HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-03 PL-CCI-2024-000003 Bill 121 Robert Henry Testimony From: Robert Henry
To: W PCtesti mono
Subject: Written Opposition to Bill 121
Date: Wednesday,April 3,2024 11:55:25 PM
Re: Constitutional Opposition to Proposed TAR Bill 121 Due to
Violation of the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause and the
Hawaii Constitution Section 12's Excessive Fine Clause.
Aloha Council Members,
The blatant violation of both Section 12 of the Hawaiian
Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution's prohibition against excessive fines by TAR Bill 121
carries significant legal consequences and must be stopped
immediately. The Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution states: "nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted."
This clause serves as a safeguard against governmental abuse of
power and ensures that penalties imposed for regulatory offenses
are proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the culpability
of the offender.
In analyzing the constitutionality of Bill 121, it is essential to
consider the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in its
landmark decision in Timbs v. Indiana. In Timbs, the Court held
that the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause applies to
state and municipal actions, reaffirming the fundamental principle
that the government may not impose fines that are grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
When applying these principles to the provisions of Bill 121, it is
apparent that the fines stipulated therein are undeniably excessive
and disproportionate to the minor offenses. TAR owners would be
subject to fines of $10,000 per day for minor infractions such as
exceeding occupancy limits, improper parking, noise disturbances
during designated quiet hours, or inadequately sized signage.
Such penalties are not only punitive but also serve no legitimate
purpose other than to impose financial hardship and deterrence of
TAR ownership.
Moreover, recent legal precedents, such as Tyler v. Hennepin
County, underscore the judiciary's growing recognition of the
importance of safeguarding individual property rights against
governmental overreach. In Tyler, the court struck down
aggressive state action that impaired individual property rights,
signaling a trend towards heightened scrutiny of governmental
actions that encroach upon constitutional protections.
Conclusively, proposed TAR Bill 121 constitutes a clear
violation of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against excessive fines, and Hawaii's Section 12 Constitution
which has the same prohibition against excessive fines. Fines of
such magnitude for minor infractions are patently unconstitutional
and must be rejected. I urge you to consider the legal arguments
presented herein and take immediate action to ensure the
protection of all constitutional rights and principles of justice and
fairness.
As detailed herein, the provisions of Bill 121, which impose daily
fines of $10,000 for minor infractions related to transient
accommodation rental (TAR) properties, are unconstitutional and
must be immediately struck down.
Mahalo for your serious attention to this matter,
Robert Henry