Honolulu Voters Face Five Housing Charter Changes, From Funding to Public Hearings

Share this article!

Honolulu voters will decide five housing-related changes to the city’s governing charter on November 3, including whether to keep loan repayments inside its affordable-housing fund and eliminate a separate public-hearing requirement for city property transactions. The proposals would alter the machinery that finances and reviews housing projects, although none authorizes a specific new development.

The measures are Questions 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 among 20 proposed charter amendments. With ballots scheduled to arrive in the mail beginning October 16, the distinctions matter for developers, nonprofit housing sponsors and residents concerned about public oversight. The Honolulu City Council’s official ballot guide describes the current rules and the proposed changes.

Question 8 addresses the Affordable Housing Fund, which the city says receives roughly $8 million a year in dedicated property-tax revenue. The fund supports affordable rental housing for households earning up to 60% of area median income, with projects required to remain affordable for at least 60 years. The charter currently provides that unused money does not lapse at year-end but does not expressly say that loan repayments, interest and other proceeds must return to the fund.

A yes vote on Question 8 would make the fund explicitly revolving: money generated by its loans and investments would be redeposited for future housing work. The proposal also would permit support for affordable units within mixed-use and mixed-income developments. That could broaden the range of projects eligible for capital, but the amendment alone would neither appropriate a new dollar nor guarantee that the fund’s loans are repaid on schedule.

Question 12 concerns where additional money could come from. The charter’s special funds, including the Affordable Housing Fund, currently rely on specified revenue sources. This proposal would authorize them to receive federal, state, philanthropic and other outside funding. Such permission could help the city combine local resources with outside grants, subject to the requirements of any particular award. The ballot measure does not identify committed donors or a projected increase in funding.

Those financing proposals sit beside a more contentious procedural change. Question 9 would remove a separate public hearing required for transactions involving city real-property interests. The city says the present rule reaches even small utility and access easements and consumes staff time and advertising expense. Some transactions also trigger a hearing in the relevant council district.

Under the proposed amendment, the separate hearing would disappear. The city’s official explanation says residents would still be able to learn about and testify on transactions when they appear on City Council agendas. That is a meaningful distinction, but it does not make the two procedures identical. A stand-alone hearing can give a property transaction more visibility than an item handled within a larger council agenda. Supporters argue that streamlining would reduce delays; critics can reasonably question whether fewer dedicated hearings weaken scrutiny of public land decisions.

The charter commission has also proposed a planning requirement. Question 10 would direct the Department of Housing and Land Management to prepare and maintain a 10-year Housing Functional Plan, updated at least every five years. The document would have to align with the city’s General Plan and development plans and would guide future policies, capital improvements and budgets. The requirement would take effect January 1, 2030.

A mandated plan could give builders, lenders and community groups a clearer view of the city’s intended pipeline and priorities. Its effectiveness would depend on whether subsequent administrations tie budgets, land transactions and permitting decisions to those goals. No specific unit-production target or enforcement penalty is established by the ballot summary.

Question 7 is the broadest and least operational. It would add a policy declaration recognizing Honolulu’s shortage of housing available for long-term occupancy and describing housing-related outmigration as a serious threat. It would also identify encouraging the use of existing housing for city residents as a compelling governmental interest. The language might influence future policy debates, but it would not itself impose a vacancy tax, change zoning or fund construction.

That limitation is especially important because a proposed empty-homes tax did not reach the ballot. A policy declaration about preserving homes should not be confused with an enacted restriction on second homes or vacant properties. Future ordinances would still require their own legal authority, public process and political support.

Local advocates have begun urging voters to focus on the five measures. In an October 11 commentary in Honolulu Civil Beat, Lee Wang, executive director of Housing Hawai‘i’s Future, argued that the funding and planning changes could strengthen the city’s long-term housing response. His piece is advocacy by a housing nonprofit leader, not an independent assessment of the amendments’ likely fiscal results.

For property owners and developers, the questions reach different points in the housing process. Question 8 governs the recycling of affordable-housing capital; Question 12 could enlarge the pool of eligible funding sources; Question 9 changes public review of city property dealings; and Question 10 sets a planning obligation. The policy language in Question 7 supplies a possible rationale for later actions. Each proposal must be judged on its own text.

The measures also have separate consequences if rejected. Existing funding and hearing rules would remain, and the city would not acquire the proposed charter-level housing-plan mandate. A no vote would not prevent the council from pursuing housing legislation under authority it already has. Similarly, passage would not resolve Honolulu’s land costs, construction expenses, infrastructure constraints or shortage of developable sites.

O‘ahu voters are scheduled to receive ballots starting October 16, with Election Day on November 3. The official Honolulu charter-amendment guide includes the exact ballot language and final proposal documents. The measures remain proposals until voters decide them; no change described here is yet in force.