Laserfiche WebLink
materials). Where is the advantage in reducing building costs for this immigrant population of <br /> homebuyers. Removal of barriers should only be for the `affordable housing' component. <br /> P. 149. Create subsidies like LIHTC for the missing middle of affordable housing (80% -140% <br /> AMI) <br /> Comment: Please Describe the subsidies of LIHTC. Do individuals or families currently <br /> making 120% AMI qualify for housing subsidies? Please describe the thinking that an <br /> individual or family making 140% of Area Median Income should be able to qualify for <br /> Affordable Housing Subsidies. It seems clear that affordable housing projects must become <br /> the rule rather than the exception. Housing subsidies up to 140% seems like one method <br /> toward this proposal. But then this could be paid for by increased taxation on the total of new <br /> housing which would in effect redistribute funding to support affordable housing or perhaps a <br /> progressive tax of some kind. <br /> P. 149. Encourage resort communities to include onsite workforce housing options. <br /> Q. Why has workforce housing onsite not been a stipulation of Resort Communities up until <br /> now. What are the downsides of making this a requirement rather than an encouragement? <br /> What is the encouragement which is being proposed here. If it is a requirement, or even if it is <br /> just encouragement, will it lead to importation of workforce. Can residency requirement be <br /> included? Can public/private incentivization lead to the County building affordable workforce <br /> housing on or adjacent to resort property? <br /> P. 151. Amend building regulations to allow for as-built permits and new renovation permits for <br /> less than 50% of an existing structure to conform with the building code of the year the main <br /> structure was permitted, excluding electrical and other critical life safety codes. <br /> Comment: Please explain the meaning of this and the practical impact which it will have. <br /> P. 153 Revise financial mechanisms and property tax provisions to allow for creative finance <br /> solutions to incentivize new construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing. <br /> Comment: This sounds like it was lifted from a 2007 textbook for Real Estate Lobbyists. <br /> Please describe some of the financial mechanism adjustments and property tax provisions that <br /> would allow the creative finance solutions referred to. <br /> P153. Adopt a County affordable housing program, similar to HRS 201 H that encourages <br /> development, reduces cost and simplifies permitting. <br /> Comment: HRS 201 H is an undisguised blow to the intent of Regulation. The main purpose of <br /> planning and a Planning Department is to impose regulation. The County Council should <br /> have jurisdiction to weigh the advisability of waiving regulation in the appropriate circumstance <br /> regarding Affordable Housing development. Please describe in detail the regulations which <br /> have been most commonly superseded by invocation of 201 H. In what way would a County <br /> 201 H similar proposal provide opportunities that HRS 201 H itself does not. This proposal <br /> appears to be counter to the idea of safeguards to the common good for the benefit of <br /> development, and should be abandoned. <br /> Q: Recently two 20 unit housing subdivisions in Honokaa, one affordable and one not <br /> affordable, have been passed by Commission and Council and survey begun. When the <br /> developer made presentation in Honokaa he indicated that the affordable lots without <br /> structures would be priced somewhere around $300K. By what mechanism does a vacant lot <br /> without a structure qualify as `affordable'. <br />