Questionable paradox exists for affordable housing

When it comes to a discussion of affordable housing in Hawaii, there is a glaring paradox. Observers decry the shortage of affordable housing — for ownership or rent — while at the same time preventing its development.

Government, which seems to lead the cry for more affordable housing units, imposes a labyrinth of permitting and zoning requirements that impede their development. For example, one nonprofit organization which does nothing but develop affordable housing waited seven and a half years to secure the necessary permits and zoning changes before it could put its first shovel in the ground. And when it went to “the top” to accelerate the process, after waiting two and a half years, bureaucrats denounced the nonprofit as wanting special treatment, a point the nonprofit clarified as being accorded “special treatment” under the state’s affordable housing statute, HRS chapter 201H.

Some concerned citizens want to remove “homeless” campers from their neighborhood’s sidewalks but are not ready to accept a shelter in their backyard. Otherwise known as the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, these folks have identified the problem, but they want it solved somewhere other than in their neighborhood. They may want a solution, but they certainly don’t want to pay for it. The solution, however, will cost all taxpayers.

Other well-meaning folks believe more affordable housing is needed, but they feel like once they entered the pasture, the gates should have closed behind them. An example of this syndrome is the folks in Kakaako or west and central Oahu where they have their own affordable housing but don’t want any more families to join them because those new units will create traffic nightmares and overcrowding of public facilities such as schools and parks.

Recently a spate of proposals to build new high rise projects in Kakaako set off protests from residents in neighboring areas saying these proposed projects would ruin the neighborhood, create traffic congestion, bring overcrowding and block the views of existing buildings. Even the elected representatives of the district joined with their constituents to raise concerns and opposition to some of these projects. However, no one pointed out that these proposed high rises would create the affordable housing that families sorely need as state law requires the developers of new projects to set aside affordable units for first-time homebuyers.

The other point that seemed to be missed in all of this rancor is the fact that the development of new housing means adding value to the real property tax rolls. Activity would create jobs and additional state tax revenues from income earned by workers on the project as well as the money they would then contribute to the economy.

If the residents of some of these adjacent properties believe they will lose that priceless view from their apartments, or suffer traffic congestion, then perhaps the real property assessor has been undervaluing their homes which have that priceless view and currently little traffic.

Folks in central and leeward Oahu are also concerned about traffic increasing with further development in the area. Is this argument of traffic congestion an indictment that the proposed rail system is not going to work and, therefore, additional development should not occur? If, in fact, the proposed rail system is on track to be up and running within this decade, then by the time the new developments come on line, much of the imagined traffic congestion should be relieved by mass transit.

Finally, the most important issue that stands in the way of creating more affordable housing is if not here or there, then where will that housing be built? If not in Kakaako or central Oahu, shall we put up a high rise up against the Koolau Mountains? If the public and their elected officials continue to oppose reasonable development of housing, Hawaii is doomed to have little, if any, affordable housing.

Lowell L. Kalapa is president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii.