City Charter Questions

[GeckoGeek]

I didn't see anything on the upcoming City Charter Questions, so I thought I'd start one. I collect a few positions and put it in a list along with my comments. I found the Republican stand on the issues, but if the Democrats have a stand, I couldn't find it on their website. If anyone finds it, feel free to add it. Or if you find any others, add 'em. These are just ones I could find quickly.

• Charter Question 1: Change term limits and staggering of terms
• Honolulu Advertiser: No
• Star Bulletin: No
• Perry & Price: No
• GOP: No
• Bob Jones: No

• Charter Question 2: Two alternatives for term limits and staggering
• Honolulu Advertiser: B
• Star Bulletin: B
• Perry & Price: B
• GOP: B
• Personal: Yes, this one does count even if you vote “no” for #1. If #1 does pass, then you’ll have a chance to deciding what it will be. A) No term limits or B) 3 term limits.

• Charter Question 3: Land conservation and affordable housing funds
• Honolulu Advertiser: No. using the Charter as a kind of voter initiative is the wrong way to pass a law.
• Star Bulletin: Yes. Having these funds would provide the city with a steady resource the Council and the mayor could appropriate for projects such as public-private partnerships for low-income rentals and to leverage federal dollars that now bypass the city.
• Perry & Price: No
• GOP: No
• Bob Jones: No. hardly ever a good idea to lock in allocation of property tax revenue. That’s an open invitation to higher taxes
• Personal: The devil is in the details. I don’t think there is enough to know it won’t turn into something ugly.

• Charter Question 4: Curbside recycling
• Honolulu Advertiser: No. The city should pursue curbside recycling; we don't need a Charter amendment to do that
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: Yes
• Bob Jones: Yes
• Personal: No. This isn’t about letting the city do it, or do it more efficiently, this is about ramming it down their throats. I wonder what kind of terms Mufi will get from the unions now that they know he can’t back out?

• Charter Question 5: Civil fines for ethics violations
• Honolulu Advertiser: Yes. Let's give the commission the authority it needs to hold our elected leaders accountable.
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: Yes
• Bob Jones: Either way


• Charter Question 6: Races with two candidates in General Election
• Honolulu Advertiser: No. The poor wording on this amendment would leave room for too much confusion.
• Star Bulletin: No
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: No
• Bob Jones: Yes


• Charter Question 7: No Council rejection of Salary Commission
• Honolulu Advertiser: Yes. Eliminating a council vote on pay raises and salaries for officials would help depoliticize the process
• Star Bulletin: No. The public will lose a measure of accountability if this proposal passes.
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: No
• Bob Jones: No


• Charter Question 8: Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly Honolulu; Bikeways
• Honolulu Advertiser: No. Once again, changing the Charter to force the alternative-transportation agenda is a bad idea. … Right concept, wrong venue.
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: Yes
• Bob Jones: Yes
• Personal: Define “priority”? Does that mean Bikeways take precedence over fixing potholes? Once again, this is an attempt at referendum. This isn’t the way to do it. Do the ends justify the means?


• Charter Question 9: Liquor Administrator exempt from civil service
• Honolulu Advertiser: Yes. This change is needed to ensure accountability.
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: Yes
• Bob Jones: Yes


• Charter Question 10: Services of the Emergency Services Director and Fire Chief
• Honolulu Advertiser: Yes
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: Yes
• Bob Jones: Yes

• Charter Question 11: Extend time for capital funds
• Honolulu Advertiser: Yes . The extra time is needed in handling complicated processes
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: No
• Bob Jones: Yes

• Charter Question 12: Additional electronic notice and housekeeping amendments
• Honolulu Advertiser: Yes.
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: Yes
• Bob Jones: Blank


Links:
City Charter Commission
Honolulu Advertiser
StarBulletin
Perry & Price (KSSK)
GOP
Bob Jones

[pzarquon]

Re: City Charter Questions

There's a thread on Honolulu City Council term limits, and scrivener included some city charter and state constitution questions in his over/under thread. I imagine some of these could individually spark some discussion.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: City Charter Questions

Here are the Sierra Club's opinions on some of the charter amendments -- this was in a recent email newsletter to members.

Vote on November 7 - Yes on Charter Amendments 3, 4, and 8

CHARTER AMENDMENT 3: Why You Should Vote "YES"
by Lea Hong

Charter Amendment 3 dedicates one percent of property taxes that you already pay to create a fund for affordable housing and the protection of natural lands on O'ahu. Having a fund mandated by Charter gives the city the flexibility to be proactive and act quickly when necessary to create affordable housing and protect land, avoiding waste and delay. With dedicated funds, the City could apply for federal and state grants, and use the Charter Amendment 3 funds as a match to leverage even more funds to protect our quality of life on O'ahu. Voting Yes on 3 will not raise your property taxes. It simply ensures that a small portion of the taxes you already pay goes toward new land protection and affordable housing programs. These funds will be set aside to ensure that the City has funds available to help provide new affordable housing to O'ahu residents, to use as matching funds for federal grants that fix existing affordable housing, and to protect critical watershed, coastal, historic, and other natural lands as open space. These funds can be used to expand parks, watersheds or habitat restoration, and provide all of us with clean water and a place to play. Maui and Kaua`i passed similar Charter Amendments in 2002. Maui County has already successfully and permanently protected nearly 400 acres of recreational coastal areas with their small fund. Since the passage of these charter amendments, property tax rates have actually gone down in both counties.

"Pau Hana for a Purpose" for "Yes on 3" will be held on Thursday, October 26 from 8 p.m.-12 a.m. at Lulu's in Waikiki (located on the corner of Kalakaua and Kapahulu across from the Zoo where Denny's used to be). Admission is $20, and $25 at the door, beer and pupus included. If you want to buy or sell tickets, please call Lisa Keala Carter (524-8562) or email her (lisa.kealacarter@tpl.org). All proceeds will go to the Yes on 3 campaign. Non-deductible checks should be made out to "Yes on 3" and mailed c/o 212 Merchant Street, Suite 320, Honolulu, HI 96813.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 4: Why You Should Vote "YES"
by Randy Ching

A "YES" vote on Amendment 4 would require the City and County of Honolulu to begin a curbside recycling program by including recycling as a responsibility of the Director of Environmental Services.
• More than 10,000 cities across the Mainland have a curbside recycling program. Honolulu is the largest city in the country without a curbside program. Do we really know something that those other cities don't?
• Tens of thousands of tons of recyclable material will be trashed annually without convenient curbside recycling. That's wasted natural resources, energy, and landfill space.
• O`ahu residents generate a whopping average of 6.2 pounds of trash each daily. That's 41% greater than the national average (4.4 pounds per person) and 210% greater than the average German resident (less than 2 pounds daily).
• A program that allows residents to recycle bottles, cans, food jars, cardboard, newsprint, and other recyclables at their own curb would vastly increase our real recycling rate. It might even reduce the need for twice-a-week garbage collection, saving taxpayers even more.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 8: Why you should vote "YES"
by Kristi Schulenberg

In November, O'ahu voters will have one of the greatest opportunities in a decade to make our streets safer and more enjoyable for bicyclists and pedestrians alike. By voting YES on Charter Amendment 8, new language will be added to the Honolulu City
Charter: "It shall be a priority of the Department of Transportation Services (DTS) to make Honolulu a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly city."

Amendment 8 also adds "bikeway systems" to the list of responsibilities of DTS.

The passage of Amendment 8 will provide a clear public mandate to the City government to make our streets safer for all users. It will also provide a stronger
foundation for bicycling and pedestrian advocates to effectively work with the Department of Transportation Services on projects such as:
• implementation of the Honolulu Master Bicycling Plan
• development of a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
• conducting education and promotional activities, like National Bike to Work Week, walk-ability assessments, safety awareness campaigns, and expansion of Bike Ed in the schools
• development of street/traffic design standards that are more holistic and accommodate all types of users
For more information on the Yes on 8 Coalition, visit www.hbl.org .

By the way, thanks for starting these threads, GeckoGeek! I was just thinking about them tonight and wondering if anyone else was too. :-)

[scrivener]

Re: City Charter Questions

I would like to say that I'm in favor of conservation and opposed to waste and in favor of some kind of recycling, but the burdon of proof is on the city, and I haven't been convinced that curbside recycling is the answer.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 4: Why You Should Vote "YES"
by Randy Ching

A "YES" vote on Amendment 4 would require the City and County of Honolulu to begin a curbside recycling program by including recycling as a responsibility of the Director of Environmental Services.
• More than 10,000 cities across the Mainland have a curbside recycling program. Honolulu is the largest city in the country without a curbside program. Do we really know something that those other cities don't?

Beats me, but why doesn't someone give me simple, plain-language explanations that demonstrate curbside recycling and ALL THE RESOURCES USED IN EXECUTING IT are better for the environment and less wasteful than simply throwing that stuff away and getting new stuff? What are the transport costs? What resources are used in actually recycling cardboard, glass, and aluminum, and what are the wastes and by-products created in the process of recycling these materials? Is it truly less wasteful than creating this material fresh?

• Tens of thousands of tons of recyclable material will be trashed annually without convenient curbside recycling. That's wasted natural resources, energy, and landfill space.

I'll buy the wasted landfill space, except that most of the stuff goes to HPOWER, does it not? In what ways is this more wasteful than recycling the stuff? It is easy to throw words like "sustainability" and "eco-friendly" around, but why doesn't anyone bother to explain what exactly is meant by these terms?

• O`ahu residents generate a whopping average of 6.2 pounds of trash each daily. That's 41% greater than the national average (4.4 pounds per person) and 210% greater than the average German resident (less than 2 pounds daily).

I'm sure we create more trash than we need to, but how do our food-bourne illness rates compare to those of other nations?

• A program that allows residents to recycle bottles, cans, food jars, cardboard, newsprint, and other recyclables at their own curb would vastly increase our real recycling rate. It might even reduce the need for twice-a-week garbage collection, saving taxpayers even more.

Of course it will increase our recycling rate, but again: Why is this necessarily better? If, for example, it makes twice-weekly trash collection unnecessary, will the extra gasoline consumed in order to make the recycling pickups balance that out? Since we have no recycling facilities in Hawaii, will the cost of shipping the materials wherever they need to be balance out the decreased waste of fresh resources, even taking into consideration that actually recycling paper, bottles, and metals might use more resources than just using new stuff?

I voted no on this, because I felt it would be irresponsible to give the approval to something nobody's taken the time to educate the general public about. Can anyone do so in a way that the average voter will understand? Or are we just supposed to take everybody's word for it, including all those other cities', whose own populations were probably inspired by trendy catchphrases and not actually told what happens when a truck picks up a bin of bottles from the curb in front of a house.

[Glen Miyashiro]

City Charter Amendment #8

Should one of the priorities of the Department of Transportation Services be to make Honolulu a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly city, and should the powers, duties, and functions of the Director of Transportation Services include bikeway systems?

• Charter Question 8: Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly Honolulu; Bikeways
• Honolulu Advertiser: No. Once again, changing the Charter to force the alternative-transportation agenda is a bad idea. … Right concept, wrong venue.
• Star Bulletin: Yes
• Perry & Price: Yes
• GOP: Yes
• Bob Jones: Yes
• Personal: Define “priority”? Does that mean Bikeways take precedence over fixing potholes? Once again, this is an attempt at referendum. This isn’t the way to do it. Do the ends justify the means?

For reference, I checked the City Charter (link) and I think that this is the section that would be amended:

Section 6-1703. Powers, Duties and Functions --
The director of transportation services shall:
(a) Plan, operate and maintain transportation, including transit, systems to
meet public transportation needs, in accordance with the general plan and development
plans, and advise on the design and construction thereof.
(b) Locate, select, install and maintain traffic control facilities and devices.
(c) Provide educational programs to promote traffic safety.
(d) Promulgate rules and regulations pursuant to standards established by law.
(Reso. 95-205; 1998 Reorganization)

I don't think that this would give priority to bikeways over potholes -- that would probably still be up to DTS's discretion.

But... putting in a line item for "making Honolulu a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly city", and making DTS's powers, duties, and functions explicitly include bikeway systems, would make it easier for DTS to justify spending money on those things. As it is now, since they're not explicitly mentioned, it's probably easy to jettison bike and pedestrian related programs when it's budget-trimming time.

[Glen Miyashiro]

City Charter Amendment #4

Should the powers, duties, and functions of the Director of Environmental Services include comprehensive curbside recycling?

Beats me, but why doesn't someone give me simple, plain-language explanations that demonstrate curbside recycling and ALL THE RESOURCES USED IN EXECUTING IT are better for the environment and less wasteful than simply throwing that stuff away and getting new stuff? What are the transport costs? What resources are used in actually recycling cardboard, glass, and aluminum, and what are the wastes and by-products created in the process of recycling these materials? Is it truly less wasteful than creating this material fresh?

Heh. Because it is technical and detailed, and your average voter's eyes would glaze over before the first page was done. And more importantly, because any comprehensive analysis of the total lifecycle cost of each alternative would require a double armload of assumptions, every one of which is contentious and debatable:

Projected future interest rates
Projected future technology developments
Projected future costs for recycling
Projected future costs for landfill disposal
Etc etc etc.

Even if you agreed upon the framework in which to do the comparisons, your estimated costs would probably vary so wildly, depending on the assumptions you made, that it wouldn't be useful for public debate because opposing interests would never agree on the basics.

I'll buy the wasted landfill space, except that most of the stuff goes to HPOWER, does it not?

Sort of. These days, there's so much trash every day that HPOWER can't burn it all, even if it ran at 100% capacity 365 days a year. And even if it did, there'd still be ash left over that has to be landfilled. And then there's the non-burnable stuff that goes straight to the landfill anyway. So even though HPOWER helps slow down landfill space consumption, it doesn't eliminate it.

I'm sure we create more trash than we need to, but how do our food-bourne illness rates compare to those of other nations?

Huh? I'm not following you.

I voted no on this, because I felt it would be irresponsible to give the approval to something nobody's taken the time to educate the general public about. Can anyone do so in a way that the average voter will understand?

Apparently not.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: City Charter Amendment #8

I don't think that this would give priority to bikeways over potholes -- that would probably still be up to DTS's discretion.

Add new section to RCH Article VI Chapter 17: Section 6-17__. Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly City – It shall be one of the priorities of the department of transportation services to make Honolulu a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly city.

link here

OK, I'm not sure what else is spelled out as a priority, but if potholes are not, then a judge (when someone sues because they think the city still isn't doing enough) is going to say that biways have priority over potholes.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: City Charter Questions

Here are the Sierra Club's opinions on some of the charter amendments -- this was in a recent email newsletter to members.

Voting Yes on 3 will not raise your property taxes.

Not directly. But I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe it will trigger a raise as the city will have to get by on 99% of what they collect. If nothing else, you can bet your W-2 that it will be used as a rational for raising taxes.

I'm not necessary against the ends, but is it smart to force a percentage to be set aside by statute? What's next, setting aside 30% of state funds for the DOE by amending the State Constitution? I'd rather these things be done as part of finance. Or if necessary they can be done "lower down" by law where it can be changed as needed and not wait until 2 years from now.