Hawaii's Homeless situation makes NY Times

[Paul Ogata]

Oh great. Don't they have their own issues over there in New York?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/us/05hawaii.html

[lavagal]

It's an old story for those of us who have read the homeless series done by The Advertiser. But maybe the timing has something to do with yesterday's innaugural events here in Hawaii? There is at least one high-ranking editor at the NYT who grew up here, so the issues of the Aloha State are never far from their minds.

[timkona]

<<< WARNING Lefties: If you read this post very carefully, you will change your mind about something. >>>


It is ironic that a liberal rag like the NY Times would print a story like that.

The irony can be found in 2 ways. SUPPLY is restricted through activism at public hearings primarily driven by the Politics of NO, and the cost of that SUPPLY is increased by regulations, that again are often initiated by the liberal mentality that says "We must protect you from yourself". A third way that the homeless problem is compounded is the general resistance to taller buildings or higher densities. Low Density growth patterns are a hallmark of liberal desires because "everybody can grow food": LOL.

You can save the view, or the Aina. Which is most important to you?

When we choose to save the aina by building taller buildings with smaller, individual dwelling units, the land component cost of a dwelling will go down, which in the long run, will help the homeless.

Too bad nobody on the left wants to solve the problem.

PS - A famous phrase that grew out of the 60's was "You are part of the problem, or part of the solution". Funny how an entire generation from that era finds themselves at one protest or another trying to be part of the problem. Maybe they should take their own advice.

[Deep Thought]

Higher densities are the solution. The era of building single-family subdivisions should be officially declared OVER and a moratorium on placed on construction of that type regardless of who is intended to live there (rich or poor). Don't forget that the Real Property Tax is part of the problem as well, as it taxes non-existant income based on land values that have little connection to reality. There are developers out there salivating over how to make money off of the now vacant Del Monte land and they must be stopped from beating this dead-horse of obsolete living styles. The only way is UP, not OUT.

[sinjin]

As long as mainlanders looking to buy vacation/rental property in Hawaii can out-compete working-class locals, I don't see how there's any chance of building your way out of the problem, up or out.

[joshuatree]

Sure you can, you need to provide legislature that are pro-high density and less low-density. So developers will be influenced to build more high rises. High rises in general are "cheaper" than a single family home. In addition, you can reinforce legislation that mandates x percentage of units as "affordable housing". High rises will also turn away a certain segment of the mainland buyer because they want to retire or have a vacation home that is a single family home.

[sinjin]

Sure you can, you need to provide legislature that are pro-high density and less low-density. So developers will be influenced to build more high rises. High rises in general are "cheaper" than a single family home. In addition, you can reinforce legislation that mandates x percentage of units as "affordable housing". High rises will also turn away a certain segment of the mainland buyer because they want to retire or have a vacation home that is a single family home.What about those that just want a place in Hawaii to use/rent and don't care if it's a SFR?

[joshuatree]

What about those that just want a place in Hawaii to use/rent and don't care if it's a SFR?

Well if they can pay market price, they pay market price. If they qualify under "affordable housing", they fall under that category.

[sinjin]

Well if they can pay market price, they pay market price. If they qualify under "affordable housing", they fall under that category.Isn't it "market price" that's pricing locals out of the market?

[joshuatree]

Isn't it "market price" that's pricing locals out of the market?

Well, you'll need to define "pricing locals out of the market". If you mean a local can't buy a 1000 sq ft unit but can afford a 700 sq ft unit, I guess you can say the local's been priced out. But this is still a market economy so what's wrong with that? Anywhere in the world you find these same conditions exist. Plenty of Californians are priced out of the market.

But for those locals who are completely priced out, ie., "I can't afford to rent/buy to put a roof over my head," that's where they fall under the "affordable housing" segment.

Also, as you encourage more high density, the tight housing supply relaxes and the market will price downwards, providing relief for those who are bringing in just barely enough $$$ for a home. I guess you can argue that there will be parties who will be against this for their own benefit such as current home owners who only want to see their property assessed with an ever increasing value. But this can be countered by the pro-high density legislation. If the gov't puts a moratorium on building low density housing, the existing low density will see their values go up because now supply of that type of housing will be tight. So that probably still leaves existing condo owners upset. And to that I will say, you can't please everyone. Would you rather see more homeless people or people making less profit off their homes but at least everyone's got a roof over their heads?

[timkona]

I guess you can argue that there will be parties who will be against this for their own benefit such as current home owners who only want to see their property assessed with an ever increasing value.

I know from overhearing certain conversations by some pretty heavy hitters here on Big Island, that the "anti-growth" crowd is being funded by some pretty wealthy folks who want their real estate investments to continue appreciating. I guarantee you that the folks who fought Hokulia in the trenches have no idea what's shakin at the top of the tree.

The inherent evil in the overall situation is that the activists just don't get the joke.

[kamuelakea]

As long as mainlanders looking to buy vacation/rental property in Hawaii can out-compete working-class locals, I don't see how there's any chance of building your way out of the problem, up or out.

Da only "locals" that matter in that comparison is the Native Hawaiians. All the plantation asians and everyone else can move to Torrance in LA if they are Japanese or Daly City in the Bay Area if they are Filipino or Cupertino in San Jose if they are Chinese. They are all just immigrants just like the "mainlanders" you describe. If they can't make it here in Hawaii, they can leave, just like many real Hawaiians have done over the last 100 years.

Aloha

[TuNnL]

A non-racist way to reword what kamuelakea is saying is: California, and numerous other states have Indian reservations for their native people. Here in Hawai‘i, if you’re Hawaiian, you put your name on a waiting list, then go live on Mā‘ili beach in the mean time. This is not pono. So joshuatree, your Cali comparison is basically irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

[kamuelakea]

A non-racist way to reword what kamuelakea is saying is:

Try Excuze? There was nothing "racist" about my response. Defending NATIVE HAWAIIANS is not necessariliy racist. My point was very clear and accurate.

[TuNnL]

There was nothing "racist" about my response. Bula‘ia.Da only "locals" that matter in that comparison is the Native Hawaiians.Kala mai?! That’s definitely racist.rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] -noun hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.Maopopo?

[brianca]

All the "native" Hawaiians can just move back to Fiji. ;)

[joshuatree]

A non-racist way to reword what kamuelakea is saying is: California, and numerous other states have Indian reservations for their native people. Here in Hawai‘i, if you’re Hawaiian, you put your name on a waiting list, then go live on Mā‘ili beach in the mean time. This is not pono. So joshuatree, your Cali comparison is basically irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

TuNnl, my comparison is relevant when one is not looking at the issue as a matter of race. If a Native American decided to leave the reservation, he/she would still face the same financial challenges of renting/buying a home in property expensive Cali. Up till these last few posts, I was looking only at one's financial standing and referring to locals as those who grew up here and are trying to make a living here vs those who are came from abroad just to merely have a vacation home or to retire. I wasn't breaking the issue down by blood and ethnicity.

[sinjin]

Da only "locals" that matter in that comparison is the Native Hawaiians. All the plantation asians and everyone else can move to Torrance in LA if they are Japanese or Daly City in the Bay Area if they are Filipino or Cupertino in San Jose if they are Chinese. They are all just immigrants just like the "mainlanders" you describe. If they can't make it here in Hawaii, they can leave, just like many real Hawaiians have done over the last 100 years.

AlohaIf that were to happen who would purchase all the vacated property? I have to believe offshore capital would still snatch it away from Hawaiians since lack of capital is what lands one on the beach. Just my opinion but without restricting property ownership to residents, or at least making it unprofitable for mainland speculators through tax structure, you have a no win situation. Opportunities to earn the kind of money that one can earn on the mainland just aren't that plentiful in Hawaii. Especially for those who for whatever reason do not possess skills to command a high salary.

[kamuelakea]

If that were to happen who would purchase all the vacated property?

First, don't worry. It won't happen. Too late.

My point was to the fact that I always hear "Da localz" crying about how they somehow have gained the "RIGHT" to live in Hawaii while "doze mainlanders" don't.

I simply say why? Whats the difference. All immigrants to me.

If you are an immigrant of any flavor and you can't make it in Hawaii? Leave.

[timkona]

No wheel. No written language. Very little international commerce. Stone Tools.

Evolution is a sinister mechanism when isolated populations fall behind. Hawaii was a stone age society in 1776. It's only been 230 years or so. Perhaps 200 years is not enough time for a society to "catch up" to the modern world.

And yet, here in West Hawaii, we have many "papered" industries that have no viable candidates. You cannot become a doctor on Big Island. Nor a lawyer, nor many other professions. So the opportunity for financial advancement is HUGE if you aim your goals at the right targets.

You would think that with all the trouble Hawaiians are having financially that the parents would WANT their children to excel academically. Seems like this only happens regularly at Kam Schools. All others prefer to blame the DOE.

The premise in "The Bell Curve" was that some races are smarter than others. But for that notion, how do Hawaiians explain their academic/financial inferiority? Especially given "home field advantage". :cool:

A mirror is often the answer when the question becomes uncomfortable.

[Deep Thought]

So bite the bullet and zone for higher densities already. Urge people to live in Honolulu, closer to their jobs. Reduce the need for an car so that people in lower income brackets don't spend significant chunks of their income supporting a beater. If rents are to come down the supply of housing needs to go up in a big way. If that isn't addressed everything else is just window dressing.

[timkona]

Liberal activism is the root cause of homelessness. Public Hearings are filled with the Politics of NO.

Grandparents who protest at public hearings are ignorant. Or perhaps they pray that their grandchildren will grow up and live on the beach.

Liberals, who want low density development, contribute to homelessness.

People who think the view is more important than the land contribute to homelessness.

Liberalism is the root cause of homelessness. And they like it that way. Because it gives them more people to "care for".

[Mahi Waina]

Liberal activism is the root cause of homelessness.

Perhaps overpopulation is the root cause of liberalism.

[Kahalu'u Kid]

Da only "locals" that matter in that comparison is the Native Hawaiians. All the plantation asians and everyone else can move to Torrance in LA if they are Japanese or Daly City in the Bay Area if they are Filipino or Cupertino in San Jose if they are Chinese. They are all just immigrants just like the "mainlanders" you describe. If they can't make it here in Hawaii, they can leave, just like many real Hawaiians have done over the last 100 years.

Aloha

No doubt, Kamuelakea! You tell 'em! I don't find anything you've said racist, and I'm not even Hawaiian either. Aloha.

[Beachboy]

Try Excuze? There was nothing "racist" about my response. Defending NATIVE HAWAIIANS is not necessariliy racist. My point was very clear and accurate.

sure, you have your point, and it's not racist view either. But throwing the others under the bus is very racial in nature.