News media and people outside of Chinatown are quick to criticize efforts to resolve problems that Chinatown residents have endured for years.

Fortunately, the elected officials that represent Chinatown have not abandoned them.

The latest point of controversy is Councilmember Carol Fukunaga’s effort to restore the tenant mix in city properties — Chinatown Gateway Plaza, Harbor Village and Marin Tower — as originally envisioned by city planners. It was never intended that all tenants there be of the lowest income category. Nor was it intended to deny eligible tenants a little higher up on the income ladder from renting in these properties, particularly when vacancies exist.

The heart of Fukunaga’s effort is about the city keeping its promises. Chinatown’s residents and businesses deserve the kind of diversity of tenants proposed under the original city plan.

Fukunaga strongly believes that without a mix of incomes, the residents will not be able to afford goods and services from many of the businesses in the area — from attending shows at the Hawaii Theatre to purchasing clothing, eating at restaurants and patronizing art galleries. Without that income, some of the businesses could well fail. The businesses depend on a mix of local residents walking from home and those who live elsewhere.

There’s no denying that over the years there’s been a dramatic shift to giving the rentals to those at the lowest levels of income. No one is blameless for that. But keeping vacant units unoccupied until these very low-income renters are eligible is costing the city taxpayers, as these units must be maintained but do not generate any income. The vacancies in these properties are: Chinatown Gateway Plaza, 15; Harbor Village, eight; Marin Tower, eight.

The city administration testified that this is "normal" or "within the range of typical vacancies." Most Downtown/Chinatown leaders and residents call the level of vacancies unprecedented. Additionally, the ground-floor commercial space in Chinatown Gateway Plaza, which was previously occupied by the Small Business Development Center operations, has been vacant for at least 18 months.

The administration’s reluctance to provide timely and accurate information on the current mix of renters in these properties have prompted questions from area elected officials such as state Rep. Karl Rhoads, who has expressed concerns the city is creating ghetto-like conditions in Chinatown, and state Sen. Susie Chun-Oakland, who continues to support the original intent of the housing projects, having a balanced mix of household incomes to support social and economic health and the projects’ long-term sustainability.

No one disagrees low-income housing needs are critical. Faith Action for Community Equity (FACE) and others are to be applauded for pushing for low-income housing, but not exclusively, to the point of creating a ghetto. We cannot simply disregard the people whose home is here, in a neighborhood that comprises a diversity of income groups, living side by side, able to support businesses, and which is as deserving of the protection we have extended to other unique communities.

By withholding or delaying information about tenant composition, the city administration clouds the financial situation of these properties and puts the Council in a dilemma. To expect the Council to approve another request for proposal without knowing whether these problems have been resolved is unrealistic and unfair. The city must avoid the problems that led to the failure of the initial attempt to sell these properties.

Chinatown’s residents are understandably skeptical at this point of any plan the city might propose. Meanwhile, they suffer considerable sanitation problems attributed to homelessness, perhaps to a greater degree than any other area of Honolulu.

To pause and make certain we are not repeating past mistakes is prudent. To honor a promise helps restore public faith in government.