Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

[timkona]

Recently, on Hawaii Island, the County Council passed a resolution in favor of a moratorium on rezoning land until the Community Development Plan process is complete.

This is real good news for all current property owners. Any restriction on supply is bound to increase price. And with price stagnant, or falling in some markets, property owners need all the help they can get. So a moratorium will work sort of like a safety net for the property owners. Funny how they forgot to place a moratorium on baby making. Nobody ever complains about making whoopie.

And all this from a Council that claims to be seeking answers to the "affordable dwellings" issue. Hard to portray yourself as helping the poor when you are passing resolutions that essentially bar the lowest economic strata from the dream of owning a dwelling. Just more Cog Diss from the left.

[Konaguy]

As I wrote on my blog,

link (http://aaronstene.blogspot.com/2007/01/more-on-re-zoning-pause.html)

"Yes they are "feel good resolutions." But on the other hand doing wholesale changes,like enacting a concurrency ordinance take time. Time that the neglected North/South Kona and South Kohala districts don't have. The infrastructure in these districts is at a crisis point.We cannot allow more re-zonings happen in these districts until there is a game plan to address the severe infrastructure deficits."

link (http://aaronstene.blogspot.com/2007/01/county-council-freezes-new-re-zonings.html)

"Yes, the re-zoning pause resolutions approved by the County Council yesterday is a symbolic attempt to curb the massive over development in West Hawaii."

"But hopefully it will be a first step to finally address the severe infrastructure issues facing these districts. As these areas infrastructure has been grossly neglected for decades.I know there will be those folks who will b*** that this is anti business. But to me, we cannot continue to put the needs of developers over the needs of the citizens living here."

[timkona]

To a liberal, a moratorium on rezoning might seem like a good way to stop developers from raping the place.

The economic REALITY is that the poorest among us are hurt the most by these types of misguided, shortsighted, ignorant, feel good, BS maneuvers.

When a buyer at a given price range cannot find what he wants, do you think he will look in a higher, or a lower, price range. The answer is lower. So now the overqualified buyer is buying at a price that squeezes out the next lowest priced buyer. Taken to the extreme, this raises the bar of affordability significantly for the poorest people.

Myopic views, propped up by dogma and false beliefs. Some lefties will just never get the joke.

Ce la vie !

[SouthKona]

Is the typical rezoning that is being requested for the most part to accommodate what you refer to as the "poorest people"? No, the typical rezoning request is actually to accommodate developments that cater those with tremendously higher income levels.

Rezoning to allow development that brings more and more traffic to Kona does a disservice to those middle class workers who are currently spending hours a day stuck in slow traffic when trying to get back and forth to work.

Priority needs to be given to planning solutions to the current traffic mess. With a plan in place, then rezoning and additional expansion can occur. Concurrency, please.

[Konaguy]

The reason(s) why we are in a infrastructure crisis here in West Hawaii are as followed :

1. Mr. Magoo like planning by the state and county governments over the last 30 years. At the rate of development, Queen Kaahumanu is turning into a stop light laden strip mall. When in reality, more secondary collector roads should've been built to ease the pressure on primary arteries like
Queen Kaahumanu.

2. Developers sat on or flipped previously re-zoned land. This is most prevalent in Waikoloa. Developers gained their entitlements years ago,sat on the land (or flipped it). Then when the economic tides are good you get this huge wave of development.

3. Too much Hilo-centric politics. Hilo's biggest industry is government. To finance that industry, it required opening up more land to development.With the property taxes funding Hilo's government and infrastructure. Leaving the rest of the island out in the cold.

In a nutshell, hopefully this new council will get the funding mechanisms in place to build the needed infrastructure i.e : Concurrency ordinance.

But that is one piece of the solution. It seems to me there is some landowners here in Kona who are selfish and unwilling to do anything that would benefit the community as a whole. I just sat through one court hearing in regards to
that particular case today. I'm unsure how that case will turn out ultimately.All I do know is we need the Hokulia bypass desperately. But it seems the community needs are being ignored in this litigation.

[timkona]

Oh boy....where to start?

SK - Did you even read the third paragraph of my previous post? Buyers step DOWN to a price level they can afford, which pinches on somebody who is less well off than they are. This step-down theory of real estate is why the homeless situation on Oahu is so bad. But you don't get it, so keep up the misguided fight.

The traffic mess in Kona can be DIRECTLY traced to the activist mentality that permeates the politics in Kona. Hokulia Bypass should have been finished 4 years ago, but activists have successfully stopped it, and cost us taxpayers milliions of dollars in lost productivity. The Queen Kaahumanu BOULEVARD is pockmarked with stoplights because overpasses would ruin "the view". Boo Hooooooo. There would not be so much traffic headed south if higher density development, and smaller dwelling sizes, were pursued closer to Kailua-Kona Town Center. But taller buildings would destroy the view. And besides, everybody needs to be connected to the aina, so we can all grow some carrots. What horse manure !!! The best way to preserve the aina is to stop SPRAWL using solutions that have been proven time and again in communities long before us. Taller buildings, smaller dwelling sizes, mixed uses including "rabbit-hutch" studios and 4 bedroom Penthouses in the same building, along with some retail/office uses.

You lefties are fighting an uphill battle primarily due to ignorance driven by hell bent dogma and false beliefs. All the facts in the world won't change your mind because the truth has no bearing on your opinions.

[Konaguy]

In regards to the Hokulia bypass, its not entirely accurate it would've been completed if the Kelly litigation did not happen. You still would've had to deal with the Coupe family litigation. Which believe it or not, has dragged into its 6th year. Right now what is standing between the completion of the bypass is 2.9 acres of land. (Before anyone asks, there is no way to bypass the Coupe's land. They own from Malamahoa to the sea.)

[GeckoGeek]

Oh boy....where to start?

Well, you can start by telling us if all the land currently zoned for residential has already been developed. It seems to be implied that the only way to get more housing is to rezone some land, but you've not presented any evidence that that's the case. There could be lots of land that's under developed. It just needs someone to come in and do it. A lot of things get built without having to rezone the land it's one.

[Konaguy]

Well, you can start by telling us if all the land currently zoned for residential has already been developed. It seems to be implied that the only way to get more housing is to rezone some land, but you've not presented any evidence that that's the case. There could be lots of land that's under developed. It just needs someone to come in and do it. A lot of things get built without having to rezone the land it's one.

I'll take a strike at that one. Yes not all the re-zoned land have been developed here on the Big Island. If memory serves me correctly, there is something like 50,000 undeveloped lots in Puna and Ka'u. But if they are not developed or if they are is not the question.

The continued re-zoning of land is like a ticking time bomb. With entitlements in hand, developers can sit on their land, flip it, or develop it at anytime. This recent surge of development occuring in West Hawaii is largely due to land that received their entitlements years ago. Just imagine when all those undeveloped lots in Puna and Ka'u build out.

[GeckoGeek]

Let's not forget the permitting process is also a way to control development. It can be used to deny development where infrastructure is inadequate or when overbuilding for the needs. Zoning is usually tied to a master plan, not a tool for timing.

Personally I tend to associate re-zoning to resort development, not residential development. When it is associated with residential, it's usually massive tracts of upscale housing.

[Konaguy]

At least here on the Big Island, it seems previous county administrations were in cahoots with developers. Tons of land was re-zoned, with no infrastructureplanning or any mechanism to pay for said infrastructure. I've seen instances
here that land was re-zoned for residential development. It happened most recently with Kona Coffee Estates.

But nonetheless, it irks me that at least here, Mr. Magoo was in control of the planning process. If he wasn't we wouldn't be in this nightmare today.

[timkona]

Gecko, you touch lightly on the essential problem.

Residential development of "houses" is the essential problem. We don't need more houses, we need more apartments, and small dwellings to accomodate the poorest among us. This will only happen in buildings that are at least 4 stories tall.

We don't need more land rezoned to Res. We need more land rezoned to CV, and other high density, mixed uses. And all this land must be rezoned in the heart of the urban centers like Kailua-Kona downtown.

[SouthKona]

SK - Did you even read the third paragraph of my previous post? Buyers step DOWN to a price level they can afford, which pinches on somebody who is less well off than they are. This step-down theory of real estate is why the homeless situation on Oahu is so bad. But you don't get it, so keep up the misguided fight.
Yes KT, but as usual your style of communication often distracts from your message. Rant as you want, is does not change the basic fact that until the county developes a "plan", the new council is taking a prudent step in halting rezoning.

[timkona]

KILL THE MESSENGER !!!!

The only thing "prudent" about the county's moratorium is that it helps to prop up my property values at a time when value is sagging a bit.

I find it hard to believe that you, SK, think that is a good thing. I would have never perceived you as a capalist, monetarist, profit-driven, "screw the poor", kind of a person.

Just goes to show you that my perceptions are sometimes incorrect. The fact that you and I disagree on this paints me as a liberal, and you as a conservative. Life is full of irony.

One thing is for sure. The moratorium gives a whole new meaning to the term "homeless advocate".

I would have supported the moratorium on low-density SFR if it had included language that promotes high density, town-central, tall, rabbit hutches, such that the poorest among us have options for purchasing dwellings.

[Miulang]

I would have supported the moratorium on low-density SFR if it had included language that promotes high density, town-central, tall, rabbit hutches, such that the poorest among us have options for purchasing dwellings.
RABBIT HUTCHES???!!!:mad: And why is "ownership" so important in the first place to people who currently live with no roof over their heads? I think it's very prudent to plan for adequate infrastructure before allowing any more growth; otherwise, people will be subjected to living standards akin to some Third World countries. The Big Island right now has the most potential for planning growth in a comprehensive way because there's more undeveloped land there than on any of the other islands. If they don't do it right, it will become like Oahu and Maui...the last thing you want or need.

Miulang

[timkona]

Okay Miulang, point taken. I guess ownership is not the crux of the issue. But dwelling size and number of dwellings per acre are both essential to the notion of affordability, be it rentals or purchases.

The only way to mitigate outrageous land cost is to increase density ratios.
The only way to conform to modern sewage requirements is to build in areas already serviced by piping infrastructures, and then increase capacity at existing sewage facilities.
Higher densities are the only way that public transit becomes viable.

To a family without a roof, a 500 sf apartment with small bedroom, small kitchen, and small living area would be a helluva lot better than a sandy sleeping bag in a tent with a coleman stove and a portapotty.

Just because YOU would not live in such small quarters does not mean they are inherently bad. We must have dwelling choices that fulfill the entire spectrum of need, dispersed as a percentage along basic income realities. Dwelling choices must be brought to the marketplace using the least amount of government financial assistance as possible. But it is also important that government not place impediments to affordability at every turn on the road to development. (This latter notion is sometimes referred to as the Politics of NO)

And let's be honest. Urban Sprawl on Maui is the direct result of building height restrictions that result in subdivision mentalities. This promotes dependence upon automobiles, which promotes congestion and pollution. Any true environmentalist knows that overpasses, taller buildings, and smaller dwelling unit size are good for the environment, and the only way to preserve Ag/Open space.

Based on commentary by Miulang and SK, I am starting to come to the conclusion that liberal philosophy is basically uncaring toward the plight of those least able to fend for themselves in our society. Breaks my heart.

[sinjin]

The only way to mitigate outrageous land cost is to increase density ratios.I'm not convinced this is the only way. Here when land becomes outrageously valuable we build high density housing. High density housing built while property is affordable are known as "projects". I do like you're idea about mixed sized dwellings.

[Miulang]

The only way to mitigate outrageous land cost is to increase density ratios.
The only way to conform to modern sewage requirements is to build in areas already serviced by piping infrastructures, and then increase capacity at existing sewage facilities.
OK, let's discuss this point, TK. Where are there sewer systems on the Big Island? Probably only in Hilo and Kona. So you're advocating more population density in Hilo and Kona. That's fine with me. But for places like Kea'au and Paauilo, which have septic systems, how do they plan for dense growth? How much would it cost each homeowner or developer to hook up to a sewer system? How much would it cost for sidewalks and all the other amenities that go along with a city/town center? Would it add $10k per household? $20k? More? Would current homeowners like Craig be willing to pay for that improvement?:confused:

Miulang

[timkona]

"Projects" serve a dwelling function in our society. They got a bad rep for many of the same reasons why the people who live there are there.

Many homeless would be thankful to live in a project.

I'm not convinced this is the only way.
Please tell us what the alternatives are.

Miulang, higher pop densities in Hilo and Kona would lessen the need to develop outside of town, which reduces the need for road infrastructure, and auto pollution.

[Miulang]

"Projects" serve a dwelling function in our society. They got a bad rep for many of the same reasons why the people who live there are there.

Many homeless would be thankful to live in a project.
.


On another thread somewhere (too lazy to look), I brought up the case study of Cabrini Green (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/11/60II/main532704.shtml)in Chicago, which even today is referred to as the worst example of a public housing project gone wrong. It crammed together something like 20,000 people into multiple high rise concrete block buildings. It also didn't work as a social experiment. What the public housing people in Chicago are doing is tearing down all the "projects" and building mixed income housing so middle income folks are living among poorer folks. While the plans are attractive, I think it's a little early to determine whether or not this experiment will succeed.

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

On another thread somewhere (too lazy to look), I brought up the case study of Cabrini Green (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/11/60II/main532704.shtml)in Chicago, which even today is referred to as the worst example of a public housing project gone wrong. At your service...your first mention in the thread was here. (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=70635&postcount=43)

[timkona]

It's not mixed income that is the issue.

It is mixed dwelling sizes and mixed uses within the same building.

A building with 200 sf rabbit hutches on floor 2 and 3000 sf penthouses on floor 6 would naturally attract mixed income residents.

Mixed use is an idea NOT incorporated into Cabrini Greens.

[SouthKona]

A moratorium on rezoning will allow time to develop a comprehensive plan to insure that future development has the concurrency of infrastructure. We've had too many rezonings that have resulted in more and more development without looking at the big picture of what additional unplanned growth is doing to Hawaii Island. Plan first, then afterwards allow for rezoning. This is not saying that higher density should not be part considered during the planning. It is saying to pull it together now because undoing building/planning mistakes are near impossible.

[sinjin]

"Projects" serve a dwelling function in our society. They got a bad rep for many of the same reasons why the people who live there are there.And why wouldn't that be the case this time?

Many homeless would be thankful to live in a project.No doubt. People dying of thirst will drink seawater.

I'm not convinced this is the only way.
Please tell us what the alternatives are.Restrict non-resident/non-owner occupied real estate ownership or tax the hell out of it.

[Konaguy]

The most ridiculous excuse I've read about not having any concurrency, is Chris Yuen (Hawaii County planning director) is afraid that mechanisms like that would increase the cost of housing here. To me that is lamest excuse to not do concurrency. In short, there is no free lunch.Either you have poor infrastructure or better infrastructure, but more expensive housing.

[timkona]

PLEASE STOP USING THE WORD HOUSING

The word you should be using is DWELLING.

Housing implies houses. If we continue to build houses, we will inevitably turn into Orange County.

[SouthKona]

PLEASE STOP USING THE WORD HOUSING
The word you should be using is DWELLING.Housing implies houses.

Housing is a completely acceptible term to use. Definition:
a. Buildings or other shelters in which people live
b. A place to live; a dwelling

[GeckoGeek]

We don't need more land rezoned to Res. We need more land rezoned to CV, and other high density, mixed uses.

OK, let me re-state the question. Has all the CV zoned property been developed? Is the problem the lack of CV zoned land or the lack of development on existing CV land?

[GeckoGeek]

I'm not convinced this is the only way.
Restrict non-resident/non-owner occupied real estate ownership or tax the hell out of it.

Ah, blame the greedy landlords. As classic as a cornball old-time play. The first suggestion would limit the number of rentals available to people who can't buy. In the second case the costs would be passed to the renters. I doubt if it would depress the selling prices that much. It most certainly won't help the folks who are currently sleeping on the beach.

[sinjin]

Ah, blame the greedy landlords. As classic as a cornball old-time play. The first suggestion would limit the number of rentals available to people who can't buy. In the second case the costs would be passed to the renters. I doubt if it would depress the selling prices that much. It most certainly won't help the folks who are currently sleeping on the beach.No one with real estate investments is going to invite people off the beach as long as there are others with better credit to deal with. Restricting home(dwelling, sheesh) ownership to at least near full-time residents would depress selling prices unless I'm missing something. How would that limit rentals? And how is ownership of rental property by non-residents a good thing? The issue of limiting non-owner occupied ownership would also depress selling prices as those with large amounts of equity have been pulling that out and buying rental property throughout this latest upswing. Think that's unfair? At least require them not to be absentee landlords. Seems to me offshore buying power is at the heart of the problem. My father, a part time resident, has owned as many as four properties simultaneously in the last two years. The sale of his mainland home made all of that possible.

[timkona]

The best reason to use the word dwelling is to remove the implied notion of a SFR when discussing affordability. There is simply no way you can address affordability using SFR, not even in a development like Kamani Trees.

Perhaps you, SK, are somewhat more intelligent than the average bear, and understand that the need for apartments, midrise, rabbit hutches, etc is much greater than the need for SFR in Kona. And if we build taller buildings with smaller dwelling units then we are certain to preserve the aina. Besides, what wealthy person wants to live in a 220 sf studio, or a 3 bedroom apartment with tiny bedrooms, that has a restaurant and a tackle store downstairs?

But many of the ignorant folks running the show in Hawaii County and the State use words like 'Highway' when describing the stoplight filled nightmare that is Queen Kaahumanu BOULEVARD. (You would think the Queen would rate higher than a blvd.)

So, in order to help the most ignorant among us from delusional analysis, we should remove the word 'housing' from the debate concerning the pressing need for affordable dwellings in Kona.

I know it's just a semantic. But when dealing with stubborn dogmatists, sometimes a simple semantic change is all it takes to help them see the light.

[SouthKona]

So, in order to help the most ignorant among us from delusional analysis, we should remove the word 'housing' from the debate concerning the pressing need for affordable dwellings in Kona.
I know it's just a semantic. But when dealing with stubborn dogmatists, sometimes a simple semantic change is all it takes to help them see the light.
Then I'd add that we should also stop calling it "affordable" and instead call it what it is, "low income". There are so-called "affordable" units going in at Waikoloa for something in the price of $350,000. Yes, perhaps affordable if you have a two income family. Certainly not affordable to a minimum-medium wage hard working single parent!

It is correct that "housing/dwelling/whatever" need not be restricted to the just ownership. Without adequate rental units, the homeless problem will not be solved.

[SouthKona]

But many of the ignorant folks running the show in Hawaii County and the State use words like 'Highway' when describing the stoplight filled nightmare that is Queen Kaahumanu BOULEVARD. (You would think the Queen would rate higher than a blvd.)

The State's press release for the highway funds stated:
HONOLULU – Governor Linda Lingle recently released $1,338,231 in state funds for phase one of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening project on the Big Island.

Where's reference info that it a Boulevard and not a Highway? I've never heard that before.

[GeckoGeek]

No one with real estate investments is going to invite people off the beach as long as there are others with better credit to deal with.

And they'll never afford to buy either. If their credit stinks too much to get a rental, no one will loan them money. So what's your point? Either way, they're not moving into a dwelling.

Restricting home(dwelling, sheesh) ownership to at least near full-time residents would depress selling prices unless I'm missing something.

It may take a few percentage hits, but it's not going to suddenly make things affordable. If it really started hurting, the investors would start looking to attract outsiders. Instead of lower prices allowing renters to own, you'd end up having new residents moving in taking up housing. Depressed prices would slow if not halt development. No new dwellings on the market, then you've got a housing shortage. Sorry, your idea is full of unintended consequences.


How would that limit rentals?

Uhhhhh, without investor/landlords, how do you have rentals? Without rentals, where do new families start out?

This thread started out on the cost of housing. If housing is so over priced, then show me all the empty units. That's the way supply and demand work, does it not? Too high a price results in lower demand and a over supply. We should be seeing empty units. Rent and selling prices are related. Both are being driven upward by two things: Limited supply and increasing buying power. The move from single income to dual income increasing buying power and competition for housing - prices went up. Interest rates went down - buying power went up - prices rose. Hawaii's problem is limited land and just too dang nice a place to live.

Oh, and your proposed law? Given that many lawmakers are property owners themselves, I think you're looking at the proverbial snowball in a hot place.

[sinjin]

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2006/05/09/local/local01.txt

Forgive me if this has been posted previously as a regular poster here is quoted.

[timkona]

"Unrestrained development" causes higher prices???? Geez, that's looney.

First of all, development is very restrained in Hawaii. Go to any public hearing and listen to all the activists trying to stop any development. The County Council is doing all it can to restrain development by supporting rezoning moratoriums. This is just part of the reason why the cost of a dwelling is so high in Hawaii. Other reasons include social resistance to higher densities and taller buildings, resistance to smaller dwelling sizes (studios, etc), and zoning regulations that are too narrow minded to promote mixed uses.

Secondly, if supply is growing faster than demand, shouldn't price fall? Now come on Aaron, you understand the basics of economics, right? So how can you assert that unrestrained development causes higher prices?? That's just plain ignorant. And yet the West Hawaii Yesterday prints that kind of BS, whether or not it is rooted in facts and reality, and regardless of the qualifications of the person being quoted. I was unaware that you work in the development industry or in some facet of economics.

I betcha Aaron was misquoted or quoted out of context, because I think he is smart enough to know better.

[Konaguy]

I betcha Aaron was misquoted or quoted out of context, because I think he is smart enough to know better.

No, I wasn't misquoted in that article. I stand by what I said too.

"Resident Aaron Stene said he believes "unrestrained development" is a major cause of high-priced real estate. Stene recognizes he lives in a capitalist society. Still, he said, government should control the market in some way because "everything is interconnected." He said the high cost of living forces families to work multiple jobs, leading to societal problems."The property value appreciates to a point that local folks cannot afford," he said. "For the most part, they are struggling to live here."


Unrestrained development of especially luxury high end homes runs the overall prices up. I should know as I've noticed a dramatic increase in home values over the almost 31 years living here. Coincidentally it coincides with the dramatic increase of high end luxury homes (which are usually second homes of wealthy part time residents).

[craigwatanabe]

Here ya go Tim...fresh outta today's Honolulu Advertiser Letters to the Editor:


WAI'ANAE PROJECT

TALLER BUILDINGS ARE MORE EFFICIENT LAND USE

Tall vs. sprawl: How can we keep the country country and sustain agriculture and our rural communities?

The recent controversy over the height of a proposed affordable housing project in Wai'anae epitomizes the dilemma.

Is it better to adhere to height limits and use more land for development with consequent increased unit costs and decreased open space, or to build upward, altering views but using our limited space more efficiently and economically?

Or might we place a moratorium on building, thus preserving the land while forcing more houseless residents to leave the Islands for cheaper living on the Mainland?

My reluctant vote is for taller buildings.

David Bremer
Mililani

[GeckoGeek]

"Unrestrained development" causes higher prices???? Geez, that's looney.

I think I'm on Konaguy's side on this one. What kind of developments do unrestrained developers create? Given all the work to get the loans, buy the land, draw up plans, get the permits, buy the material, hire the labor, etc., I doubt if there's much cost difference between affordable homes and high-end homes. But there is a big price difference in the sale price. So I believe unrestrained developers make high end homes.

Does that help? After all, it is increasing supply, is it not? The problem is you have to realize that the "supply" isn't just the existing residents. It's also all the tourists that come and would like to move here. In the end, I think all that high-end development tends to attract more residents to Hawaii then to create more housing for exiting residents.

[joshuatree]

Perhaps a more detailed statement would more accurately describe the problem?

Restrained development in the form of activists restricting height and density contributes to lack of affordable dwellings because it prevents the ability to build more units and smaller units in an existing designated piece of land.

Unrestrained development in the sense of no guidelines and restrictions on what developers can build usually results in developers aiming for the luxury market because of fatter profit margins. This results in building dwellings completely priced out of the average buyer.

So restrained in one area and unrestrained in another results in the dwelling crunch for the average resident. Activists will always prevent high density development because of the supposed destruction of views though if they would just look from a different angle, high density development would actually save views because it permits the ability to set aside pristine land to be marked as off-limits. Developers will always resist building affordable dwellings cuz it means less money in their pockets and politicians in bed with them will agree because their pockets will be less full too if they pass rules to discourage luxury dwellings.

[SouthKona]

Activists will always prevent high density development because of the supposed destruction of views though if they would just look from a different angle, high density development would actually save views because it permits the ability to set aside pristine land to be marked as off-limits.
That's highlights a major problem - currently development is allowed but without the setting aside of pristine land. A trade off of high density for guaranteed preservation of pristine land would probably be acceptible to most, but as it is now the "preservation" part is not usually part of the mix. Until there is a fix for that, many people will continue to feel that at least minimizing the density is some insurance against becoming another Maui.

[SouthKona]

Unrestrained development in the sense of no guidelines and restrictions on what developers can build usually results in developers aiming for the luxury market because of fatter profit margins. This results in building dwellings completely priced out of the average buyer.
Case in point is Waimea. And note that the new homes there are not even considered "luxury", but still the reality is that profit is much greater on a $600,000 home than a $200,000 home. The land costs the same no matter what is built on it, and labor runs a certain amount per hour no matter what is being built. There is so much more money to be made on a higher priced house, that is where developers are going to concentrate (after all, it is a business to them, and businesses want to make profits).

[sinjin]

What is the percentage of new high-end homes being purchased by existing residents?

[sinjin]

What is the percentage of new high-end homes being purchased by existing residents?http://www.smshawaii.com/ParttimeResidents.pdf

[timkona]

That's a pretty good letter Craig. Highlights what I been talking about for years.

But the ignorance of the activist mentality will always prevent them from seeing the reality of things.

Case in point would be the logic in SK's recent post which basically says if we can't include preservation in the trade-off for tall buildings, then it's okay to sprawl outward and turn into Orange County. Minimizing density is great way to increase traffic congestion, chew up land, and pave over paradise.

In truth, that is what the misguided activist mentality wants for Hawaii. :cool:

[GeckoGeek]

A trade off of high density for guaranteed preservation of pristine land would probably be acceptible to most, but as it is now the "preservation" part is not usually part of the mix.

I think part of the problem is that there is no guarantee that "preservation" will always be that way. What's preservation today is tomorrow's proposed resort development.

[GeckoGeek]

http://www.smshawaii.com/ParttimeResidents.pdf

Wow! Great link!

Here's what I found for the Big Island:


9% of properties are owned by out-of-state property owners
35% of single family homes and 75% of condo sales going to out-of-state property owners
52% of these owners left them vacant when they were not in Hawaii.
only 38% of them were rented.


So at minimum, these figures tell me that 52% of 75% (or 39%) of all condo sales are taking dwellings out of the pool for local residents to live.

I don't have a problem with the 38% that rent, because they go back into the housing pool as rentals. It's the 52% that sit vacant that really hurt.

[Jonah K]

What is the percentage of new high-end homes being purchased by existing residents?
Of course, articles such as "Kailua-Kona: Where You'll Find a Small-Town Feeling on the Big Island (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/realestate/greathomes/12havens.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)" in today's New York Times serve to increase the demand among non-residents for homes on the Big Island. I found Donna Rehling's (a Kailua-Kona property owner than lives in Westerville, Ohio) comment that the Big Island is "so much bigger to spread out in" somewhat typical of the myopia that some non-resident property owners have when it comes to development issues here. More planning for Kona is probably done in boardrooms and offices in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, etc. than in Hawai'i. :cool:

[sinjin]

I don't have a problem with the 38% that rent, because they go back into the housing pool as rentals. It's the 52% that sit vacant that really hurt.What if a majority of those 38% rented are short term vacation rentals? Not in the "housing pool" then.

[sinjin]

Of course, articles such as "Kailua-Kona: Where You'll Find a Small-Town Feeling on the Big Island (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/realestate/greathomes/12havens.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)" in today's New York Times serve to increase the demand among non-residents for homes on the Big Island. I found Donna Rehling's (a Kailua-Kona property owner than lives in Westerville, Ohio) comment that the Big Island is "so much bigger to spread out in" somewhat typical of the myopia that some non-resident property owners have when it comes to development issues here. More planning for Kona is probably done in boardrooms and offices in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, etc. than in Hawai'i. :cool:Must be nice to buy a $1.2 million second home.

[GeckoGeek]

What if a majority of those 38% rented are short term vacation rentals? Not in the "housing pool" then.

That sounds more like a time share. I'm to clear if they are included in this survey or not. But that would be more dwellings removed from residency.

And one can easily question the 7% "loaned to friends" means. A few more short term folks? Probably not live-in caretakers, even if on a informal basis.

But the suggestion is at least 4.7% of all dwellings on the BI are vacant by owner's choice. That sounds quite significant to me. I think the whole thing about rent vs. buy is overblown. The key issue here is to have a place to live and how much it costs. And I think good old supply and demand explains what's going on here. And this suggests that there is a hidden depletion of the supply by taking dwellings out of residency and turning them into upscale hotels. Now I don't have a problem with hotels, they are what they are. But when areas zoned for living start to become de facto hotels, pushing out residents, that's another story.

[SouthKona]

But the suggestion is at least 4.7% of all dwellings on the BI are vacant by owner's choice.
I know that some of the vacant dwellings are used as "get aways" for family and friends and not rented out. Up until the past few years (when prices skyrocketed), you could buy a cheap $5,000-$10,000 lot and build a very small, simple "second home" for weekends/vacations. The incentive to rent out a dwelling is reduced if there is not a mortgage that needs to be covered. Lucky are the people who put their money into cheap Big Island land instead of $30,000 cars - cars which by now are probably rusted or worn out.

[sinjin]

I know that some of the vacant dwellings are used as "get aways" for family and friends and not rented out. Up until the past few years (when prices skyrocketed), you could buy a cheap $5,000-$10,000 lot and build a very small, simple "second home" for weekends/vacations. The incentive to rent out a dwelling is reduced if there is not a mortgage that needs to be covered. Lucky are the people who put their money into cheap Big Island land instead of $30,000 cars - cars which by now are probably rusted or worn out.I've noticed quite a number of these sort of dwellings down South Point way.

[SouthKona]

I've noticed quite a number of these sort of dwellings down South Point way.
Exactly. Prime example is HOVE (Hawaiian Ocean View Estates). Mixed in with the many beautiful expensive homes are quite a bit of .... humble dwellings.

[sinjin]

Exactly. Prime example is HOVE (Hawaiian Ocean View Estates). Mixed in with the many beautiful expensive homes are quite a bit of .... humble dwellings.Discovery Harbor area as well. Sprinklers on auto. Conspicuous lack of crowing roosters.;)

[joshuatree]

Don't know if this should be in a separate thread but it does appear Oahu is looking to raise height limits on buildings. Finally, some logical sense in urban planning if people wish to see open spaces remain open spaces.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/25/news/story12.html

[craigwatanabe]

I remember when the condo owners on the right side of Hawaii Kai voiced their opposition to a Home Depot to be built in the valley.

They said that orange building would be a visual blight to their views of the harbors and valley.

Has anyone looked from those harbors and from the valley floor at those tall white fingers sticking out against the green mountain side of that valley?

Visual blight, I guess it depends on who's perspective it's coming from.:(

[timkona]

That's a great article Josh. Thanks.

Of course, many folks will say NO. Luckily, most folks that do say NO are quite ig'nant, and really deserve to be ignored.

The land is more important than the view. It's very simple, really.

[GeckoGeek]

I haven't looked at the details, but I'm leery of the idea. Don't really like the idea of turning Kakaako into a solid concrete canyon just to spare some areas. I live in downtown, I don't live on the Windward side, or the North Shore so why should I be in favor of making a horrid place to live so the rich folk can enjoy their nice little areas.

[craigwatanabe]

[QUOTE=timkona;
The land is more important than the view. It's very simple, really.[/QUOTE]

One scenerio I can see by going up is that eventually the land around that upward development will develop more upward development and pretty soon it does expand outwards. Waikiki is a perfect example of that.

It starts with one or two tall buildings separated by a few blocks, then more buildings fill in the gap and surrounding areas. Pretty soon you have a concrete canyon that took over not only the view, but the land for which that upward development tried to preserve.

Then as it is in Honolulu with no lateral expanse to build and a height limit proposals are in to raise that limit. The First Hawaiian Bank Building is already one example of how a variance can push heights upward.

Unless assurances are put into place BEFORE building upwards is allowed to ensure limited vertical development to just a few tall buildings per square mile of development, I can't see how building up will preserve the Aina for future generations to enjoy.

I see your point on development on a smaller footprint, however eventually there will be many footprints to set many buildings on and pretty soon you have the same lateral expansion problem that vertical expansion was trying to overcome but this time you also have visual blight to contend with on two axis instead of only one.

[joshuatree]

I haven't looked at the details, but I'm leery of the idea. Don't really like the idea of turning Kakaako into a solid concrete canyon just to spare some areas. I live in downtown, I don't live on the Windward side, or the North Shore so why should I be in favor of making a horrid place to live so the rich folk can enjoy their nice little areas.

Because if turning Kakaako into a "concrete canyon" means saving the openness that is currently on the Windward side or North Shore, it means on your free time, you can drive a few short miles (compared to driving on the mainland) and enjoy nature. Would that not be better than if let's say, Kakaako no longer grows any more than its current state but the Windward side and the North Shore also become Kakaako clones? Then everything looks and feels the same. Besides, what if you become the rich guy one day, don't ya want to then have your home with a "view"? :p

Also, by increasing the supply of available homes, office space, retail space, in an area, the price becomes more affordable.

One scenerio I can see by going up is that eventually the land around that upward development will develop more upward development and pretty soon it does expand outwards. Waikiki is a perfect example of that.

It starts with one or two tall buildings separated by a few blocks, then more buildings fill in the gap and surrounding areas. Pretty soon you have a concrete canyon that took over not only the view, but the land for which that upward development tried to preserve.

Then as it is in Honolulu with no lateral expanse to build and a height limit proposals are in to raise that limit. The First Hawaiian Bank Building is already one example of how a variance can push heights upward.

Unless assurances are put into place BEFORE building upwards is allowed to ensure limited vertical development to just a few tall buildings per square mile of development, I can't see how building up will preserve the Aina for future generations to enjoy.

I see your point on development on a smaller footprint, however eventually there will be many footprints to set many buildings on and pretty soon you have the same lateral expansion problem that vertical expansion was trying to overcome but this time you also have visual blight to contend with on two axis instead of only one.

Your logic only makes sense because the council only took a baby step in the right direction by proposing to lift building height limits. There is still much to be done. What they need to propose next is to designate areas/neighborhoods that are "offlimits" to further development. Then you don't have the issue of building up and then expanding out. Waikiki is an example of your statement because Waikiki has pretty much already built out it's height limits and there is no rule to contain the area. Ultimately, the idea of having a concrete jungle to save the pristine countryside only works if it's a one-two punch. First law raises height limits in designated areas, second law declares no-build in other designated areas.

[timkona]

One scenerio I can see by going up is that eventually the land around that upward development will develop more upward development and pretty soon it does expand outwards. Waikiki is a perfect example of that.

Exactly Craig. That's how cities were built BEFORE the advent of the automobile. Tall Buildings, right next to each other, where the next building was built on the very next plot of land. There used to be a crystal clear difference between City and Country, with no suburbs, or land-chewing stripmalls/subdivisions.

It is the automobile that has allowed humanity to diverge from the successful pattern of urban development that existed for millennia. If we want to reduce auto usage, we must build pedestrian friendly realities, where distances are measured 1 mile at a time, rather than 15 miles in 20 minutes. Taller buildings are much more viable today than 120 years ago, when the 5th floor walkup was the norm. Now we have elevators, and engineering, that will allow us to keep the city CITY, and the country COUNTRY.

I wholeheartedly encourage anybody with Craig's point of view to read a little about the subject. Miseducation, rooted in personal opinion or belief, is embarrassing. Isn't it?

[craigwatanabe]

One scenerio I can see by going up is that eventually the land around that upward development will develop more upward development and pretty soon it does expand outwards. Waikiki is a perfect example of that.

Exactly Craig. That's how cities were built BEFORE the advent of the automobile. Tall Buildings, right next to each other, where the next building was built on the very next plot of land. There used to be a crystal clear difference between City and Country, with no suburbs, or land-chewing stripmalls/subdivisions.

It is the automobile that has allowed humanity to diverge from the successful pattern of urban development that existed for millennia. If we want to reduce auto usage, we must build pedestrian friendly realities, where distances are measured 1 mile at a time, rather than 15 miles in 20 minutes. Taller buildings are much more viable today than 120 years ago, when the 5th floor walkup was the norm. Now we have elevators, and engineering, that will allow us to keep the city CITY, and the country COUNTRY.

I wholeheartedly encourage anybody with Craig's point of view to read a little about the subject. Miseducation, rooted in personal opinion or belief, is embarrassing. Isn't it?

Tim, Waikiki's expansion and ultimately Kakaako's development occured long after the advent of the automobile. The problem is when you allow one building to come up, it would be hard to disallow someone else from building next to you.

Yes taller buildings are more viable today than 120 years ago, but all that means is that you can put more of them next to each other as well. One way around the "canyon" look as noted in Waikiki and Downtown Honolulu is the setback requirements that keep a building's overhang way back from the sidewalks to give pedestrians some breathing space.

But come 4pm when the sun starts to dip, even with those setbacks, the ground level feeling is one of impending darkness too early in the day and as the temperature changes the wind picks up and pretty soon it's a dark and windy place amongst pillers of glass and steel.

Building up on Hawaii Island can work but we gotta make sure there are lots of space between these monoliths.

[joshuatree]

Tim, Waikiki's expansion and ultimately Kakaako's development occured long after the advent of the automobile. The problem is when you allow one building to come up, it would be hard to disallow someone else from building next to you.

Yes taller buildings are more viable today than 120 years ago, but all that means is that you can put more of them next to each other as well. One way around the "canyon" look as noted in Waikiki and Downtown Honolulu is the setback requirements that keep a building's overhang way back from the sidewalks to give pedestrians some breathing space.

But come 4pm when the sun starts to dip, even with those setbacks, the ground level feeling is one of impending darkness too early in the day and as the temperature changes the wind picks up and pretty soon it's a dark and windy place amongst pillers of glass and steel.

Building up on Hawaii Island can work but we gotta make sure there are lots of space between these monoliths.

Actually, one positive I've noted from walking in canyon corridors is that they provide a level of shading. This in turn makes walking easier. You might say what's wrong with having a little sunshine but if you're walking to work or doing chores and not having freetime, having the sun beat down on you stinks. Why do you see so many grannys walking in Chinatown with umbrellas on sunny days? Cuz they can't stand the sun baring down on them. So a positive of building overhangs is partial shelter from the elements, it will definitely make walking less of a hassle during rain storms. I don't think impending darkness due to a building's shadow is a problem that can't be overcome. Given that new buildings have more and more of the reflective glass, an architect can design the building to help bounce light back onto the streets.

[timkona]

Sounds like in spite of the facts, you have already made up your mind.

That's a very common way of looking at things.

[craigwatanabe]

Sounds like in spite of the facts, you have already made up your mind.

That's a very common way of looking at things.

Tim if you've noticed I'm not against upward development, we just need to carefully address it's growth.

OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

[timkona]

The most careful way to address the upward growth is place the importance of the land ahead of the importance of the view.

Another issue would be to limit tall buildings to the immediate periphery of existing tall buildings, and to forbid subdivisions on the outskirts.

People who say they prefer "low-density" growth clearly have no understanding of why their are no oranges left in Orange County.

[PoiBoy]

I've never seen 1 big building stand alone. More will come....then soon you will have a mini New York. It's the nature of developers. Developers don't care about the aina. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant fool.

[joshuatree]

It's not about one building but more of controlling zones, what zones can be concrete jungles, what zones can be countryside. When you do that, it will sort itself out.

[PoiBoy]

Actually, one positive I've noted from walking in canyon corridors is that they provide a level of shading. This in turn makes walking easier. You might say what's wrong with having a little sunshine but if you're walking to work or doing chores and not having freetime, having the sun beat down on you stinks. Why do you see so many grannys walking in Chinatown with umbrellas on sunny days? Cuz they can't stand the sun baring down on them. So a positive of building overhangs is partial shelter from the elements, it will definitely make walking less of a hassle during rain storms. I don't think impending darkness due to a building's shadow is a problem that can't be overcome. Given that new buildings have more and more of the reflective glass, an architect can design the building to help bounce light back onto the streets.

OMG. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[PoiBoy]

It's not about one building but more of controlling zones, what zones can be concrete jungles, what zones can be countryside. When you do that, it will sort itself out.

Easier said than done. Big building = Big money = Big buying power and Big influence

[joshuatree]

OMG. :confused: :confused: :confused:

¿cuál es la confusión?

[GeckoGeek]

it means on your free time, you can drive a few short miles (compared to driving on the mainland) and enjoy nature.

So I have to endure 120 hrs/wk in ugly Gotham city just for the opportunity to visit someplace nicer? No sale. Besides, that's what parks are for, not the suburbs of Kailua.


Would that not be better than if let's say, Kakaako no longer grows any more than its current state but the Windward side and the North Shore also become Kakaako clones?

Give it time. The land is limited, the population grows. How can it turn out otherwise?


Also, by increasing the supply of available homes, office space, retail space, in an area, the price becomes more affordable.

In theory. But you have to realize that demand isn't just the folks that are cramped up in smaller housing or living with their parents. It's also all of the residents who have moved to the mainland - as well as everyone on the mainland who is tired of snow. Bring the prices down enough and the population will explode and then you'll be right back where you started. And as long as Hawaii is part of the US with it's guarantees of unrestricted travel, that's the way it will always be.

[joshuatree]

So I have to endure 120 hrs/wk in ugly Gotham city just for the opportunity to visit someplace nicer? No sale. Besides, that's what parks are for, not the suburbs of Kailua.

It's only Gotham City if the people of that city let it degrade into that. Besides, ever wonder what it means when people say, "I like to live the city life? A city's a city, that's the point. Keep the city from consuming the countryside by letting the city grow within the confines of the city. A city will still have parks but surely you can differentiate between a park and countryside? Ultimately, if the city life is something you dread, you're free to move out to the countryside.



Give it time. The land is limited, the population grows. How can it turn out otherwise?

Since you acknowledge the fact of finite land and continued population growth, why is it hard for you to accept letting the city grow to accommodate the growth? What is so rustic or natural about the existing corridor from downtown to Waikiki that you wish to preserve? Or is it NIMBY talking here?



In theory. But you have to realize that demand isn't just the folks that are cramped up in smaller housing or living with their parents. It's also all of the residents who have moved to the mainland - as well as everyone on the mainland who is tired of snow. Bring the prices down enough and the population will explode and then you'll be right back where you started. And as long as Hawaii is part of the US with it's guarantees of unrestricted travel, that's the way it will always be.

Yes, perhaps what you say will happen. But if the price goes back to where we are now but with more people, then it's still a success because more people got in at "affordable" prices as opposed to now. And no, I'm not promoting massive immigration to Hawaii. But you need to realize if you don't start providing "affordable" housing, the current population will suffer even more such as those that are homeless. Besides, just because the price of housing goes down doesn't mean a direct influx of immigrants. You still need available, good jobs, to attract people that want to settle. As for retiring away from snow, there are many other places that can offer warm weather too. Florida, Southern California, Arizona. All offer relatively snow free weather and cost of living is much lower than Hawaii.

[GeckoGeek]

It's only Gotham City if the people of that city let it degrade into that. ... What is so rustic or natural about the existing corridor from downtown to Waikiki that you wish to preserve?

Nobody ever plans to have Gotham City, it just turns out that way. And I think that building to maximum height on every lot is the way it starts. I'm fine with redeveloping Kakaako, but there are limits to what should be done.

Besides, there's a practical limit to how many people you can cram into an area. The roads won't take the traffic and nobody has come up with a plan to keep things in walking distance. This piece of legislation might be OK as part of a bigger package, but on it's own :thumbsdown: It's a blank check for developers to go hog wild while painting it a way to preserve other areas.



Yes, perhaps what you say will happen. But if the price goes back to where we are now but with more people, then it's still a success because more people got in at "affordable" prices as opposed to now. And no, I'm not promoting massive immigration to Hawaii. But you need to realize if you don't start providing "affordable" housing, the current population will suffer even more such as those that are homeless.

So you acknowledge that this is just a temporary solution?


As for retiring away from snow, there are many other places that can offer warm weather too. Florida, Southern California, Arizona. All offer relatively snow free weather and cost of living is much lower than Hawaii.

And they are growing like crazy. At least they have the land to grown on.

[joshuatree]

Nobody ever plans to have Gotham City, it just turns out that way. And I think that building to maximum height on every lot is the way it starts. I'm fine with redeveloping Kakaako, but there are limits to what should be done.

Besides, there's a practical limit to how many people you can cram into an area. The roads won't take the traffic and nobody has come up with a plan to keep things in walking distance. This piece of legislation might be OK as part of a bigger package, but on it's own :thumbsdown: It's a blank check for developers to go hog wild while painting it a way to preserve other areas.

So you acknowledge that this is just a temporary solution?

And they are growing like crazy. At least they have the land to grown on.

So what limits do you propose? I've actually said in my previous posts that the next step the govt needs to do is to pass resolutions that ban development in other areas in order to create a meaningful urban planning masterplan.

I'm not too worried about number of people one crams into an area. In spite of how much Honolulu has grown over the years, it is nothing compared to places like NYC or Tokyo and it never will be so no need to overreact on the urban density. More importantly, if rail is going forward as planned, each of these developments will compliment one another. So in spite of cramming more people into an area, they will now have a suitable mass transit to use. People will only need to use their cars when they decide to go out of the city.

I am only acknowledging that your hypothesis is just one of many possibilities. It can turn out that increasing the number of available housing won't induce a mass influx of people either.

Here's another thought too. Another piece of legislation they should pass is to require developers that build high-risers to chip in on public infrastructure so infrastructure keeps up with demand.

[GeckoGeek]

I'm not too worried about number of people one crams into an area. ... it is nothing compared to places like NYC or Tokyo and it never will be so no need to overreact on the urban density.

My trip to Japan has made me appreciate setbacks. (It also made me appreciate no smoking in restaurants, but that's a different thread.)

But more importantly, the planning needs to be done so as to allow mixed use so people can get around to things on foot.

I'm not against putting more housing in Kakaako, I'm against making all new buildings maximum height - pushing for maximum density. And I'm certainly against cramming a lot more people in with inadequate planning. This bill needs to be part of a whole plan, not just bits and pieces.

[timkona]

I'm against making all new buildings maximum height - pushing for maximum density.

Let's explore the converse of that statement -------- LOGICALLY.

Being against Maximum Density's is being AGAINST the aina.
Any building built lower than maximum height is not an efficient use of the land.

The mere fact that you portray yourself as an enemy of the land is the root of your cognitive dissonance. Because the truth is, I think you, GeckoGeek, would choose to protect the land, if it came right down to brass tacks.

We can grow two ways - Up or Out. There is no middle ground. (no pun intended)

[GeckoGeek]

We can grow two ways - Up or Out. There is no middle ground. (no pun intended)

No Tim, extremes are always bad. There needs to be balance.

Besides, my complaint is as much against this legislation because of it's failure to address things as a whole as anything else. This bill proposes to maximize density, but fails to protect others. It's not a whole plan.

Frankly, given some of the numbers I've seen, I'd like to see a steep "vacancy tax". Owners who leave their housing vacant for long periods of time displace residents. I'd like to see them pay for the true cost of taking away housing. That may not make a big difference on Oahu, but the effect would be noticeable in Kona.

[SouthKona]

Frankly, given some of the numbers I've seen, I'd like to see a steep "vacancy tax". Owners who leave their housing vacant for long periods of time displace residents. I'd like to see them pay for the true cost of taking away housing. That may not make a big difference on Oahu, but the effect would be noticeable in Kona.

You have got to be kidding. If someone works hard enough to buy a home/condo/other housing, and they pay the cash price or mortgage, insurance, upkeep and taxes, then what possible business is it of the government if the owner wants to leave the dwelling empty? No - I don't want anyone telling ME that I would "have to" rent out an empty home if I had such an asset, which also applies to being threatened with a "vacancy tax".

It is going to take a lot more than a naive theory like a "vacancy tax" to solve the homeless and unaffordable housing issues.

[joshuatree]

You have got to be kidding. If someone works hard enough to buy a home/condo/other housing, and they pay the cash price or mortgage, insurance, upkeep and taxes, then what possible business is it of the government if the owner wants to leave the dwelling empty? No - I don't want anyone telling ME that I would "have to" rent out an empty home if I had such an asset, which also applies to being threatened with a "vacancy tax".

It is going to take a lot more than a naive theory like a "vacancy tax" to solve the homeless and unaffordable housing issues.

I thought the system already "taxes" extra for these situations. You get higher interest mortgage loans if the property is an investor property. And I hear about govt proposals to tax primary residences at a lower tax rate for property tax. So essentially, you already have the so called "vacancy tax". To add another tax just because the owner wants to leave the property vacant is overdoing it. Why not tax every car owner for every extra car they leave parked at their home and not in use?

[timkona]

Sorry Gecko. Did not mean to offend with something as contrite as logic.

Please forgive me.

[GeckoGeek]

In case anyone's forgotten, there's a bunch of land that still scrub brush out around Kapolei. And in Kapolei itself it's hard to find a building that's 4 stories high. Last I knew, nobody held that land in high regard. Not like the Windward side or North Shore. What about pushing for a little more density out there at the so-called "second city"? Because right now, the "second city" is pretty dang flat!

Or would you rather see Pipeline Cafe bulldozed for another high rise luxury condo. We've already discussed before what kinds of units will be built when the developers have their way. I don't think there's anything in this bill that changes that.

[GeckoGeek]

I thought the system already "taxes" extra for these situations. You get higher interest mortgage loans if the property is an investor property. And I hear about govt proposals to tax primary residences at a lower tax rate for property tax. So essentially, you already have the so called "vacancy tax".

Those are the breaks that owner-occupants get. Investors pay that "tax" you describe regardless of if they rent or not. The only real "vacancy tax" at this point is the lack of rent income.

Now, if you scroll back in this thread, you'll see a report that suggests that at least 4.6% of all condos in Kona are vacant "second homes" and that 39% of all condo sales are taking the units out of the pool of available homes for residents (either existing residents or new residents). Now, with those number in hand, what would you as a lawmaker propose to do about the housing situation? Build more? When so few actually create dwellings for residents? Or do you consider trying to influence the behavior of those coming in from the outside, pushing aside residents with their fists full of dollars and driving up prices.

If you as a owner live in the place, fine. If you rent it out, fine. But when you leave it vacant, then there's a ripple effect of displaced people. One unit isn't going to break the bank, but when you have a sizable trend, then you're forced to develop yet more of the land, erect yet more buildings then are actually needed to accommodate people with money to waste.

Normally I think I'm the capitalist suggesting the free market take care of things but there is a ripple effect to this one that shouldn't be ignored.

[timkona]

the free market take care of things

It's impossible, in the modern era of liberal America, for the FREE MARKET to take care of anything. We no longer have a free market for dwellings.

Instead, we have zoning, setbacks, height limits, environmental impact statements, public hearings, CCR's, moratoriums, land use districts, burial sites, etc etc.

If we had a free market for dwellings, you bet your socks the dwelling crisis we have now would lessen dramatically.

Unfortunately, it's gonna be about 15 more years before the core of the liberal Baby Boomers starts dying off in mass numbers. But don't worry, Gen X and Gen Y'ers talk about this subject all the time. And we know we will have a big job to do cleaning up the doo-doo after the parade known as the ME generation is done marching through society.

We are prepared not only to fix the problems, but to leave a great legacy to our children, akin to what the Boomers' parents left for them.

PS - I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here Gecko.....you always struck me as someone who would prefer a free market for dwellings.

[joshuatree]

Those are the breaks that owner-occupants get. Investors pay that "tax" you describe regardless of if they rent or not. The only real "vacancy tax" at this point is the lack of rent income.

Now, if you scroll back in this thread, you'll see a report that suggests that at least 4.6% of all condos in Kona are vacant "second homes" and that 39% of all condo sales are taking the units out of the pool of available homes for residents (either existing residents or new residents). Now, with those number in hand, what would you as a lawmaker propose to do about the housing situation? Build more? When so few actually create dwellings for residents? Or do you consider trying to influence the behavior of those coming in from the outside, pushing aside residents with their fists full of dollars and driving up prices.

If you as a owner live in the place, fine. If you rent it out, fine. But when you leave it vacant, then there's a ripple effect of displaced people. One unit isn't going to break the bank, but when you have a sizable trend, then you're forced to develop yet more of the land, erect yet more buildings then are actually needed to accommodate people with money to waste.

Normally I think I'm the capitalist suggesting the free market take care of things but there is a ripple effect to this one that shouldn't be ignored.

I understand your desire to correct the situation but your approach feels like crossing the line and it's more of a directive on how people should live their lives or how they can use their own property. It's already bad enough with new communities that have HOA and they dictate how much front lawn you need to have, height of your fence, etc etc.

I rather promote legislation that allows condos to be built with stipulation that all units must be primary residences. If you don't plan on living there, you can't buy it. Taxing existing home owners that choose to live them vacant is basically stifling ambition. Not everyone who can buy more than one home is bling bling, some work hard and take risks (leveraging their existing prop on a second mortgage, pooling the entire family's income earnings, etc) to acquire that second home. What they do with it should be their choice.

[GeckoGeek]

PS - I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here Gecko.....you always struck me as someone who would prefer a free market for dwellings.

Yes, normally I am. I'm kinda surprised that I find myself on the other side of this issue, but there it is. I'm open to other ideas, but the whole notion that there is a housing shortage and high prices and yet such a high percentage of units vacant by the owner's preference just seems so wrong.

[GeckoGeek]

I understand your desire to correct the situation but your approach feels like crossing the line and it's more of a directive on how people should live their lives or how they can use their own property.

Note that all I'm proposing is a tax. It doesn't prevent anyone who has the money to do what they want. It just adds more economic disincentive.

Perhaps what's missing here is where the tax would go. The general fund is not the place for it. It would go toward something along the lines of affordable housing. That way the tax actually goes to solving the problem created. That seems to be a pretty common tool of government to influence behavior.

It's already bad enough with new communities that have HOA and they dictate how much front lawn you need to have, height of your fence, etc etc.

The 4th level of government. Practically unavoidable given the standard boilerplate of drafted by the developers. Worse, some neighborhoods are voting in a HOA were there was none and owners who voted against it are stuck with it anyway. :mad:


I rather promote legislation that allows condos to be built with stipulation that all units must be primary residences. If you don't plan on living there, you can't buy it.

OK, so someone buys it, lives in it for one year and moves out. Then what? They have to sell? Or does the whole thing fall apart there. And when you do choose to sell, do you have to sell to another owner-occupant? In other words, not getting the full value of the place? Aren't all those a stronger directive then my proposed tax?

It seems like a simple idea, but since it doesn't seem to be practiced, I suspect there are very real problems with it or we'd see more of it.



Taxing existing home owners that choose to live them vacant is basically stifling ambition. Not everyone who can buy more than one home is bling bling, some work hard and take risks (leveraging their existing prop on a second mortgage, pooling the entire family's income earnings, etc) to acquire that second home. What they do with it should be their choice.

I'm having a hard time buying into this view. Most of the people you describe there would be investors and they'd rent the place, not leave it empty as a vacation home. I've known quite a few people, including home owners and owner-investors, but no one like the type you are describing, so I find it hard to empathize with them at all.

[timkona]

One school of thought says to increase taxes, regulation, and rules to fix problems created when additional taxes, regulations, and rules have been implemented that are not quite working.

Another school of thought says to decrease taxes, regulation, and rules to eliminate the impediments that have created these problems. Reducing the number of hurdles and limitations would be the greatest step toward affodability.

But hey, that's just logic, a rather unwelcome concept in many circles.

[GeckoGeek]

Another school of thought says to decrease taxes, regulation, and rules to eliminate the impediments that have created these problems. Reducing the number of hurdles and limitations would be the greatest step toward affodability.

If you're talking about streamlining the process, I can agree with that. But most of those regulations have come into place to avoid certain kinds of problems any by in large, they are successful.

But the basic "if this doesn't work, let's try the opposite" doesn't always apply. Reality isn't a simple one-dimensional line with good on one end and bad on the other. It's a multi-dimensional space with one "good" spot and many different "bads". Just because what you are doing isn't taking you to "good", it isn't logical to try the opposite since it may well take you to a different bad.

What I'm trying to say is that eliminate those regulations and you're likely to trade what we have now for a different kind of "bad". Such as incompatible usage of the land, unplanned, uncoordinated development, etc.