Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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" 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.

[sinjin]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

Of course, articles such as "Kailua-Kona: Where You'll Find a Small-Town Feeling on the Big Island" 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.

Must be nice to buy a $1.2 million second home.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

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]

Re: Hawaii Rezoning Moratorium

[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.