Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOffice of Hawaiian Affairs AdministrationTestimony TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF BILL 163, DRAFT 2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 8 OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES. Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii th July 23, 2026 9:00 a.m Hawaii County Building Aloha eChair Inaba, Vice Chair Onishi, and Members of Hawai’i County Council: The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) SUPPORTS Bill 163, Draft 2, which would create an ina Kpuna Dedication in Hawaii County’s real property tax law. This measure would allow qualifying local families who have held lands for generations, including Native Hawaiian ‘ohana, to pay the County’s minimum real property tax, helping qualifying ohana remain connected to lands that have sustained them for more than a century. OHA has long supported similar policy proposals that help to facilitate Native Hawaiian retention of ancestral lands. OHA appreciates the amendments made to better focus Bill 163 on local families with smaller generational properties. The current version limits eligibility to parcels of 20 acres or less, requires family ownership since before January 1, 1926, requires at least one owner to reside in Hawaii County, and requires a demonstrated property tax burden over the previous ten years. OHA also appreciates the clarification that, for properties already assessed according to agricultural use, the County may consider what the tax burden would have been without the agricultural-use assessment. Together, these changes strengthen the bill while preserving its core purpose of helping families remain rooted in ancestral lands. At its core, Bill 163 is about protecting ina, protecting families, and preventing Native Hawaiian and long-time kamaina families from being taxed out of the very lands that carry their genealogy, history, and kuleana. By allowing qualifying families to pay the minimum tax on lands held across generations, this bill helps ensure that speculation- driven increases in property values do not further dispossess local families from their ancestral lands. OHA believes this measure must viewed within the broader history of land tenure and dispossession in Hawaii. The westernization of land tenure in Hawaii, and the distribution of land and power that followed the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian 1 Kingdom, have had deep and lasting consequences for Native Hawaiians.Much of the lands that Native Hawaiians were able to retain during Hawaii’s transition to a Western property system have already been lost, abandoned, sold, seized, or stolen. Today, rising assessments, speculative investment, luxury and second-home markets, and broader economic pressures continue to dispossess Native Hawaiian families from ancestral lands 2 and drive local families who cannot afford housing out of the state. These land tenure impacts continue to shape the conditions facing Native Hawaiians today. The harm isnot only economic. It is also physical, spiritual, cultural, and generational. These harms include the loss of access to traditional ahupua‘a systems of self-sufficiency, the disruption of cultural relationships between families and place, and the continued strain on Native Hawaiian ohana seeking to maintain kuleana to the ina that sustained their kupuna. Bill 163 should therefore be understood not simply as a tax measure, but as a targeted protection against further displacement and a practical step toward helping families remain rooted in the lands connected to their genealogy and family kuleana. OHA notes that Bill 163 references genealogical verification by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as one form of documentation to establish eligibility. OHA is open to meaningful collaboration with the County to help ensure the verification process is clear, if there is in fact a Native Hawaiian ancestry category separate from the general exemption requirements laid out in section 19_(b). However, additional qualifications and barriers not required to establish eligibility should not be layered onto Native Hawaiian applicants. OHA respectfully encourages the County to consider OHA as a resource during implementation to help inform a process that is accessible to applicants, culturally appropriate, and practical for families navigating genealogy, heirs’ property, older records, and other documentation challenges, while still maintaining the integrity of the ina Kpuna Dedication program. Because many ina kpuna properties may involve heirs’ 1 See Apology Resolution, Pub. L. No. 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510 (1993). The Resolution acknowledges the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States, and recognizes the deprivation of Native Hawaiians’ rights to self-determination. 2 Tyndall, J., Bond-Smith, D., Inafuku, R., Rhinebolt, V., Wood, C., & Kim, E. (2024). The Hawai‘i Housing Factbook 2024.University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO), p. 7, The Hawai‘i Housing Factbook 2024. property, older deeds, trusts, informal succession, or incomplete historical records, the application process should be flexible enough to recognize the realities many families face when trying to prove ancestral ownership and lineal descent. OHA particularly appreciates the clarification regarding properties already assessed according to agricultural use. Without this clarification, ina kpuna properties that are actively farmed could be disadvantaged because their existing agricultural-use assessment may reduce their apparent tax burden below the bill’s $10,000 threshold. By allowing the County to consider what taxes would have been assessed absent the agricultural-use assessment, the current draft helps ensure that families maintaining agricultural ina kpuna are not penalized for active agricultural use. This change better aligns the bill with its purpose of supporting land retention, agriculture, and continued family stewardship. Overall, Bill 163 isone tool to protect Native Hawaiian and long-time kamaina families from being pushed off family lands by speculation-driven real estate pressures. It helps prevent further dispossession, supports family and cultural continuity, and protects the social, cultural, and historical heritage carried by families who have maintained their ina kpuna for generations. Accordingly, OHA respectfully urges the Council to PASS Bill 163, Draft 2. Mahalo nui for the opportunity to testify.