The Rev. Bob Nakata was wearing his clerical collar on the day of the interview this week — he had just come from a pastoral meeting — but that’s usually not the dominant element in his daily wardrobe. In fact, he’s worn several hats over the course of his career in social activism. Pastor at Kahaluu United Methodist Church. Former state representative and senator.

Now he’s best known for his work as an advocate for the working poor and homeless with Faith Action for Community Equity (FACE), a coalition constituted of various religious congregations and secular nonprofit organizations.

What’s kept the 71-year-old Nakata so occupied lately has been the disposition of 12 city-owned affordable housing complexes, projects originally financed through community development block grant (CDBG) funds. The initial plan during the administration of Mufi Hannemann was to sell them outright, but FACE pressed for preservation of units so the tenants would not be displaced.

After some tough negotiations, FACE now feels comfortable with the proposed $142 million deal struck by the city and Highland Property Development and other principals in the partnership Honolulu Affordable Housing Partners.

The City Council has postponed a final verdict on the deal, and until recently FACE was nervous in particular about three of the city’s lowest-rent properties that will be sectioned off from the rest and transferred for only a nominal fee to a nonprofit organization as landlord.

Nakata is no stranger to the issues of land use and housing security, going back decades to his involvement in protests of evictions in Chinatown and nearer his home in Heeia Kea and Waiahole and Waikane valleys. At the time, he said, opponents didn’t realize the full import of the fight: Windward Oahu had been pegged as the second city site, before Ewa was designated. Hard work, he said, but satisfying.

"I look back at the years of my adult life, and I did some significant things along the way," Nakata said. "It was, ‘Hey, this is a problem, and I want to work on it.’"

QUESTION: So, where are you at now with the City Council and the sale proposal?

ANSWER: Let me tell you, the hearing (last week) where we said we were opposed, that started things in motion. … Thursday the mayor’s office called. They wanted to meet with us that day or the next day, so we arranged to meet with them at 5 on Friday. The mayor and Keith Ishida (executive director of the city’s housing office) came, just really kind of pressuring us to get on board, that this is a good deal.

This is when we really finally understood that there is a rental assistance program. We had suggested that such a thing be set up. But at that point it was, “Well, we’ll consider it.” But nobody really said the city already has one. It has a little under $1 million in it, and maybe 60-something people are in the program, funded by parking fees from one of the buildings.

Q: From one of the other affordable buildings?

A: Yeah. So we were like, “Why didn’t you guys tell us?” (Laughs.) They didn’t have a good answer for that. However, that made us feel better.

So, “Can you beef it up, put more revenue, maybe some of the revenue off this sale goes in there?” It’s like, “Yeah, but the Council has to act.”

And they say Romy Cachola’s resolution can be the vehicle for those changes. So they said, “OK, we will redraft his resolution and address that.”

It’s for people with up to 80 percent of the AMI (area median income). Some of the people are between 60 and 80 percent of AMI. That category of people would not be eligible to remain in these affordable units, but with the rental assistance, their rent in the open market or the next higher category can be subsidized, so there will be a place for them to go.

Q: So you feel a little more assured that there’s not going to be displacement.

A: Yeah. Now, we still had a major concern about those three worst buildings that they plan to give to one or more nonprofits. … They’re giving them away, but they have not found a nonprofit to take them. … The latest is, “We’re talking to three or four of them.”

So my thought was there are no takers because where they have said they will do $42 million of renovations to all these buildings? Further on that document it says that the three they’re giving away, they will put in a minimum of $450,000 for renovations. And I’m like, wait a minute, that’s $150,000 per building, and the others, the nine they’re retaining, it’s almost $4.5 million each. So why are they putting so much into the ones they’re keeping and so little into the ones they’re giving away?

We’ve had a series of meetings with them and the city since the hearing. The explanation they give is this: “We have to guarantee no displacement, so our standard is $30,000 per unit of
rehab or whatever. But the three worst ones that we’re giving away, if we get a nonprofit to take them, they’re eligible for different kinds of government subsidies, so it would be their responsibility to get funding to do that.”

They (Highland) as a private entity are not eligible for these government programs.

Still, it seems like the nonprofits will be on their own. A couple of these properties are losers, they’re losing money. So they give it to a nonprofit, there isn’t just the problem of bringing them up to livable standards, but they need operating subsidy to help them, at least temporarily until they get on their feet and they can begin assembling the funds to do the renovations.

It’s like, they’re going to drown. What nonprofit is going to take them under these conditions?

Q: What is their response to that?

A: Then we find out, through pressing, they said the city would buy back the mortgages on the CDBG projects. … The money to buy back the mortgages would come from that $142 million; their guess is that somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million would be used … But when they pay it off, that $50 million continues to be eligible for CDBG grants that the city controls. So then the nonprofits can competitively apply for those funds.

Q: OK, so those funds could help them with the renovations, plus operating subsidy to keep them afloat?

A: Yeah.

Q: Wouldn’t they need to find an ongoing way of bringing in additional revenue?

A: Yeah … but at least the upgrade of the buildings and a temporary operating subsidy until they get on their feet and get the funds to do the renovating, that could get them over the hump to where they can handle it. So that’s another piece that makes it …

Q: More hopeful?

A: Yeah. And the hope is it will cover all of it. But nevertheless, Highland still has to ensure there are no displacements.

Q: Are you going to support it now?

A: Yeah, we are supporting it now. Because it now appears there will not be displacement. The Council is not sure. First they have to pass Romy’s resolution. …

Q: The city is concerned about financing falling through because of the delay. Have you heard that?

A: They’re afraid that interest rates are going up, but with the national economy so weak, I think the rates will stay low for a long time. That’s what I seem to hear the Fed chief saying.

Q: Is FACE going to have to bird-dog this issue now, assuming it all goes forward?

A: No. … There should be resident organizations that communicate, so FACE doesn’t have to. … We think, with all that clear, they will have an easier time finding a nonprofit. There are
resources now. So that’s the really big piece: Will it really be there?
Highland says their deal is set, they cannot give the money. But the city can take what it gets and put this program in place.

Q: The administration is eager to get this sewn up, right?

A: Yes, I think so. And I praise the Council for it: listening and working through this process. I really do think we have a good Council, under (Council Chairman) Ernie (Martin) and (Committee Chairwoman) Ann (Kobayashi). But the others, they are listening, too. And the Council is very committed to no displacement. So that’s why we’re much more confident now that displacements will not occur. So that led to our support.

What’s lurking in the background — and not many people will know this — after you take the $50 million or so for the CDBG, the city still has $92 million. It goes into the general fund! So it’s available for other uses. (Laughs)

I can’t believe the Council doesn’t understand it, but they act like they don’t understand. It’s like their piggybank got an infusion of cash. It won’t happen until the closing, which is March or April or something, or it could get kicked back another year. … Now that we have that understanding it’s like, wow, this looks like a great deal!

Q: It’s there for other things? And you’re OK with that?

A: Yeah. Maybe sewers, maybe the bus.

Q: What other projects does FACE have in the works?

A: Education — working with parents, teachers, empowering them.

Q: Anything in particular for the parents?

A: Helping them be involved in education. … and at this point, I’m not involved. (Laughs)

Q: Got enough to do, huh?

A: Got enough, but I have a tendency to. And we’re concerned about TOD (transit-oriented development). And as far as I know, we’re still supporting rail. … It’s expensive, but I think we can afford it. If we don’t do it, affordable housing will be almost impossible. … I don’t think the public has really grappled with that.

Q: Do you see yourself still being a community activist for the long term?

A: I tell you, I don’t know what keeps me at these things. I’m a poor pastor. My church, all these older people that are dying. … One of them, I said, “You know, I’m taking advantage of you folks. You folks are paying me, and I’m doing all this stuff and I’m not doing anything for you. We have a very small church.”

Anyway, one of the older women, a lay leader, a very good lady, she says, “Well, just do our funerals.…” (Laughs) “We support you in all that, but make sure you do our funerals!”