Over the last several years, we have been saying plenty about the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE), and not all of it has been peachy. We’ve talked about DOE fighting with other agencies regarding getting kids to school in Kihei. We’ve decried its multi-million dollar but imbecilic effort to cool the classrooms with solar air conditioners that only worked for half the day. We were appalled by its slamming the door on the employee unions, including HSTA, regarding working conditions during the pandemic. And some of our loudest gripes about the agency were about its lack of transparency; for example, it put the Hawaii Education Association through the wringer with 4-1/2 years of stalling and litigation to produce fiscal data that was sorely outdated when it was finally turned over.
Do, or should, the parents of Hawaii have choices when deciding to have their kids educated by the behemoth agency we give $2.5 billion of funding each year?
One alternative we already have in this State is that of charter schools. Charter schools are public schools, which do not charge tuition and are staffed by public union teachers and other public employees. Many are managed by nonprofit organizations. All are regulated by the State Public Charter School Commission. The Commission enters into contracts with those wishing to run a charter school and sets targets relating to academic, organizational, and financial performance. The contracts typically run for five years, after which the Commission decides whether the contracts will be renewed and for how long.
Another alternative, which we do not have in Hawaii, is a school voucher program. Such a program exists in 32 states. Parents are granted a certain amount of public money per school age child. That money then can be applied to educational expenses such as private school tuition. It is one way of giving parents, especially those with lower incomes, some options regarding how their children are going to be educated. Some reports say that the additional competition for the students that comes with the program results in a modest improvement in performance of the public schools. On the other hand, the studies that have been done do not show noticeable improvement in student performance. In addition, such programs are generally opposed by parties like the government employee unions, who complain that scarce taxpayer dollars are being given to institutions unaccountable to taxpayers (namely the private schools), and urge that the money would be better spent improving the public schools.
School vouchers have been a plank in the national Republican Party platform for some years now.
Another variation on this theme is Education Savings Accounts, which are becoming increasingly popular in “red” states. These states deposit money into a state-supervised account that parents can use for education-related expenses, including costs of home schooling as well as private school tuition. The pros and cons of such programs mirror those of school voucher programs.
With all of these policy choices available to voters and lawmakers, how are we going to be able to put together a system that competently educates our keiki and does not waste precious taxpayer money?
According to Kali Watson, director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), we have a new emergency in Hawaii state government. But it’s probably not the kind you’re used to.
They need to spend money. Quickly.
As you probably remember, in the 2022 legislative session, the legislature threw $600 million at DHHL, hoping that the money would help clear the backlog of Hawaiian beneficiaries waiting for a house on Hawaiian Homestead land. Some of these beneficiaries have been waiting for decades, and quite a few have died in line.
And, to emphasize that they were serious, lawmakers said that if the money isn’t spent by June 30, 2025, it expires. Unspent monies will simply go back to the general fund and be repurposed for other things (such as a first responders’ training center in Central Oahu that the Honolulu Police Department doesn’t want).
The problem is, however, that raw money doesn’t just magically convert into houses on Homestead land. Agency staff have to plan out developments, work with contractors to put down infrastructure, navigate the state and county permitting processes, and so forth.
But there is a huge vacancy rate in State government, around 30%. Not just for DHHL, but statewide across all agencies. DHHL itself has around 60 positions that need to be filled, according to reporting by KITV. Its operating budget shows 204 permanent and 2 temporary positions.
So, DHHL is in dire need of warm bodies. Some of the position openings, Engineer V, for example, do require relevant experience, but many of the others don’t. DHHL says they can provide lots of on-the-job training.
And, lest we forget, working at the DHHL, as with other state or county government agencies or nonprofits, can help you if you have a federal student loan. Specifically, if you are working at a government agency or nonprofit and you make 120 payments toward the loan, the federal government will forgive the rest. It’s even better: if your payments were paused because of the COVID-19 pandemic, payments you didn’t need to make still count toward the 120 (if you were working for an eligible employer during that time and you file a form certifying your employment for the pause period).
And while these new employees are working on infrastructure for proposed new developments, maybe they can help with existing homestead developments as well. Some of the homestead lands are hurting for water access, for example, and the water that they do get costs a lot more. Some of them are being charged more than six times the county rate for water, and not because someone is gouging the homeowners; the water company providing it is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, so presumably the high rates are because the costs of getting that water are much greater.
So, our best wishes go out to DHHL. Hopefully, they will be able to meet the crisis confronting them by staffing up, conducting great training, and then pulling out all the stops trying to help our beleaguered Home Lands beneficiaries.
“Lucky you live Hawaii,” goes the famous phrase. Sometimes it’s really true, as we recently found out from our good friends in the California Taxpayers Association, publishers of the Caltaxletter.
California has two different tax agencies. The Franchise Tax Board, sometimes known as FTB, deals primarily with income taxes. The Department of Tax and Fee Administration, known as CDTFA, handles sales taxes. (You might remember that California had an elected State Board of Equalization that used to serve this function. Lawmakers put through a bill in 2017 that basically got rid of the elected Board and split its functions between two new executive branch agencies.)
CDTFA’s director, according to the Caltaxletter, publicly admitted to ordering his department’s Settlement Section to settle fewer, if any, cases. His rationale for that directive was that his staff have a very high winning percentage when they take cases to court. It appears that the guy feels invincible and told his staff to act accordingly.
The problem, of course, is that not all tax cases are created equal. The taxpayer’s position is weaker in some, stronger in some. Cases need to be evaluated on their merits and then both sides can decide if they are worth fighting about or settling. Yes, the taxing agency does win in many cases that go to trial. Many factors contribute to this. The agency litigates before specialty tax courts all the time and develops relationships with the judges and staff. The agency doesn’t have to pay attorneys by the hour to do the litigating, and thus might not see itself having litigation cost constraints. But these advantages are no substitutes for judging each case on its own merits and are no justification for telling agency staff to take a hard line everywhere and not settle except in the most extreme cases.
Does the agency lose? Sometimes it does, but apparently it can’t be counted on to be a good loser. The story is told of a taxpayer named Starbuzz International, which sold hookah (16% tobacco) and filed refund claims for tobacco products tax because the tax did not seem to apply to tobacco products with a tobacco content less than 50%. The taxpayer was subjected to a multi-year audit, after which a hearing was held before a panel of three administrative law judges. The panel held for the taxpayer and granted its refund claims in full. The agency filed a petition for rehearing, and after about a year of further litigation the case was heard by another panel of three administrative law judges. That panel also held for the taxpayer and granted its refund claims in full. The agency is refusing to pay up, however, claiming a need to re-audit the taxpayer based on newly raised issues. Come on, guys. The agency had eight years to make its case, went to the mat, and lost fair and square. Twice. It’s hard enough on a taxpayer to go through an audit once, especially when the taxpayer is a smaller business and the audit is a thorn in the side for company management.
Here in Hawaii, the Department of Taxation’s prior administration had a reputation, told to us by insiders, of not settling cases and taking a hard line in general. The current administration is led by the gentleman who supervised the Department of Attorney General’s Tax and Charities Division, and thus represented the Department of Taxation in court, during the prior administration. He has told practitioners that he does not intend to take hard lines and he is more open to settling cases to whittle down the backlog of tax appeals.
If we want to find ways to lower the cost of housing in our state, we might have to take the stairs. Or, to be more precise, take away a set of stairs.
Believe it or not, that small change in construction design could help homebuilders produce more efficient buildings in Hawaii, which would lead to lower costs, better use of land space and more options for people seeking affordable housing.
At this point, you might be wondering how a staircase could be so significant. That’s where Stephen Smith, my guest on this week’s episode of “Hawaii Together” on ThinkTech Hawaii, comes in.
Smith is the executive director of the Center for Building in North America, an organization based in Brooklyn, New York, that researches how regulations and building codes in the U.S. have made constructing small apartment buildings more expensive and less efficient.
One of its areas of focus has been the double-staircase requirement that is found in most municipal building codes for multistory apartment buildings.
What is a double staircase? In terms of design, it means there are staircases at both ends of apartment building hallways.
Smith explained to me that this often leads to inefficient building designs, especially when it comes to building on smaller lots, since a significant amount of the building’s area must be used for the second staircase.
“One thing that architects target when they build,” Smith said, “is they try to get to an efficiency ratio of 80 to 90%. … That means 80 to 90% of the building is going to be apartments and not, you know, stairs, elevators, hallways that can’t be sold. So the savings come from having more efficient layouts within the apartments — more efficient overall floor plans allowing you to build on smaller lots, and then the small cost savings from the lack of a second staircase.”
But that can’t happen unless we liberalize our building codes to allow for single-staircase buildings. Smith said this is something that has been done effectively in New York and Seattle, and is common internationally.
“I think it would be great to look to other countries, and especially when it comes to designing apartments,” Smith said. “The United States is a nation of single-family homeowners, and if you’re trying to build anything else, I think sometimes there are better lessons to be learned from, you know, Korea, Japan, China, Switzerland, than [from] within our own country. I would say, expand your mind and look abroad and look at places that have more of a culture of multifamily living, have more of a culture of using land more efficiently. … I think there’s great lessons to be learned from Asia and from Europe.”
Smith told me the double-stair requirement is a holdover from the early 20th century, when fear of fires led to strict regulations in building construction. However, improvements in building materials, design and fire safety have negated the need for double staircases, and single-stair construction has been proven safe for decades around the world.
Smith said the other reason the requirement still exists is because America’s building codes are tilted toward large developers of single-family homes and high-rises.
“Small apartment buildings [get] sort of left behind,” he said. “But when you don’t have a lot of land, like Hawaii, … and you want to build something that’s more affordable than a high-rise, you’re sort of stuck in the middle. And our codes don’t really [address] that very well.”
Smith said that to change that situation, “small developers need to speak out for themselves. … They need to speak out when they encounter hurdles in regulation. … Talk to your local politicians.”
As we neared the end of our conversation, it became clear to me that with regard to policy, we too often look at things from a very broad perspective. But in fact, making seemingly minor changes, one after another — such as transitioning to single staircases — can add up to some big savings and possibly result in a significant expansion of our housing supply.
The key is to be open to new ideas. Then, if they make sense, we need to be flexible enough to adopt them. And the sooner the better. __________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Sail through the sorrows of life’s marauders Unrepenting, often empty Sail on, sail on sailor
I work the seaways, the gale-swept seaways Past shipwrecked daughters of wicked waters Uninspired, drenched and tired Wail on, wail on, sailor
Sail On, Sailor”Song by The Beach Boys
Intermission
Ladies and gentlemen, please return to your seats. Intermission is ending and the second feature is about to begin.
The first feature of the program is nearly over and they are just displaying the credits now. We can clearly see who are involved . . . producers, directors, actors, everyone who had a role in this blockbuster production of, “Dead End”.
This epic production tracks, live and in color, the birth, life and destabilization of an entire living world. We have reached a saturation point and are now at the limit of the capacity of the Earth system to remain in its stable state. We are approaching true Free – Fall of life-support systems at the global scale.
What a show! What riveting impact! A tour de force! Produced by . . . directed by and starring . . . US. Yes, we did it!
That’s right folks. An amazing feat. Let it sink in and then, everyone stand and take a bow. (while we still can). Okay then, be quick about it. Water level is rising real fast.
Let’s move forward to the second feature: “Surf’s Up”, which has already started.
This epic production documents the chart breaking progression of the rise in global sea levels. Wow! All of those nifty, hi – tech digital models and projections, meticulously prepared by clever scientists and academicians were worthless . . . a tribute to the absurdity and hubris of trying to map elemental forces of nature onto a minuscule template.
Facing a future of accelerating climate change while blind to worst-case scenarios is naive at best and fatally foolish at worst. So, what’s new? The alarm was raised recently when climate scientists warned:
“The current trajectory looks like it’s headed off the charts, smashing previous records,” Prof Matthew England, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales, said at that time. “What we are seeing is very unusual,” he said. “This is heading in an unprecedented direction, and could be taking us into uncharted territory.”
Even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, ocean levels would continue to rise.
Not only is dangerous sea level rise “absolutely guaranteed”, but it will keep rising for centuries or
millennia even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, experts say. Rising seas are one of the most severe consequences of a heating climate that are already being felt.
The rapid surge in global ocean temperatures seen in recent months indicates a climate pattern shift that could accelerate planetary warming and supercharge trends that are already driving extreme storms, deadly heat waves, and weather related crises.
Since April, the warming appears to have entered a new trajectory. Meanwhile the area of global sea ice has dropped by more than 1 million sq km below the previous low.
“If a few decades ago, some people might have thought climate change was a relatively slow-moving phenomenon, we are now witnessing our climate changing at a terrifying rate,” said Prof Peter Stott, who leads the UK Met Office’s climate monitoring and attribution team. “As the El Niño builds through the rest of this year, adding an extra oomph to the damaging effects of human-induced global heating, many millions of people across the planet and many diverse ecosystems are going to face extraordinary challenges and unfortunately suffer great damage.” Climate change models and projections fail in their inability to capture the infinite number of dynamically
linked variables involved. What seem like singular tipping points often trigger a “cascading” sequence of related events in the ongoing free – fall; multiple, collateral events (e.g. infrastructure damage, loss of land, water and food sources) that coalesce into system-wide breakdown.
Free – fall . . . meltdown.
A changing climate is current reality. Land and marine heatwaves, forest fires, atmospheric rivers and floods have become the backdrop to day-to-day life. Watch it live on TV.
It should be understood that the events in the global destabilization that we are experiencing are primarily consequent to the main act which is taking place in the oceans, which soak up more than 90% of excess heat energy.
Rising sea levels are perhaps the most severe consequence emerging from the ongoing climate crisis.
Scientists are not used to thinking in terms of rapid change, but the trajectory of the global average temperature on the surface of the ocean has now entered uncharted territory – quickly and accelerating.
CNN — Temperatures in parts of the North Atlantic Ocean are soaring off the charts, with an “exceptional” marine heat wave happening off the coasts of the
United Kingdom and Ireland, sparking concerns about impacts on marine life.
There are many scientific indicators pointing to the imminent collapse of the Thwaites Glacier (AKA the “Doomsday Glacier”). Once this glacier collapses, scientists expect sea levels to rise 10 feet or more in a fairly rapid progression. At that point, everything near the coasts will be underwater and destroyed.
Manfredo — Joe Carlisi
Joseph Carlisi – Biography
Born and raised in New York City, he earned BA and MA degrees in Philosophy at Hunter College of the City University of New York and then continued his graduate studies in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence at Massachusetts Institute of Technology working under the mentorship of Marvin Minsky. Joseph worked as a part time content and copy editor for Harvard University Press (science and medicine) while attending M.I.T.
After ten years as a university lecturer, researcher and administrator, he started and managed an advertising / public relations firm in San Diego, CA that handled a wide range of commercial accounts. On the academic side, he published a series of seven articles on animal behavior for Harvard Magazine and two books: “A Guide to Personal Power” and most recently “Playing God on the Eve of Extinction”.
Joseph Carlisi creates oil on canvas paintings that can be described as vivid, surreal and unexpected. His paintings have been exhibited and sold in: Honolulu, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New York City, Miami, Tokyo, Yokohama, Amsterdam, Berlin and Salvador Brazil.
As travel editor of Hawaii Reporter I’m very lucky. Free travel? Not quite, but I get around. This summer I was in Europe doing research for a book. I took a couple of “local” (European-based) carriers, Level Airlines and EasyJet.
Time to review Level Airlines and EasyJet
Level, which took me from San Francisco to Barcelona seemed attractive. The San Francisco to Barcelona route was handy. Non stop to Europe and a reasonable price. So I decided to the book several months before the planned journey.
The first experience was ominous. I went to the website, filled out the form and clicked to purchase the first segment. It seemed too good to be true–$500. The website for some reason hung up. I refreshed it and lo and behold, the price went up $400.
Just like that.
How about an online chat, to discuss the price hike. Maybe, but not on US Time. It’s a European carrier. There was a phone number and in fits and starts, I did reach them. The guy was pleasant enough and informed me that “there were problems” with the website.
So I bought the ticket. Great, that part was out of the way. But not quite…
Need a seat? Gotta pay extra? (Isn’t that what the ticket is for? I guess not.) Need food? Extra. Want the possibility to change your ticket in the future? More extra. Need a seat with more seat room? More extra. Check Bags? Again, extra…
You get the idea. By the time I was through, the cost had doubled, and I hadn’t even purchased the return ticket…
But let’s continue with the “booking”…
Well of course, I did need a seat. I waited a day or two to actually choose the seat and Level, concerned about my well being, kept on sending emails to remind me. Fair enough.
So I purchased the seat and they kept on sending more emails, asking if I wanted to choose my seat.
Huh? Didn’t I just book my seat? Did I do something wrong? Why are they asking me to choose a seat again? Are they crying wolf, or are they trying to upsell me? (It was the latter).
So the reminder emails continued, this time asking if I wanted to change my seat?
Why would I do that? They suggested I get something “roomier”.
I stuck with what I had.
On the way back (yes I did buy a return ticket), I realized I needed to change it. They allowed me to do so but charged me another $500. Them’s the breaks.
Ready to return and on the tarmac at BCN. They greeted us with piped in Latin bubble gum music in the cabin like it was some Vegas hotel. It was loud and irritating. How about silence? Yeah, an old fart complaint but I didn’t want to hear the music. OK?
Flight service was reasonable. FA’s were friendly and decent. Very little water was offered over the 12-hour flight. They might improve on that. It’s important to hydrate. Right?
I did entertain myself with the movies but the sound emanating from my headset was distorted and fuzzy. No it wasn’t my headset. I used the same gear on the way back (on my HAL flight from SFO) and it worked perfectly.
That wasn’t the only thing busted. So was my tray which slumped, so using my laptop was bit challenging. At least the Rolls Royce Trent 700 engines worked fine. As one pilot friend once told me, it’s always good if you can walk away from your flight.
Will I use this carrier again?
I’ll have to think about it…
EasyJet. Really?
Then there was EasyJet, a UK airline that’s ubiquitous in Europe. I booked a flight from Milano to Porto but it was cancelled due to foul weather. Of course this was after we spent a few hours in the cabin on the tarmac.
As we deplaned the pilot assured us the airline would handle hotel accommodation.
Well that’s nice, I figured.
Guess what? There wasn’t going to be an accommodation that night.
It was midnight in Malpensa and there were no hotels, no agent and the train to Milano (it’s an hour ride) was finito for the evening. No place to sleep and no assistance. Spending the night at the airport was not something I want to repeat anytime soon.
An email said they would reimburse us for a hotel so long as it wasn’t too expensive. Never mind that there were no hotels nearby unless of course you grab a 400-Euro taxi to Milan and see what you can find at 2 am.
The carrier later inform me via email that they’d scheduled a flight for us the next day at 2 pm and the agent gave me a 20 Euro voucher for airport food. He didn’t know anything about the hotel they were going to provide for us. If we wanted some redress, we’d have to go on the website. I’m not holding my breath…
Rob Kay is the author of Lonely Planet guidebooks to Tahiti and Fiji. He’s also the creator of Fijiguide.com
Let’s start with a simple proposition. Taxpayers pay our government to get things done. Taxpayers don’t pay our government agencies to fight each other so that nothing gets done.
We focus this week on Kihei, Maui, where our Department of Education (DOE) has been trying to open a new, $245 million, high school primarily for Kihei. It’s called Kulanihakoi High School. It’s built, and has been built for some time, but it can’t open.
Why? Lots of families live makai of Piilani Highway (which is a busy, four lane highway) around Kulanihakoi Street. The school was built mauka of Piilani Highway. To get to the school, kids now have to cross the highway. Concerns about the safety of having kids compete with cars here prompted the State Land Use Commission to conclude, ten years ago, that a “grade-separated crossing,” like an overpass or an underpass, needed to be built.
Over the years, DOE appeared to go along with the requirement. In early 2020, when it approached Maui County for permits, it said that the design of the pedestrian overpass was already started and projected for it to be built in 2022 and 2023.
But in 2021, DOE did an about-face. Instead, it went back to the Land Use Commission to ask it to change its previous order to allow it to open the school without a pedestrian crossing, citing studies (paid for by guess who) presumably showing that the pedestrian crossing was not needed. This attracted objections and demonstrations from the public, and the Commission denied the DOE’s request.
At the same time, the DOE and the Department of Transportation spent $16 million on a four-lane roundabout with flashing lights in front of the school to slow traffic down and thereby eliminate (in DOE’s mind, perhaps) the need for an overpass. County officials were skeptical and arranged a meeting in late August 2022 with council members and other community members. No one from the DOE showed up to the meeting, however.
In February 2023, DOE seemed to accede to the overpass, presenting some rough sketches to the community. The agency said it would ask the Legislature for emergency funding to build the overpass. Sen. Angus McKelvey, who represents the area, said that he added $15 million for the project in the Senate’s draft of the plan, but that funding didn’t make it into the state budget. It isn’t clear why the funding request was deleted; perhaps it was because that wouldn’t be enough. The Governor’s Office issued a release saying that its construction would cost more than $25 million.
In March, Gov. Green announced that the state and county governments had reached a deal allowing the school to open in exchange for requiring the DOE to implement a temporary pedestrian safety plan, including shuttles for students walking to and from school, until the new pedestrian overpass is completed. The school is now slated to open in August.
Let me now ask this question: If the DOE had listened to the Land Use Commission ten years ago and had not put tons of resources into studies and legal briefs trying to get the Commission to change its mind, how many millions of taxpayer dollars could have been saved – by the DOE, the Department Transportation, Maui County government, and even the Governor’s Office?
How long should Oahu residents have to wait for a permit to repair or renovate their homes? A few days? Weeks? Months?
As recently as 2017, it took about three months. That might seem short compared to the average wait now of about six months, but it’s still too long. For commercial projects, the average wait can be more than a year.
On a recent episode of “Hawaii Together” on ThinkTech Hawaii, Honolulu City Councilmember Andria Tupola recalled being greeted by a mountain of constituent complaints about permit delays upon taking office in 2021. In response, she hosted a town hall with Dean Uchida, then director of the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting, and learned that the city had a backlog of about 8,000 permit applications.
Not only is that a huge number, Tupola said, “but if you quantify that into dollars, into projects, into homes, I mean, we’re talking billions of dollars that are just stuck in the economy because they can’t get a permit to proceed.”
So Tupola began working with DPP and her fellow Council members to figure out where they could achieve meaningful change. And, amazingly, they really have been able to make a dent in the permitting backlog.
Bill 51 (2022), introduced by Councilmember Brandon Elefante and now a city ordinance, removed the requirement that permit seekers submit a notarized statement affirming there are no fines or liens on their properties. This makes it easier for contractors representing homeowners to get started on their jobs.
Tupola, meanwhile, had the brilliant idea that maybe too many permits are being required in the first place.
“If we have a huge permitting line of 8,000 people, we may be micromanaging things that we shouldn’t be doing, right? Because perhaps some of these outdated laws needed to be updated,” she explained.
This led to the Council and mayor approving Bill 56, which eliminated permits for some projects completely, such as fences 6 feet high or less, and increased the value threshold for other projects.
For example, it used to be that you needed a permit if the “valuation in the aggregate in any 12-month period” of home repairs or replacements of existing parts — not including electrical, plumbing or mechanical installations — was $5,000 or more. Now it’s $10,000 or more.
For electrical work, the valuation threshold used to be $500 or more; for plumbing, it was $1,000. Now both are $2,500.
These and other measures have helped ease some of the pressure on DPP. But we still need substantial reforms if we want to reduce the backlog and keep wait times low.
One possibility being considered is professional self-certification. In particular, Bill 6 (2023) would allow experts to attest that their plans comply with the county’s building code and any applicable regulations, then receive a permit without having to go through the lengthy DPP review process.
Some people have expressed concerns about this proposal, but the practice has been successful in other cities, including New York and Chicago. In Chicago, an architect can self-certify a plan and receive a permit within 10 days.
Ultimately, I am encouraged that Tupola, Elefante and all our elected officials on the Honolulu City Council have recognized the expense and aggravation caused by permitting delays, and with the mayor’s support are willing to explore new avenues to address the backlog and speed up the process.
Let’s hope these small wins start a trend in Hawaii of streamlining the permitting process and reducing bureaucratic delays. Before you know it, we might even be able to produce more housing across the board and lower construction costs to make homes more affordable for all. __________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Gov. Josh Green issued an emergency proclamation this week aimed at easing Hawaii’s housing crisis, and from its very first words, it was impressive.
Much of the proclamation I could have written myself — especially the many “whereas” justifications for why the emergency order was issued — which states many of the points I’ve been making for years regarding the bad policy and inaction that have characterized Hawaii’s approach to homebuilding.
The proclamation emphasizes that housing growth in Hawaii has been constrained by overregulation, and it connects the dots between the state’s permitting policies and Hawaii’s high home prices.
And in a wholly unexpected move, it waives regulations, streamlines approvals and creates a task force that has the explicit duty to increase Hawaii’s housing supply.
Housing advocates from all parts of the political spectrum have been united in telling lawmakers we must clear away these regulations and excessive permitting requirements to spur growth and lower the cost of housing in our state.
So while I am troubled that the governor has resorted to issuing an emergency order to address a decades-long issue, I am impressed by his willingness to listen to diverse voices and act on what he has learned. His eagerness to make a difference is refreshing and has the potential to be game-changing for our state.
The problem until now — for the most part — has been the Legislature. Despite having data and policy remedies immediately available to them, our legislators have been slow to act. Even small reform proposals end up drowning in legislative debate.
Under these circumstances, I understand why the governor looked at this political and bureaucratic morass and decided to take drastic action. With one stroke of the pen, the governor did what many of us have been asking policymakers to do for years.
In effect, Gov. Green has created a housing “sandbox” that will give us a good opportunity to identify what works, what can be improved and what permanent changes can be made to encourage long-term housing growth in our state.
The bad news — and there is bad news — is that the very nature of the governor’s action could limit its effectiveness. By their nature, emergency orders are temporary measures. So the clock is already ticking on Hawaii’s new, streamlined approach to affordable housing.
Moreover, the constitutional issues inherent in using emergency powers in this way leave the much-needed reforms open to legal challenge. Eventually, these issues must be dealt with to ensure the stability of our democratic process. As representatives of the people, this is the Legislature’s responsibility.
But again, looking at this from the bright side, the Legislature should consider the governor’s proclamation as a catalyst to change Hawaii’s housing laws and reduce overregulation permanently. It can even be viewed as an experiment that might finally show that regulations are indeed the cause of our housing problems.
Gov. Green has initiated a bold effort to end the housing shortage. Now the ball is in the Legislature’s court. __________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Whether DOE Should Have a Monopoly on Our Kids
Over the last several years, we have been saying plenty about the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE), and not all of it has been peachy. We’ve talked about DOE fighting with other agencies regarding getting kids to school in Kihei. We’ve decried its multi-million dollar but imbecilic effort to cool the classrooms with solar air conditioners that only worked for half the day. We were appalled by its slamming the door on the employee unions, including HSTA, regarding working conditions during the pandemic. And some of our loudest gripes about the agency were about its lack of transparency; for example, it put the Hawaii Education Association through the wringer with 4-1/2 years of stalling and litigation to produce fiscal data that was sorely outdated when it was finally turned over.
Do, or should, the parents of Hawaii have choices when deciding to have their kids educated by the behemoth agency we give $2.5 billion of funding each year?
One alternative we already have in this State is that of charter schools. Charter schools are public schools, which do not charge tuition and are staffed by public union teachers and other public employees. Many are managed by nonprofit organizations. All are regulated by the State Public Charter School Commission. The Commission enters into contracts with those wishing to run a charter school and sets targets relating to academic, organizational, and financial performance. The contracts typically run for five years, after which the Commission decides whether the contracts will be renewed and for how long.
Not all of the charter schools have operated trouble-free, and the Commission on occasion has stepped in to reorganize the governing board of a school.
Another alternative, which we do not have in Hawaii, is a school voucher program. Such a program exists in 32 states. Parents are granted a certain amount of public money per school age child. That money then can be applied to educational expenses such as private school tuition. It is one way of giving parents, especially those with lower incomes, some options regarding how their children are going to be educated. Some reports say that the additional competition for the students that comes with the program results in a modest improvement in performance of the public schools. On the other hand, the studies that have been done do not show noticeable improvement in student performance. In addition, such programs are generally opposed by parties like the government employee unions, who complain that scarce taxpayer dollars are being given to institutions unaccountable to taxpayers (namely the private schools), and urge that the money would be better spent improving the public schools.
School vouchers have been a plank in the national Republican Party platform for some years now.
Another variation on this theme is Education Savings Accounts, which are becoming increasingly popular in “red” states. These states deposit money into a state-supervised account that parents can use for education-related expenses, including costs of home schooling as well as private school tuition. The pros and cons of such programs mirror those of school voucher programs.
With all of these policy choices available to voters and lawmakers, how are we going to be able to put together a system that competently educates our keiki and does not waste precious taxpayer money?