‘So many mansions’
Ever wonder why so many mansions are being built on Hawaii Island? It’s because they don’t involve a lot of red tape or public opposition.
The catch is they are being built on agricultural lands, where regulations allow one house per acre. This is why so many agricultural parcels are being sold as luxury real estate. Homebuilders who want to build single-family neighborhoods or low-rise apartments on ag lands must apply for a district boundary amendment, which typically triggers public hearings, public opposition and legal battles.
The point is not to subject mansions to the same red tape as other types of housing. Rather, the laws should be changed so more homes can be built “by right.” That is, if they meet all the existing requirements, they can be built without politics getting in the way — as it is for many of the island’s mansions.
To be clear, those who own mansions contribute to the county’s property tax base, and their philanthropy can prove vital to the community, such as when Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff donated $3 million to provide classroom resources for Hawaii’s teachers last year.
But it is ironic that Hawaii Island’s high housing regulations benefit the rich at the expense of the county’s general workforce, many of whom are struggling to meet their housing needs.
Hawaii County needs new homes to attract critical health care workers and teachers, stop the island’s brain drain and house future generations. A few affordable housing projects are making their way through the bureaucratic process, such as Ku‘u Papaikou on the Hamakua Coast and a Parker Ranch development in Waimea, but their success isn’t guaranteed.
If they fail, the landowners and homebuilders won’t be the only losers. The community will lose out on more affordably priced housing, while the wealthy keep building mansions.
Joe Kent
Executive vice president,
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Ill-advised bill
With reference to (the Nov.13) Tribune-Herald front-page article, Councilman Aaron Chung’s last-minute attempt to revert back to political, nonprofessional engineering appointments of Public Works and Environmental Management department heads is abhorrent and irresponsible.
This proposal was introduced by the 2018-2020 Charter Commission chairman, citing the same rationale as Mr. Chung is now using to justify his new bill.
After significant testimony by many professional engineers, the suggestion was voted down on third reading by the commission and, rightfully so, did not make it as a charter amendment. Mr. Chung most certainly knew, or should have known, about this decision, yet decided to dig it up again.
His statement insinuating that lawyers may be more suitable (the only ones?) for such critical positions because they are “trained to think” is both ludicrous and laughable.
The county’s hiring process is not crippled by lack of qualified professionals, but the combination of insufficient pay and the lack of tenure and job security as incoming mayors can easily replace competent incumbents without cause.
This situation is addressed with recommendations in the recent Cost of Government Commission report.
It’s truly sad that Mr. Chung would end and tarnish his otherwise productive tour as councilman in this manner. I trust the incoming council will carefully research and scrutinize this ill-advised, swan song legislation and, again, say no.
Neal F. Herbert
Hilo