COM 0200.051 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

B. Lack of iustification based on unbiased and detailed studies. The affordable housing requirements in Bill 156 is not based on any unbiased and detailed studies or facts which demonstrate and quantify the relationship or connection between industrial development and the demand for affordable housing, but Bill 156 is based merely on the following conclusionary statements: "The Housing Element of the Hawaii County General Plan (enacted as ordinance No. 05-25) clearly states that a policy of the County of Hawaii shall be that 'large industries or developments that create a demand for housing shall provide employee housing based upon a ratio to be determined by an analysis of the locality's needs."' • "The County Council finds that industrial developments which are comprised of multiple individual enterprises are, in fact, large industries which generate substantial employment and demands for employee housing. Therefore, such industrial developments should be subject to the affordable housing requirements articulated in Chapter 11 (Housing) of the Hawaii County Code." C. Mayor Kim's veto of Bill 156 based on advice from Coraoration Counsel. On or about August 1, 2007, the County of Hawaii Office of the Corporation Counsel advised Mayor Harry Kim ("Mayor Kim"), "that a bill seeking to impose affordable housing requirements on non-residential development should have as its justification and unbiased study that demonstrates and quantifies the relationship or connection between non- residential development and the demand for affordable housing. Such a study has not been done (to justify Bill 156), which makes the requirement of the bill of questionable merit and propriety." Based on those reasons, Mayor Kim vetoed Bill 156. See, Communication 465.10 Veto Message -Bill 156 Draft 6 Relating to Affordable Housing. D. Council Chair's attemat to override Mavor Kim's veto. We understand that the Council Chair has scheduled a reconsideration of Mayor Kim's veto of Bill 156 and a possible re-vote, on the Council Agenda for August 22, 2007 (veto override), based on the mistaken belief that the legal flaws in the bill can be cured with "amendments." The misguided attempt to override the Mayor's veto is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and case law, which require that prior to enactment; such laws must be justified by unbiased and detailed studies which establish both an "essential nexus" and a "proportional nexus." The Council should set an example to uphold the law and legal process. An override of the Mayor's veto will establish a dangerous public policy and precedent of knowingly passing legislation which is not legal. III. ANALYSIS A. Bill 156 is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and cannot be cured by later "amendments." Bill 156 is unconstitutional, because it does not