There’s a reason why voters’ eyes cross when trying to figure out the charter amendments they should approve or reject. That’s because the language is legalese — precise as it must be, but not light reading.
Amendments to the City Charter (some years, fixes to the state Constitution are on the ballot as well) need to be made carefully, because changing them back generally needs another election cycle to go through the process all over again. Or a court order could strike them down. In either case, it’s not so simple.
That’s as it should be. County charters — and constitutions, on the state and federal level — give government its structure and are not to be changed lightly.
This year, Oahu voters in the Nov. 8 general election will decide on four Honolulu City Charter amendments, changes that will affect how tax dollars can be spent and guide the way city agencies operate.
Each of these proposed amendments would improve or clarify those operations in a way that serves the public, so each is worthy of a “yes” vote. The four questions:
Q. 1: Affordable housing
The housing shortage in Hawaii has long been most acute for those households earning around 60%-80% of the area median income — and those are the hardest for developers to finance and deliver. Oahu needs to have sufficient funds in the city’s Affordable Housing Fund, so voters should remove at least that obstacle.
This amendment would double the amount of city property tax that will be set aside for the fund — increasing from the current 0.5% to a full 1%. That means about $16 million would replenish the fund annually, up from $8 million now.
That sounds like a lot, but it’s drawn down fast. In August, for example, the city announced it is using $30 million to underwrite six affordable projects, and that’s just an incremental step in whittling the deficit of needed housing units.
This is a necessary change, but progress also will require a stronger commitment from city government to require projects such as transit-oriented development condominiums to include more units at the lower income level.
Q. 2: Honolulu Planning Commission
This commission of nine members is among the earliest panels to review development proposals and give them a full public hearing. Until now, its membership has been largely undefined, though members of the public with planning skills and from real-estate, development and construction industries have been commonly appointed.
This amendment would spell out the skill sets for four of the nine members. One must come with Native Hawaiian legal and traditional knowledge; one knowledgeable about climate change and sea-level rise; one expert in land-use planning and policies; and one experienced in land development and construction.The first two categories have been underrepresented. It would be smart to have these subject areas raised early in the review process, before a proposed project moves on to scrutiny by city planners and the City Council.
Q. 3: Water and lands fund
The third amendment would not add money to the city’s Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund. It would simply authorize money in that fund to be used for the lands’ upkeep and protection, and make the resources more publicly accessible.
The fund will still be allocated 0.5% from real property tax revenues, currently projected to total $7.5 million. Now it’s used for acquisition and conservation easements to protect the resource — still the principal purpose.
But if the amendment passes, 5% of the fund amount could be spent on maintenance, operations and management, everything from providing public parking lots to environmental remediation.
If the idea is to save natural resources as a matter of public interest, spending money on ensuring public access and enjoyment is the only rational approach.
Q. 4: Office of Council Services
The final amendment would add the Office of Council Services (OCS), a nearly 40-year-old agency assisting the City Council, to the City Charter.
The fact that it’s still absent from the charter after all these years is puzzling. Two other agencies in the legislative branch, the City Clerk and the City Auditor, are in the charter while OCS is authorized only by ordinance. This makes little sense, considering that preparing audits was originally a function of OCS.
This office employs attorneys and staff to draft city legislation and review their legal provisions. The lawyers also can counsel Council members independently of the administration; in the event of a dispute with the mayor, this is important. Making this change will bolster the standing of an agency that also keeps crucial records — a service to the public as well as the Council itself.
For any one of these four amendments to be added to the charter, it will need more than 50% of all ballots cast to be a thumbs-up. This means that leaving a vote blank will count as a “no.”
Those who do a careful read of the text on the general election ballot should see these changes as reasonable. Making that effort, and then marking them with a “yes,” will help to strengthen Honolulu’s foundational document.
