Everybody talks about affordable housing but the Hawaii County Planning Department is doing something about it, exacerbating the problem with the cooperation of developer-applicants, the Leeward Planning Commission and certain County Council members.
For large (only) rezoning and subdivision projects in West Hawaii, the department requires the applicant developer to contribute some affordable housing, such as building it along with the project build out, or by making a financial contribution to the county. This is all to happen within a reasonable time frame, such as five years. The commission and council usually goes along with this (we all want affordable housing, right?). At the same time, the planning director (currently Mr. Zendo Kern) gives himself authority to unilaterally extend the time for completion of the developer applicant’s project, infrastructure and affordable housing. These extensions are often given in five-year increments as many as three times, at the developer’s request without public, commission or council review or input. The planning director usually accommodates the developer applicant. No authority for this appears to be in the Planning Department rules. Thereafter, further delay can be obtained by the developer for completion of the project and remaining infrastructure and affordable housing by application to the Commission and Council. In my experience, this can result in delays of 15 to 25 years in the completion of infrastructure, while the community endures increasing problems.
To add insult to injury, the developer can often successfully apply for a waiver or lessening of their affordable housing contributions or other infrastructure previously agreed to or imposed (such as fair share contributions for police, fire, parks, or addressing traffic problems the project may generate) because the developer can say “it doesn’t want to pay for them because the economy has changed or because its profit margin isn’t going to be big enough.” As to affordable housing, the developer can make a deal with the county not to build or pay for affordable housing, and instead give the county some land someplace at a questionable value. This runs contrary to the requirements/preference for affordable housing to be integrated into the community/projects and does not get any affordable housing built. The government already has plenty of land for affordable housing. The developer apparently can thus remove “those people” from its project.
The solution? It’s easy.
1) Require a “sunset” provision in every rezoning/subdivision ordinance, i.e. state a specific time by which the project and its infrastructure is to be completed, constructed and paid (for example five years), or the ordinance will expire and a new application must then be submitted which must address the additional infrastructure needs.
2) Take away automatic extensions given by the director at the request of the developer and put any authority for an extension where it belongs, with the commission and council, with the power to add needed infrastructure caused by delays.
3) Require that affordable housing be actually built or money assessments paid to the county so it can build before any such lengthy extensions; require some affordable housing provision (monetary or otherwise) in every rezoning and subdivision application, not just the large ones. This will be good for the economy with construction sooner rather than later, good for government (clear up clogging applications for lengthy delays); create more affordable housing sooner; give developers and the county more certainty; give more confidence to the public in the land planning process with more needed infrastructure sooner. In addition, a “sunset” provision is a modern land use policy used extensively elsewhere.
Will a Hilo mayor and planning director see the wisdom of this, that it’s good for the community, and that the archaic Hilo unilateral decision making for lengthy time extensions should end, even if their power is somewhat diminished? The mayor’s effort with the concurrence of Mr. Kern, to throw me off the Leeward Planning Commission when I brought up Mr. Kern’s later admitted conflicts of interest, and then my advocating for the more modern concept of “sunset” provisions may answer that question. The Windward side philosophy may be development, construction jobs, and increased property tax income at any cost. Our Leeward side philosophy may be smart and orderly development with sensitivity to the Kona community, lifestyle and infrastructure concerns coming first. Our Hilo mayor and Hilo planning director just don’t seem to get that it is unfair to impose their Windward philosophy on the Leeward side, including putting their version of the “right” people on boards and commissions, and it is unfair to both the Leeward and Windward side. What are we doing about it in the interim? We look to the Hawaii County Council and who they represent. Because things won’t change until we have a West Hawaii-oriented Mayor.
Mark Van Pernis is a resident of West Hawaii