Oppose two zombie LUC bills
/February 9 update:
The Committee on Water and Land deferred SB2175 after 45+ pieces of testimony in opposition, meaning it is essentially dead for this session (although it could come back to life through a gut-and-replace like move later in session). The committee did however pass SB2204 with amendments, with all senators voting in favor except Senator Fevella. You can watch the hearing here. SB2204 now moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Year after year at the capitol, we see the same old tired special interest proposals that would compromise our children’s and future generations’ food security, climate resiliency, social fabric, and quality of life for corporate profit margins. We call these measures “zombie bills,” because no matter how many times they are killed, they keep getting re-introduced.
Remember HB 676 from last year, which was changed to gut the LUC at the bill’s final conference committee hearing -- where no testimony was allowed? That bill would have prevented 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 (i.e. 100 acre) land use district changes (e.g., changing agricultural or rural lands to urban). Despite only having a few days' notice before a final floor vote, Sierra Club members and other citizens won a historic victory and had it killed on the last day of the session.
But like a zombie that keeps coming at you, an HB676 clone is here - and SB2175 has a hearing this Wednesday, February 7.
As the LUC has demonstrated time and again, it is uniquely able to apply its decades of experience to effectively and efficiently navigate and balance highly complex public interests (including environmental, cultural, agricultural, socioeconomic, climate, and affordable housing concerns) that may be impacted by large-scale development proposals. Of course, this inconveniences developers who would prefer not to consider the public’s interests in their drive to squeeze ever more profits from our islands’ limited land base - and who have no qualms weaponizing our housing crisis to push proposals like this one.
(Important reminder: despite what developer lobbyists claim, the LUC is no impediment to affordable housing. No completed affordable housing application has been denied within the extremely short 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 when approving land use changes, where public testimony is simply received and a decision rendered, without any express justification whatsoever. Importantly, county level decisions are all ultimately made by the county councils, where the influence of campaign donations can be easily felt. As an appointed body, the LUC is more immune to that direct financial political pressure.
By decimating the LUC’s ability to oversee large-scale land use changes, this disingenuous bill accordingly represents yet another assault on common sense and the public interest, disguised as a purported “solution” to our housing needs.
Another zombie measure also scheduled for Wednesday’s hearing, SB2204, is a bit more insidious. It purportedly allows counties to initiate land use changes consistent with their general plans - something they are already allowed to do - but sneakily exempts them from having to provide “technical studies” when doing so. Technical studies, such as environmental impact statements, provide a granular assessment of potential and avoidable threats and impacts to human health and safety, native and endangered species, cultural and subsistence resources and practices, access trails for hunting and hiking, impacts to adjacent watersheds and farms, and more. By doing away with “technical studies” for county-initiated land use district changes, this measure would deprive both the LUC and the public from the information they need to understand and address the ramifications of new and intensive proposed land uses implicating hundreds if not thousands of rural, agricultural, or even conservation lands at a time.
Emboldened by the Governor’s anti-democratic and illogical rhetoric around his original Emergency Proclamation on Housing, developer lobbyists seem to think that they may have a chance at exploiting our housing crisis to get these long-rejected proposals passed. Your testimony and that of others who love and care about our islands and our future may be crucial to stopping these bills in their tracks.
Bad LUC Bills: SB2175 and SB2204
What they do:
SB2175 eliminates the Land Use Commission’s authority to protect the public interest, including by explicitly evaluating kamaʻāina and expert testimony, in the urbanization of up to 100 acres of rural and agricultural lands.
SB2204 exempts counties from preparing detailed reports regarding potential impacts to human health and safety, native habitat, cultural resources, local farms, watershed integrity, and more when converting conservation, agricultural, and rural lands to urban uses.
Sample testimony for SB2175
Aloha Chair Inouye, Vice Chair Elefante, and Members of the Committee,
My name is ______ and I respectfully OPPOSE SB2175.
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 public concerns, mitigate 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 large scale land use changes 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 amendments are approved.
Accordingly, I respectfully urge the Committee to HOLD SB2175. Mahalo nui for the opportunity to testify.
Sample testimony for SB2204
Aloha Chair Inouye, Vice Chair Elefante, and Members of the Committee,
My name is ______ and I respectfully OPPOSE SB2204.
This measure authorizes counties to initiate district boundary amendments consistent with their general plans - something they are already allowed to do - but inexplicably exempts them from having to provide “technical studies” when doing so.
“Technical” studies, such as environmental assessments, provide a much-needed analysis of the details of proposed land use changes, details that are not included or assessed in county general plans. These studies can identify and minimize potential threats and impacts to human health and safety, native and endangered species, cultural and subsistence resources and practices, access trails for hunting and hiking, impacts to adjacent watersheds and farms, and more. By doing away with “technical studies” for county-initiated land use district changes, this measure would deprive both the LUC and the public from understanding and addressing the ramifications of proposals involving the urbanization of hundreds if not thousands of rural, agricultural, or even conservation lands at a time.
Please do not pass this measure that would only risk imposing significant and unnecessary burdens on our communities, our children, and future generations, by excusing counties from their due diligence duties.
Accordingly, I respectfully urge the Committee to HOLD SB2204. Mahalo nui for the opportunity to testify.
Testimony instructions:
Register for a capitol website account if you haven’t 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 "SB2175”/”SB2204” 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)