Urge your legislators to VOTE NO on HB676 CD2
/May 3 update:
Thank you to everyone that called and emailed your legislators, your voice made a huge difference on HB676 CD1! In response to dozens of calls and emails, legislators, led by Rep. Hashimoto and Sen. Inouye, proposed amendments to address our major concerns prior to the floor vote yesterday.
But the amendments don’t go far enough. There are still concerns about the counties’ ability to authorize the urbanization of up to 100 acres of land at a time including county-owned conservation lands that may be critical for our water security and watershed health now and for generations. LUC oversight over such large scale land use changes may still be necessary to balance our affordable housing needs with other important environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic considerations.
Please take a moment to call your legislators AGAIN NOW and urge them to vote no on HB676 CD2 on the floor tomorrow, Thursday, May 4.
Email your legislators with just a couple of clicks at this link. Once you send the email, you will see their phone numbers on the confirmation page, please take an extra minute to call them too! The legislators need to hear from their constituents, your voice matters! You can use this link on the capitol website to find your legislators’ contact information.
Here’s what you can say:
I kindly urge you to vote against HB676 CD2 for the protection of Hawaiʻi’s lands and future. The amendments made to CD1 do not go far enough to prevent detrimental and irreversible impacts on environmental, cultural, agricultural, socioeconomic and other public interests for generations.
May 1 update:
We need your help to protect Hawaiʻi’s lands and future. Late last week in conference committee, legislators amended HB676, which allowed the counties to redistrict county-owned lands up to 30 acres only for 100% affordable housing projects, in a way that would have never made it through committee and public review (think: gut and replace). They did what they have been trying to do for years—increase the authorized parcel size to 100 acres from 15 AND make this possible for any land use changes, not just for affordable housing in the original intent of the bill.
These amendments will allow for large scale land use changes that will have detrimental impacts on environmental, cultural, agricultural, socioeconomic and other public interests for generations.
HB676 CD1 will go to a floor vote tomorrow—please email and call your legislators NOW and urge them to vote against HB676 CD1! Email your legislators with just a couple of clicks at this link.
Once you send the email, you will see their phone numbers on the confirmation page, please take an extra minute to call them too! The legislators need to hear from their constituents, your voice matters! You can also use this link on the capitol website to find your legislators and their contact information.
Here’s what you can say:
I kindly urge you to vote against HB676 CD1 for the protection of Hawaiʻi’s lands and future. The bill as it stands will have detrimental and irreversible impacts on environmental, cultural, agricultural, socioeconomic and other public interests for generations.
February 9 update:
HB673 was deferred in the House Committees on Housing + Water and Land and is essentially defeated for the session. Mahalo nui to Reps. Hashimoto and Ichiyama for deferring this bad bill. However, HB673’s companion, SB469 is being heard on Friday, February 10. Please submit testimony in opposition now!
HB676 was passed out of the House Committees on Housing + Water and Land and will now be headed to the Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs committee. All of Water and Land’s committee members (Reps. Ichiyama, Poepoe, Chun, Ganaden, Hashem, Morikawa, Takayama, Souza) voted in favor of the bill while in the Housing committee, Reps. Hashimoto, Aiu, Kila, Kitagawa, Onishi, Todd voted in favor, Rep. Matsumoto voted yes with reservations and Rep. Marten voted against the measure.
There are two bills being heard this Wednesday that would limit the authority of the Land Use Commission. These could remove a critical mechanism for objective and transparent decisionmaking that considers and balances environmental, cultural, agricultural, economic, and other public interests in large-scale land use changes.
Both bills are being heard on Wednesday, February 8 at 11am before the House Committees on Housing + Water & Land, room 312—testimony is therefore due Tuesday, February 7, 11am. Please take a moment to submit testimony in opposition, details, sample testimony and testimony instructions below!
HB673: Authorizes counties to reclassify lands that are 15-100 acres in certain rural, urban, and agricultural districts in which at least 50% of the housing units on the land are set aside for affordable housing.
Why this is bad:
This bill would prevent the Land Use Commission (“LUC”) from applying its decades of institutional knowledge and practice, and its critically important “quasi-judicial” approach to decisionmaking, in vast land use district changes (i.e. from agricultural to urban).
While the intent of the bill is laudable, the LUC is not the purported barrier to affordable housing as certain developers have claimed; instead, its decades of experience have provided it with the ability to effectively and efficiently navigate and balance highly complex public interests (including environmental, cultural, agricultural, socioeconomic, climate, and even affordable housing concerns) that may be impacted by large-scale development proposals. No completed affordable housing application has been denied within the 45-day statutory deadlines imposed on the LUC, and tens of thousands of housing units have been approved by the LUC, but never built.
The LUC also evaluates and approves land use changes using a “quasi-judicial” process, where expert and kamaʻāina testimony and other evidence is explicitly considered in findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval - providing a transparent and objective basis for its decisionmaking. The counties, on the other hand, utilize a “quasi-legislative” process, where public testimony is simply received and a decision rendered, without any requirement for testimony or other evidence be used as a basis for decisionmaking.
Sample testimony:
Dear Chairs Hashimoto and Ichiyama, Vice Chairs Aiu and Poepoe, and members of the Committee,
My name is ______ and I respectfully OPPOSE HB673. There are a range of public interests that may be impacted, potentially for generations, by large scale land use changes. These interests - environmental, cultural, agricultural, socioeconomic, and others – must be carefully and transparently balanced, to address concerns, minimize unnecessary impacts, and minimize conflict and controversy. The Land Use Commission has decades of experience in doing just this, and should not have its ability to oversee land use district reclassifications limited or eliminated.
Forcing county planning departments to take on the new burden of solely administering land use district reclassification and balancing the myriad public interests in land use could have significant, long-lasting, and avoidable impacts on those interests. This could even have the inadvertent effect of delaying affordable housing production, by reducing planning departments’ capacity to administer other permits and applications needed for housing development and redevelopment.
Rather than reduce the LUC’s authority, the committees may wish to consider providing it with enforcement tools that can better hold developers accountable when they fail to produce promised affordable and workforce housing units after their petitions for district boundary reclassifications are approved.
Accordingly, I respectfully urge the committees to HOLD HB673. Mahalo nui for the opportunity to testify.
HB676: Authorizes counties to determine district boundary amendments involving land areas over 15 acres if the county has adopted an ordinance that meets certain requirements.
Why this is bad:
This bill, like HB673, would reduce the ability of the LUC to oversee large-scale land use district boundary changes. While it has additional conditions that are more carefully tailored to target affordable housing development, it still risks the potential for inadvertent, significant, and long-term if not irrevocable impacts to the public’s environmental, cultural, agricultural, and socioeconomic interests.
Sample testimony:
Dear Chairs Hashimoto and Ichiyama, Vice Chairs Aiu and Poepoe, and Members of the committee,
My name is ______ and I respectfully OPPOSE HB676. There are a range of public interests that may be impacted, potentially for generations, by large scale land use changes. These interests - environmental, cultural, agricultural, socioeconomic, and others – must be carefully and transparently balanced, to address concerns, minimize unnecessary impacts, and minimize conflict and controversy. The Land Use Commission has decades of experience in doing just this, and should not have its ability to oversee land use district reclassifications limited or eliminated.
Even with the conditions proposed under this measure, this bill still poses the risk of unintended consequences and unnecessary impacts to a wide range of public interests by forcing county planning departments to take on the new burden of solely administering large-scale land use district reclassification petitions. This could even have the inadvertent effect of delaying affordable housing production, by reducing planning departments’ capacity to administer other permits and applications needed for housing development and redevelopment.
Rather than reduce the LUC’s authority, the committees may wish to consider providing it with enforcement tools that can better hold developers accountable when they fail to produce promised affordable and workforce housing units after their petitions for district boundary reclassifications are approved.
Accordingly, I respectfully urge the committees to HOLD HB673. Mahalo nui for the opportunity to testify.
Testimony instructions:
Register for a capitol website account if you havenʻt yet (youʻll need to confirm your registration by responding to an automated email)
Sign in to capitol.hawaii.gov with your registration information and click the "Submit Testimony" button.
Enter "HB673 or HB676" where it says "Enter Bill or Measure."
Input your information and your written testimony, select your testimony option(s)—in-person + written, remotely + written, written only. Please consider providing verbal testimony (in-person or remotely) if you are able!
Note: Virtual testimony option may be disabled 24 hours before the hearing.
If you are testifying via Zoom, be sure to review these instructions (page 4)
