A controversy ensued after Gov. David Ige nixed the public-private partnership methodology for building the new Aloha Stadium in favor of the usual design-build methodology that the state is accustomed to. That controversy has sparked a further controversy — about whether the new stadium should be built at all.

A segment of the population believes that a new stadium is not financially viable because interest in football, concerts and other stadium events has been declining for years. Even some University of Hawaii football fans prefer an expanded Ching Stadium on the UH-Manoa campus to a new Aloha Stadium in Halawa.

Moreover, COVID has accelerated the declining interest in stadium events. The new stadium was conceived using pre-COVID assumptions, which may no longer be valid.

Furthermore, most Hawaii residents rarely, if ever, attended events at the old stadium before it closed. Similarly, the new stadium would benefit a relatively small portion of the population. Few neighbor islanders, for example, would attend events there.

Although only a relatively few would benefit, everyone would pay for the new stadium. In its 2022 session, the Legislature appropriated $400 million for it. That money is derived largely from the general excise tax. The general excise tax applies to nearly everything sold in Hawaii, and it is passed down to consumers, so everyone would ultimately be paying for the new stadium.

Another concern is that stadiums require continuous maintenance, which in turn requires continuous funding. The new stadium may not be able to generate enough income to pay for maintenance costs. The old Aloha Stadium is an example of what can happen when maintenance is not adequately funded.

The mood of the public has changed since the $400 million appropriation for the new stadium. A public airing of the pros and cons of a new stadium should be held to gauge the current level of public support. Meanwhile, the money should not be spent.

Proponents should be given the opportunity to show how much support there is for a new stadium. They could say why they think a new stadium would be able to draw enough people to make it financially viable. They could, for example, present a pro-forma income statement with potential events and estimated revenues to show financial viability.

Opponents should be given the opportunity to show how much opposition there is to a new stadium. They could say why they think interest in stadium events has declined so much that it is no longer viable. Some stadium opponents think that affordable housing is a bigger priority than a new stadium, and they should be given the opportunity to say why affordable housing should be built on the site instead of a stadium.

To encourage this public discussion, the Legislature should entertain a bill in the 2023 session repealing the $400 million funding that was passed in 2022. Proponents of the stadium could testify against the bill, and opponents could testify in favor of it.

If, after listening to the public, the Legislature decides that the stadium should indeed be built, the bill would be tabled, and the funding would continue. If the Legislature decides that the stadium should not be built, the bill would be passed.

Hawaii is a small state with a population of only 1.4 million, so $400 million represents a lot of everyone’s hard-earned tax money. Before a final decision is made about whether to spend the money for a new stadium, everyone should be given a chance to voice their opinion about it.

John Kawamoto is a former legislative analyst and a proponent of good government.