On Jan. 21, 2005, just before the scheduled Council meeting, Hawaii County Council Chair Gary Safarik terminated the employment of County Legislative Auditor’s office employee Rory Flynn for writing this memo at the request of Council Member Fred Holschuh without the permission of Safarik.
The termination follows the adoption, just days earlier, of the requirement that the Council Chair approve all individual councilmember’s requests for legislative auditor’s reports.
Dr. Holschuh and Mr. Flynn do not advocate a free-enterprise solution, but instead propose what they see as a more carefully crafted set of rules to direct housing development.
Based on a Napa, California court case, they see these proposals as enabling government to go as far as it can in restricting property rights without ending up in court.
Going beyond the precedent Napa case does not necessarily place the Hawaii County Council in violation of the “takings” provision of the United States Constitution, at least in the eyes of court precedent, but following the Napa formula has precedent on its side.
At the Council meeting held immediately after the announcement of Mr. Flynn’s termination, County Counsel Bobby-Jean Leithead-Todd was asked if she feels the proposed Bill 25 puts the County at risk for litigation over “takings” or other cause. She said “no.”
Two issues are front and center in their memo, first the issue of “takings” lawsuits, which they propose avoiding by the adoption of the “Napa” type inclusionary zoning ordinance.
The second issue is the lack of a “nexus study,” which they feel is necessary to determine what type of cost structure and location will actually serve affordable hosing needs.
The memo advocates government-built housing which has served in the past as a means to reward political contributors. Also noteworthy is item 12, calling for the development of co-op housing. Co-op housing development has been reputed to enrich corporations formed by union bureaucrats, always key players at the Democrats