Honolulu City Charter changes can be made only once in a decade‚ so Oahu voters need to be ready for 20 Charter amendments being proposed on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. Take the time now to start reviewing them (view online at honolulucitycouncil.org/ oahuvotes) and to form your votes. The Star-Advertiser’s editorial board on Wednesday launched our recommendations on Questions 1-5 (see https://808ne.ws/charter2026).
Today, we offer guidance on Questions 6-10: proposals to improve police policy by staying out of dubious Immigration and Customs Enforcement dragnets, and to strengthen the city’s commitment to housing. (Friday’s editorial will tackle the remaining 10 Charter questions.)
>> Question No. 6: Should the Charter be amended to require the Honolulu Police Department to 1) adopt policies to ensure the constitutional rights of all persons regardless of immigration or citizenship status are protected, and 2) assist federal immigration enforcement activities only when required by statute or court order, and after the requesting agency’s identity and authority have been confirmed?
Yes. This would require HPD to adopt policies to protect the constitutional rights of all people here, as stated above; and allow HPD to participate in federal ICE actions only as required under statute or court order and after confirming the requesting agency. Troubling cases of overreach by ICE agents — including the shooting deaths of law-abiding U.S. residents in Minnesota and others — underscore the need to reinforce Oahu’s belief in civil rights and due process.
This policy would enable HPD’s already-stretched officers to keep focused on local public safety rather being pulled into ICE missions. And as a matter of community policing, this helps bolster trust in HPD.
This Charter amendment rejects dubious ICE arrests and detentions — and importantly, would codify citizens’ rights as a matter of HPD policy, not subject to changing administrations. It would be a welcome extension of Acts 141 and 161 passed by the state Legislature this year — new Hawaii laws with clearer guidance to local law enforcement regarding federal immigration actions.
Moving to Questions 7, 8 and 10, these aim to fortify Oahu’s policy mandate for housing, urgently needed to combat Hawaii’s high-cost-of-living outmigration. Vote “yes” on all three.
>> No. 7: Shall the Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu be amended to encourage increasing housing availability and preserving available housing as policies for the City and County of Honolulu?
Yes. Adding language in the Charter to underpin the need for more housing stakes out this fundamental mission, and directive, in city governance. This is mostly a policy statement, but an important one, as more of Hawaii’s workers find themselves forced to move away due to affordable housing shortfalls. Such outmigration is not good for the future of Hawaii, which depends on its kamaaina families not just for economic vitality, but also for its unique lifestyle and aloha spirit.
>> No. 8: Should the Charter be amended to clarify that the Affordable Housing Fund is a revolving fund, with repayments, interest, earnings, proceeds, and other receipts derived from the Fund to be redeposited into the Fund?
Yes. Past Oahu voters enabled creation of the Affordable Housing Fund to receive a dedicated 0.5% of annual Oahu property-tax revenues. Now it’s time to build up the fund by clarifying that this is a revolving fund — enabling its capacity to grow by requiring that loan repayments, interest and other proceeds the fund earns are redeposited back in, instead of being diverted for nonhousing uses.
>> No. 10: Should the city be required to prepare and carry out a functional plan for the development of affordable housing?
Yes. It’s somewhat surprising that this isn’t already required. This amendment requires the city to prepare and carry out a 10-year Housing Functional Plan, updated at least every five years and consistent with the General Plan. A mandated plan would give the public a clearer view of the city’s housing vision — a strategic blueprint that will be used to gauge progress being made by the city administration and City Council. A functional plan will become even more crucial for the public and communities as more housing ramps up — hopefully — with transit-oriented development along the Skyline rail route.
A fourth housing-related question — No. 9 — is a tougher call, weighing the desire to reduce bureaucratic red tape against retaining a double public hearing process for city land transactions.
>> No. 9 asks: Should the Charter be amended to no longer require a second public hearing for any transaction related to city real property interests?
On balance, we say no. Currently, the city Department of Housing and Land Management (DHLM) must hold a public hearing on every transaction involving a city-owned property, even on small or routine ones like utility easements; this hearing is in addition to one before the City Council. Advocates for this amendment cite low- or no-attendance at DHLM hearings, which consume staff time and costs to advertise the meetings. Still, what might seem minor to city officials could mean a lot to a neighborhood. Many governmental items can, and do, slip through the cracks — so for the public to have two opportunities to hear about city land transactions is better than just one. In voting no on No. 9, we err on the side of caution and the public’s fuller right to know.
