currently underfunded by more than $12 billion. Given that the amount of money our entire state government spends in a year is about $16 billion, $12 billion is a huge amount of money.
When we go to the EUTF, the outlook is a little better but still concerning. The EUTF’s own report shows an unfunded actuarial accrued liability, or UAAL, of about $9 billion. Meaning that, according to actuarial estimates, the EUTF needs about $9 billion more than it now has if it is to fund the benefits that the State already has promised to its retirees. The good news is that the UAAL number has been trending downward, from a peak of $12.4 billion in 2019.
The amount of assets in EUTF has been slowly trending upward, from $0.8 billion in 2015 to $3.9 billion in 2020; it got a pandemic bump to $5.3 billion in 2021, followed by a more anemic rise to $5.9 billion in 2022. More significantly, the liabilities borne by the fund appeared to flatline in 2019-21 just shy of $16 billion, and then dropped quite a bit to $14.9 billion in 2022.
Even with the EUTF numbers appearing to be more under control, we cannot understate the significance of the two gorillas in the room. They need to be dealt with, and that need results in further pressure on an already beleaguered state budget.
For those of you who think it’s going to be possible to pass meaningful tax reform this session (including those last session who tried to get meaningful cuts in for the ALICE, namely Asset-Limited Income-Constrained and Employed folks), good luck to you. But you need to start your journey knowing that the two big gorillas lurk somewhere along the path.
Hawaii’s state budget is in a precarious position.
It’s a startling reversal of where we were at the beginning of the year, when the state had a huge surplus and many of our lawmakers were going hog-wild trying to spend it all.
In June, I praised Gov. Josh Green for cutting $1 billion from the Legislature’s spending plans, but what remained still exceeded the state spending cap.
Keli’i Akina
To the governor’s credit, he has been squirreling away money into the state’s rainy day fund. But still, the budget is teetering because of overspending.
Now, a sluggish economy threatens to throw off the balance even more. If state spending continues to increase and tax revenues stay flat, the state will operate at a budget deficit with only the carry-over surplus to keep us from falling completely into the red.
The state Division of Budget & Finance is forecasting increased tax revenues in 2025 and beyond, but it would be foolish to assume that nothing else could occur to affect tax revenues. Obviously, no one expected wildfires to almost completely burn down Lahaina in August. And yet, that tragedy happened and has resulted in growing expenses.
Unfortunately, when faced with a negative economic outlook and continued excessive spending, many of our state lawmakers will be tempted to increase our taxes rather than trim their expenses.
Historically, that hasn’t helped. It’s why tiny Hawaii has one of the biggest tax burdens in the entire nation — and of course, also the nation’s highest cost of living.
If our lawmakers have any interest in lowering Hawaii’s cost of living, improving its business climate and stemming the exodus of residents to the mainland — as they should — I suggest they consider something different: Cut taxes and watch our economy grow.
It sounds counterintuitive, but there is actually lotsofevidence that tax cuts can result in economic growth. And more economic activity means more tax revenue.
In 2021, the national Tax Foundation listed seven recent studies that linked tax cuts to economic growth. It said some of the studies noted that “the strength of this effect depends on which taxes are cut, for whom, and when.”
But no matter how you do it, cutting taxes would leave more money in the hands of Hawaii residents and businesses, which would encourage investment, innovation, job growth and consumer spending.
Increased business activity would mean more transactions and profits available for taxation. In effect, the state would collect more money with lower taxes because it’s dealing in bigger numbers — like how Walmart can make a lot of money with low prices by selling in bulk.
As for which taxes to cut, I suggest first our sky-high income taxes. If lawmaker’s won’t cut the rates, they could at least peg the brackets to inflation, as Gov. Green proposed during the 2023 legislative session. Doing so would prevent Hawaii taxpayers from being pushed into higher tax brackets simply because of inflation, which is something none of us in Hawaii has any control over.
I also would like to see Hawaii’s estate tax and corporate income taxes reduced or abolished. Such action might cost money in the short run, but would pay big dividends down the line through higher investment and economic growth.
There are many other taxes we could consider reducing or eliminating, but it should be obvious by now that continually increasing our tax burden is a losing proposition.
Let’s try cutting taxes to produce a stronger economy and reduce out-migration — and produce more tax revenue to fund the necessary functions of our state and county governments. __________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
An exploration of the public health risks associated with pesticide exposure in Hawaiʻi and beyond.
Location
Ka Waiwai1110 University Avenue Honolulu, HI 96826
Pesticides are a common tool in modern farming, however, some are known or suspected to pose a range of public health risks. Join us for this conversation about pesticide use and public health in Hawaiʻi and beyond.
This panel event will explore the scientific evidence of the public health risks of pesticide exposure and its implications for Hawaiʻi communities and public policy.
Panelists: Rosana Hernandez Weldon, UHM Office of Public Health Studies; Fern Ānuenue Holland, Hawaiʻi Alliance for Progressive Action; and Councilmember Keani Rawline-Fernandez, Maui County Council (Molokaʻi)
Sponsors of this event include the Future of Food and Agriculture in Hawai’i, HAPA, and the Hawai‘i Institute for Sustainable Community Food Systems at UHWO.
The old trope about building a better mouse trap is something that we’ve all heard–probably more often than not.
This time around, it has a bit more currency.
In my case finding a better rat trap was of more than passing interest. It starts with the disappearance of Penguin, my cat. Cats are probably the best rodent deterrent around but if they disappear or find greener pastures, suddenly you’re quite vulnerable to rapacious rodents. This often includes the fruit you grow–dragon fruit, avocado, papaya and the list goes on.
What to do?
You consult your #1 rodent expert, Shawn Woods whose “Mousetrap Monday” YouTube channel has 1.9+ million subscribers. There’s a good reason for that. He offers objective, down-to-earth commentary on pest control products and provides recommendations. Shawn often reviews products (and offers exposure to mom-and-pop businesses) that you might not otherwise hear about.
As a business writer, I like those kinds of stories.
A case and point is the Uhlik Repeater Trap, manufactured byPrairie Road Iron Works, a Linn, Kansas-based metal fabrication company companyfounded by Todd Ohlde. Todd told me he didn’t think he would ever be in the “rat trap business”, but as the saying goes, you never know. However, he found a product that was too good to pass up.
He explained that the trap was invented by an “older gentleman”, an inventor who could barely keep up with orders. Mr. Ohlde saw the opportunity, seized the moment and purchased the patent.
Mr. Woods, the YouTube pest control expert, who is not often prone to hyperbole, stated on his video (see below) that this was “The Best Rat Trap I Have Ever Tested.”
In my experience would rephrase that comment and say the Uhlik Repeater Trap is also the “best mongoose trap I have ever tested”. (More on that later).
I needed to act.
Keep in mind, rats are not just a nuisance.
According to a recent Washington Poststory, “Scientists warn invasive pests are taking a staggering toll on society“, they are the most widespread invasive animal in the world. Not only have they made their way into dense cities (like Honolulu) but onto far-flung islands where they have decimated ground-nesting seabirds and other animals. “The impact of land-dwelling rats on islands is so profound, said the article,” that even nearby reef fish can feel it after the rodents alter the flow of nutrients into the ocean.”
The rats were also destroying my dragon fruit at an alarming rate. When you combine no cat with a very hot dry summer (and presumably very little rodent food out there) the rats had become ravenous. They were even consuming green fruit, a “practice” I’d never witnessed before.
So it was time to strike back.
I ordered the trop. The box came in from UPS and it was pretty darn big, 15” x 31”, weighing in at 33 lbs. Compared to an average rat trap, this was the size of a White Freightliner. But then again, there are a lot of rats where I live, on the edge of Palolo Valley.
You can watch the assembly process here
The package contains the following components: (1) Holding Cage, (2) Transfer Cage, (3) Trap Top, (4) Critter Guard, (5) Stop Rod, (6) Self Tap Screws. It also comes with 1.25 pounds of rat bait, containing four different grains and seeds that Todd Ohlde insists “are known to entice rats”.
It does take a little assembly but all you need is a socket wrench with 1/4” and 5/16” nut sockets. Just add (14 in all) metal screws that are provided in the kit. No big deal. There are written instructions provided as well or you can read them on the Uhlik web site.
Using the trap
So, you’ve assembled the trap? Then what?
First off, if you watch the video, you’ll note that the trap is humane. I wasn’t a big fan of poison and trapping them seemed to be the best option. They essentially drop down from a trap door type arrangement and plop themselves into a holding cage. Getting them to do this is the trick.
The first step in setting the trap is to secure a the little “stop rod” which prevents the trap door from dropping.
Why?
Learning how to bait the trap is a big deal
You want the rats to feel comfortable with the device. They need to be familiar with the trap door. You’ll need to sprinkle seeds or what ever bait you have on the door and add extra bait to the little bin. Rats are smart and inherently leery creatures, so they need to get used to their environs and feel relaxed about eating the seeds on top of the trap door.
This make take up to 5 days or so. Once you see seeds disappearing from the feeding area, you’ll know the rodents are getting comfortable so you can remove the bar and set the stage for them to drop into the cage.
I suggest watching Mr. Ohlde’s video which discusses how to bait the trap:
My advice is to be patient. The first night I set the trap I couldn’t get them to feed at all. I placed little wooden ramps for them, as suggested by Todd. The kit provides a “transfer” cage that so you can dispose of the culprits (maybe let them go). You can watch this video which illustrates this process. (He warns against “liquidating” the rats inside the main cage. Any rat blood shed in the main cage would deter them from getting near the trap).
It proved to be effective with rats but I found an even better mission…
Mongoose Beware
Small Asian Mongoose. Modified from Peter Kraayvanger, 2016, Pixabay. Public Domain
As eluded to above my intention for acquiring the trap was to liquidate rats. However, the equation changed when I acquired a new a cat. A barn cat to be exact, a semi-feral feline that loves to hunt.
While getting her accustomed to her new surroundings I set aside food in the backyard. Before she could even get to it the cat food seemed to disappear. I didn’t see other cats around nor did the birds seem interested.
What I did see sneaking away from the bowl however, was a mongoose.
Originally from Asia the mongoose is ubiquitous on my home island of Oahu as well as Hawai’i Island (aka; The Big Island), Maui, and Molokai. Although “cute” from afar, they are fierce little creatures that were introduced on the islands to cull rats. The mongoose is known for its ability to kill venomous snakes, especially cobras. Yeah cobras. Yikes. Evidently they are immune to cobra venom. Their thick coats and lightning reactions make them potent cobra adversaries.
Unfortunately mongoose didn’t work out too well as rat exterminators. The mongoose are diurnal and rats nocturnal.
To make matters worse, they prey on native Hawaiian birds.
The Small Asian Mongoose (Herpestes javaicus) inhabits areas of Iran, India, Vietnam,, and several other Asian countries. The species traveled to the United States as a result of human interaction and now occupies much of Hawaii. Map data courtesy of IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0. Map modified from NuclearVacuum, Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.
Chickens were the final straw
That brings us to a turning point in the story. Not only were the mongoose (a family of them as it turned out) consuming my cat’s food at a rapid pace but had the nerve to attack my neighbor’s chickens.
Thus I had to change the order of battle.
I didn’t know much about mongoose behavior but Ray (the guy with the chickens) had done some homework. He suggested using sardines as bait. But would the Uhlk rat trap snare a mongoose? It was certainly worth a try.
I followed the Uhlik protocols which means putting out bait (as mentioned above) without setting the trap. I placed a sardines on the trap and once my furry friends discovered it, sardines disappeared like clockwork. Once they were comfortable with the gear, I removed the bar to allows the trap door to drop.
The sardines were gone but I had no mongoose to show for it.
These Mongoose are trapped like…rats. Was able to capture a total of four in two days. (Rob Kay)
I played around with the trap, only to realize the animals were not tripping the lever that releases the trap door. Thus the technique that worked splendidly for catching rats wasn’t going to work for the equally smart, incorrigible mongoose.
A little more tweaking was in order.
The solution was simple. I took a chopstick and jimmied the lever open so that the trapdoor behaved more like a teeter totter. (Remember those?)
Guess what?
My theory worked. By placing a sardine at the edge of the right spot, the weight of the mongoose would cause the trapdoor to tip just like a teeter totter and the nasty little critter would slip right into the cage below.
Then the mongoose did the work for me. Once trapped it would howl and guess what? Another member of the nuclear family showed up in the trap. In one afternoon I had three of the rascals.
I had no idea I would be in the mongoose trapping business but I’m happy to say the Uhlik Repeater Trap is doing double duty in the Aloha State. At $240 it’s an investment that you’ll want to pass on to the next generation.
Most importantly my neighbor’s chickens (and my dragonfruit) are safe–at least for the time being.
Rob Kay writes about consumer technology for the Honolulu Star Advertiser and Hawaii Reporter.
Usually when people negotiate, they are looking for a “win-win” result — one that will leave everyone happy — or at least satisfied. Ideally, no one is left feeling angry or taken advantage of.
Hawaii’s leaders should keep that in mind as they try to persuade short-term rental owners to house Maui residents who lost their homes to the tragic wildfires of Aug. 8.
Keli’i Akina
The latest proposals on the table from Gov. Josh Green and Maui Mayor Richard Bissen are thoughtful and well-intended, but the sticks overshadow the carrots.
One of the carrots involves subsidizing the efforts of homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their properties to house the fire evacuees. In terms of providing dependable long-term housing, it’s probably the best of the ideas so far suggested, though it would come at some cost.
The rest of the carrots have to do with enticing short-term rental owners to house displaced residents.
One involves reimbursing STR owners up to $5,000 a month over an 18-month period for offering up a one-bedroom or studio unit, and up to $11,000 a month for a four-bedroom home.
Despite coming in at about 400% over fair market value, this would actually save the state money compared to the current cost of more than $13,000 a month to house displaced residents in hotel rooms.
Other carrots include giving participating STR owners a two-year break from transient-accommodation taxes, and possibly exempting them from Maui’s property taxes from Feb. 20, 2024, through June 30, 2025.
Setting aside budgetary concerns for the moment, these seem like attractive incentives to help address a serious policy problem. But as I mentioned earlier, these proposals also include sticks — and that’s where the negotiating becomes problematic.
For example, the governor mentioned the possibility of simply banning short-term rentals that do not participate in the program. Similarly, both the governor and Maui’s mayor mentioned imposing a significant potential property tax hike on STR owners who do not participate.
The governor said he recognizes an STR ban could result in long legal battles. But even a backdoor STR ban through a massive targeted tax hike could prove to be a legal nightmare.
The result is that these proposals, taken as a whole, would not be a win-win situation for STR owners who, for whatever reason, might choose to not participate.
Let’s not forget: STR owners are property owners. Many of them are long-term local residents — our friends, families, neighbors. They have their reasons for choosing to rent short term instead of long term, and the courts have recognized that this freedom to choose the terms of their rentals is, within certain limits, a valid part of the intrinsic right to do as you wish with your own property.
If STR owners determine that the incentives offered by the state or county are a good deal, then they will probably leap at the chance to participate in the program. But what if they think it’s not a good deal?
Or what if it isn’t a question of money at all?
What if owners have existing rental contracts that cannot be canceled without major penalties? What if they live in the home for part of the year and can’t rent long-term? What if they’re concerned about the legal and financial ramifications of taking on long-term tenants?
Yes, finding housing for Maui’s fire victims is an urgent need. We want to act with compassion and support the victims of the Lahaina fires. But in our attempt to help, there is a delicate balance that must take place, and we cannot overlook the rights of STR owners.
Ultimately, the governor and Maui’s mayor have offered attractive carrots, but the sticks are simply too punitive.
Providing incentives for property owners to offer long-term leases to the Maui fire victims could result in a win-win, but everyone loses when we infringe on basic property rights. __________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
