Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

[joshuatree]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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

Please forgive me.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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.

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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.