HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
1
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
FINAL REPORT May 18, 2025
Prepared by Researchers at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Marceline Kanaiaupuni-Naff, BA Joy Lynn ʻAlohilani Barredo Alegarbes, BA, MPH
Philip Garboden, PhD
Jennifer Darrah-Okike, PhD
Katrina Shuping, BA Kawika Riley, PhD Madeline Walsh, JD Lorinda M.N.M. Riley, SJD
Faizah Shyanguya, MPH Dylan Pilger, MPH Principal Investigators: Jennifer Darrah-Okike, PhD* and Philip Garboden PhD**
*University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Department of Sociology, jdarrah@hawaii.edu
**University of Chicago, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice & University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization, garboden@uchicago.edu
Prepared for the following State and County Agencies of Hawaiʻi to meet their obligations under federal law to affirmatively further fair housing: The Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation; The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; the Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority; The City and County of Honolulu,
Department of Community Services; The County of Hawaiʻi, Office of Housing and
Community Development; The County of Maui, Department of Housing and Human Concerns; and the Kauaʻi County Housing Agency
2
Acknowledgements:
Our sincere thanks to Keri Higa, Dean Watase, and Christopher Woodard for coordinating all
aspects of this work from its inception. We thank them for their consistent leadership and efforts to make this inter-agency collaboration possible. We would also like to acknowledge representatives from each of the participating agencies for their guidance, support, and feedback throughout the process of preparing this analysis including: Keri Higa, Dean Watase, Chistopher Woodard, Hunter Miller, Lanz Dong, Cristina Pineda, Dylan Ramos, Brian Minatoya, Cynthia
Rezentes, Richard Medeiros, Anna Ipolani Kanoho, Steven Franco, Benjamin Park, Richard Mitchell, Buddy Almeida, and Camille Pipis. We are also grateful to the leadership team and facilitators of the April 2024 Hawaiʻi Fair Housing month. We received support from Dylan Ramos and Brian Minatoya who helped us to solicit public input. We would also like to
acknowledge Legal Aid Society of Hawaiʻi (LASH), especially Nicholas Severson and Cynthia
Moore, as well as the leadership of the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission, Marcus Kawatachi and Heather McVay, who provided expertise during the April 2024 Fair Housing Month as well as guidance for this report. Both of these agencies also provided fair housing complaint data to our team, and we thank Nicholas Severson and Marcus Kawatachi for making this possible. We also thank Dan O’Meara and Jennifer Stolze from HUD who helped to compile and share fair
housing complaint data. Anamalia Suʻesuʻe and Kelly Duong, University of Hawaiʻi graduate students, helped with the data collection and interviews, and informed our thinking on important topics. We also appreciate our colleagues from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Center for Disability Studies, Dr. David Leake and Dr. Tammy Tom for their guidance and also their
informative work on the 2016 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. Kumu Brad Lum
provided guidance regarding the cover art. We sincerely appreciate the many interview respondents and focus group participants who generously shared their time and expertise with us to inform this analysis. The public servants listed here as well as our interview respondents from diverse sectors share a dedication to creating housing access for all of Hawaiʻiʻs diverse people which is inspiring, and we thank them for their work and for sharing their insights. Finally, our
team would like to honor the memory of the late HHFDC Chief Planner Chris Woodard who played a key role in convening this work and whose dedication to serving the people of Hawaiʻi by providing fair and affordable housing leaves a lasting legacy.
~~~~~~
The cover art is a Hawaiian kapa design representing ulana lauhala (weave using leaves of the hala tree). Today, certain ʻohana (family) wear a similar design as kākau uhi (tattoo) to show that they are tightly knit. This design can also be interpreted as resembling kauhale (a group of houses comprising a Hawaiian home).
3
Preface as of March 2025
As has long been accepted and institutionalized in prior federal administrations and by the U.S.
Congress and Courts, the Fair Housing Act includes a broad mandate towards affirmative
interventions, an expansive understanding of disparate impacts, and protections for individuals
across the full spectrum of human differences. This report, in line with existing federal rules,
follows current federal mandates and procedures to affirmatively further housing. However, the
recent transition to the new presidential administration appears positioned to disrupt long-
standing interpretations of fair housing law by the executive branch of the federal government.
Federal actions have already attempted to dismantle protections for transgender and non-binary
individuals in federally subsidized housing.
Despite these federal actions, state law in Hawaiʻi enshrines protections based on sex, including
gender identity and gender expression. Our public agencies and stakeholders remain obliged to
mitigate against discrimination on the basis of gender and to work affirmatively to support access
to safe and affordable housing for all groups, including across the full spectrum of sex, gender,
sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression.
The basic social scientific endeavor to consider how housing policies differentially impact well-
being and economic mobility for different groups remains as important as ever for state and
county level efforts to mitigate barriers to meaningful housing access for all groups.
The State of Hawaiʻi and its counties have the opportunity to work towards a high standard of
equity and justice. Even as the new federal administration may adopt a narrower view of fair
housing, the protections enshrined in Hawaiʻi state law remain binding. Moreover, local leaders
can pursue collective efforts and affirm shared responsibilities to redress past and continuing
discrimination against protected groups. State and county governments may take clear action to
address the impediments addressed herein, despite changes at the federal level. There have been
several times when Hawaiʻi’s people and legislators have led rather than followed on issues of
civil rights; we look forward to such leaderhip now and into the future.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 10
1.1 Sampling and Methodology for Interviewees 14
1.2 General Methodology for Quantitative Tables and Analyses 21
2.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF HAWAIʻI 23
2.1 Race and Ethnicity of Hawaiʻi Residents 24
2.2 Economic Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity 26
2.3 Gender and Household Composition 27
2.4 Disability Characteristics 28
2.5 TABLES AND FIGURES 30
3.0 SEGREGATION, OPPORTUNITY, AND CONCENTRATED POVERTY 43
3.1 Racial Segregation 43
3.2 The Geography of Opportunity and Concentrated Poverty 47
3.3 TABLES AND FIGURES 54
4.0 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DEMOGRAPHICS AND LOCATION 72
4.0.1 Public Reactions to Affordable Housing 75
4.1 Demographic Makeup of Subsidized Housing Recipients 77
4.2 Neighborhood Characteristics of Subsidized Housing Recipients 78
4.3 TABLES AND FIGURES 82
88
5.0 SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT DATA 89
5.1 State Level Complaint Data 91
5.1.1. Legal Aid Society of Hawaiʻi Data 92
5.1.2 Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission Data 95
5.1.3. Housing and Urban Development Data 96
5.2 County-Level Complaints 97
5.4 Summary Analysis of Complaints 99
5.4.1 Disability and retaliation are the top complaints 99
5.4.2 Retaliation 100
5.4.3 Discrimination based on Sex, Race/Color, and Family Status are also top complaints
100
5
5.5 TABLES AND FIGURES 102
6.0 DISABILITY AND HEALTH 106
6.1 HUD Accessibility Requirements 106
6.1.1 Disability and Housing Assistance 109
6.1.2 Disability and Homelessness 110
6.1.3 Limited Housing Supply at an Affordable Level 111
6.1.4 Increase the Inventory of Accessible Housing 111
6.2 Deficient attitudes, skills and knowledge to support people with disabilities in obtaining
and retaining housing 112
6.2.1 Online applications as a challenge for individuals with disabilities 115
6.2.2 Specific Challenges for those with Developmental Disabilities 116
6.3 Increase education and support for landlords regarding the housing process for people
with disabilities 116
6.4 Lack of clarity about and landlord resistance to assistance animals 117
6.5 Summary of Recommendations 118
Appendix 6.A 121
Appendix 6.B 122
Appendix 6.C 123
Appendix 6.D 125
Appendix 6.E 126
Appendix 6.F 127
Appendix 6.G 128
7.0 VOUCHER PROGRAMS AND SOURCE OF INCOME PROTECTIONS 129
7.1 Background on Hawaiʻi’s Act 310 130
7.2 Limitations of Act 310 132
7.3 Limited public awareness of law 135
7.4 Legal efforts to strengthen the tenant protections in Act 310 136
7.5 Education and Clarification about the law is needed 137
7.6 Voucher programs, stigma, and other protected classes 138
7.7 Encouraging landlords to accept voucher holders as tenants 140
7.8 Summary of Recommendations 142
8.0 TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITAL TOOLS 147
8.1 Development of Digital Outreach 148
8.2 Elderly Populations and Digital Literacy 151
6
8.3 Infrastructural and Language Barriers within Digital Tools 153
8.4 Summary of Recommendations 157
9.0 RACE/ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND LANGUAGE 161
9.1 Language barriers to applying for and accessing housing related services 162
9.2 Fear and cultural reluctance to seek help for public benefits and housing assistance 168
9.3 Legal documentation as a barrier for migrants, immigrants and refugees 169
9.4 Cultural differences lead to tension between landlords and tenants 171
9.5 Specific impediments for COFA migrants in Hawaiʻi 172
9.6 Summary of Recommendations 175
APPENDIX 9.A: HPHA form in Chuukese 177
10.0 GENDER AND LGBTQ+ 179
10.1 Impediments for single mothers and survivors of abuse 179
10.2 Barriers to addressing fair housing violations for survivors of abuse 180
10.3 The “waiting game” for survivors in shelters, bridge housing and transitional housing 181
10.4 “Macho attitude” as an impediment to housing assistance for men 182
10.5 Homelessness among LGBTQIA+ youth 183
10.6 Compounded disadvantages for LGBTQIA+ youth 183
10.7 Impediments to housing for LGBTQI+ kūpuna 184
10.8 Summary of Recommendations 185
11.0 NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING 187
11.1 Executive Summary 187
11.2 Background on Native Hawaiian Status and Housing 187
11.2.1 Defining Terms: Native Hawaiians as part of a racial group 188
11.2.2 Defining Terms: Native Hawaiians as a recognized political entity under federal law
191
11.2.3 Hawaiʻi State law on Native Hawaiian Indigeneity and wellbeing 192
11.2.4 Land and Housing Issues Specific to US Indigenous People 193
11.2.5 Land and Housing Issues leading to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 195
11.3 Fair Housing issues and opportunities related to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
197
11.3.1 Structural, original HHCA limitations 197
11.3.2 The Waitlist 199
11.3.2 Infrastructure 200
11.3.3 Alignment of the HHCA and FHA 201
7
11.3.4 FHA Anti-Discrimination provisions and HHCA 201
11.3.5 The HHCA’s key role in Furthering Fair Housing in Hawaiʻi 202
11.3.6 Background on the State’s Constitutional obligation to fund the HHCA 204
11.3.6.1 Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission (I & II) 206
11.3.7 Settlement 209
11.4 Updates on efforts by DHHL to lower housing barriers for eligible Native Hawaiians 210
11.4.1 DHHL’s Act 279 Strategic Spending Plan 210
11.4.2 Administrative Rule Changes 212
11.4.2.1 Supplemental Dwelling Units 213
11.4.2.2 Multi-Family Rental Housing 217
11.4.3 Sheltering Homeless Native Hawaiians on the HHCA Waitlist 223
11.4.4 Traditional Financing Support by DHHL 224
11.4.4 Conclusion 225
11.5 Other Native Hawaiian Housing Issues 226
11.5.1 Traditional Financing Barriers 228
11.5.2 The Criminal Justice System and Native Hawaiian Housing Choice 230
11.5.3 Native Hawaiian Outmigration: Harms to Native Hawaiians and general public 234
11.5.4 Out-migration of Native Hawaiians may significantly reduce the availability of
housing or shelter for the hidden homeless 236
11.5.5 Conclusion 237
11.6 Recommendations 237
11.6.1 General Native Hawaiian housing recommendations 238
11.6.2 HHCA Focused Recommendations 241
11.7 TABLES AND FIGURES 246
12.0 USING LOCAL PREFERENCES TO ALLEVIATE the HOUSING CRISIS 249
12.1: Executive Summary 249
12.2 Background 253
12.2.1 Historical Background 253
12.3 The Fair Housing Act 255
12.3.2 History of the Fair Housing Act 256
12.3.2 Regulations, Guidance, and Executive Orders 258
12.3.2.1 AFFH Regulation 259
12.3.2.2 Executive Orders 260
8
12.4 Fair Housing Act Claims 260
12.4.1 FHA Legal Precedence & Standard of Review 261
12.4.2 Fair Housing Act Claims 261
12.4.2.1 Disparate Treatment 262
12.4.2.2 Disparate Impact 263
12.5 Foreign vs. National Origin 265
12.5.1 “Foreign” Investment 266
12.5.2 Definition of national origin 268
12.5.3 Level of Government 271
12.6 Hawaiʻi’s Housing System 273
12.6.1 Overview of the Housing System 273
12.6.2 Hawaiʻi Preference Policies 275
12.6.3 Barriers and Potential Solutions 278
12.7 Global Housing Preference Policy Review 279
12.7.1 Methods 280
12.7.2 Findings 280
12.7.2.1 Guam’s preference policies 281
12.7.2.2 Vail InDEED program 283
12.7.3 Feedback on identified policies 284
12.7.4 Discussion 285
12.8 Recommendations 288
12.8.1 Task Force on AFFH 288
12.8.2 Deed restriction handout 290
12.8.3 Community Advisory Board 290
12.8.4 Housing Navigators 291
12.8.5 Expand Foreign land and home ownerships limits 291
12.8.6 Vacancy and Second home property tax 293
Appendix 12.A 314
Appendix 12.B 317
Appendix 12.C 319
Appendix 12.D 322
Appendix 12.E 325
Appendix 12.F 327
9
Appendix 12.G: Housing Navigation Case Study 328
330
13.0 IMPEDIMENTS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY MANAGERS AND REALTORS 331
13.1 Financial and Developmental Barriers 332
13.1.1 Down payments and loans as barriers for potential home buyers 332
13.1.2. Development Delays and Lack of Supply 334
13.1.3 Multiple background, credit and high-income requirements as barriers for potential
renters 336
13.1.4 Barriers for potential tenants renting with subsidies 337
13.2 Housing Regulations and Assistance Programs 340
13.2.1 Delays and difficulties: Landlord and property managers’ views of Section 8/Housing
Choice Vouchers (HCV) and other subsidized housing 340
13.2.2 Negative Perceptions of Section 8/HCV Tenants 342
13.2.3 Property manager and real estate agents’ wariness of animals for reasonable
accommodation requests 346
13.2.4 Landlord-Tenant Relations and Evictions 347
13.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 350
14.0 MASTER SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 353
10
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Fair Housing Act (FHA), signed into law in 1968, encompasses protections against
discrimination of individuals acting within the housing market. This includes the process of
renting, buying, mortgaging, or seeking assistance in relation to housing. At a Federal level, the
FHA protects individuals on the basis of Race, Color/Ethnicity, National Origin, Religion, Sex
(including gender identity and sexuality), Familial Status, and Disability. Additionally, many
states offer their own protections relating to fair housing. The State of Hawaiʻi offers explicit
protections for individuals on the basis of Sexual Orientation, Marital Status, Familial Status,
Ancestry, Age, and HIV Infection status. FHA, alongside the direct discriminatory protections it
enshrines, also seeks to prevent and justify any policies or procedures that may have a disparate
impact on a protected class. Even if a practice is not discriminatory outright, it may still violate
the FHA if a protected class is disproportionately impacted by it. Finally, while less well-known
than its provisions to defend against discrimination, the FHA also includes the mandate to
affirmatively further fair housing.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is tasked with the
enforcement of the FHA, and in its duties establishes the Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing reports, which are recommended to be performed every three to five years. Following
that recommendation, the goal of this report is to assess the barriers to fair housing in the State of
Hawaiʻi. This report operates with the understanding that fair housing, as defined by the Fair
Housing Act, represents a housing market free from discrimination and a lack of reasonable
accommodations, with government entities working to promote housing opportunity for any
protected classes in an affirmative and proactive manner, including the redressal of the legacies
of past discrimination and ensuring that individuals who are structurally disadvantaged in other
11
arenas (such as the labor market) do not see those disadvantages amplified by a lack of housing
opportunity. In seeking that goal, this report is divided into several sections involving three
subteams, each researching a unique arena of the current housing market in Hawaiʻi as defined
by our proposed scope of work.
First, to ascertain the condition of public policy, the environment of fair housing, and
private market activity, we performed over 70 in-depth interviews with institutional leaders, fair
housing stakeholders, and private industry business owners and employees. We also relied on
public participation to inform this analysis, including by soliciting input from participants in the
state of Hawaiʻi April 2024 Fair Housing Summit. For this research, we considered several
factors including the status of protected classes and fair housing opportunities, the barriers
particular classes face in specificity and expert recommendations to assuage these barriers, and
the overall administrative operations of the network of institutions involved in fair housing.
While primarily concerned with the three major HUD subsidy programs (Public Housing,
Housing ChoiceVouchers, and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit), we additionally
investigated charity rental relief, emergency relief, and COVID-19 assistance programs. This
qualitative work was coupled with in-depth quantitative analyses of pertinent characteristics of
the populations of Hawaiʻi. Descriptive statistics were employed to generate an appropriate
illustration of the state of fair housing and the demographic makeup of the islands, and analytic
statistics were used to draw inferences on the conditions of segregation, spatial opportunity
indices, and poverty concentration. Through these quantitative and qualitative analyses, we were
able to draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the suggestions and issues
presented by our respondents related to the condition of Hawaiʻi’s housing market.
12
All of this data was supplemented by investigation into housing complaint trends in
Hawaiʻi, drawing upon records received by the Legal Aid Society of Hawaiʻi (LASH), The
Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC), and the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). This data helped to synthesize any patterns of potential violations and
bring to light any continuous barriers experienced by the public. At a local level, we additionally
requested complaints logs from agencies participating in this study: Kauaʻi County Housing
Agency, Maui County Housing Agency, the County of Hawaiʻi office of Housing and
Community development, the Department of Community Services, and the Hawaiʻi Housing
Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC). This complaint data allowed us to further
specify the unique barriers experienced by protected populations.
It is important to note that specific in-depth analysis of policies, suggested solutions, or
the “on-the-ground” realities of any findings we present are outside the scope of this report. We
rely on our own research, our stakeholders, and reviews of existing data to support any claims
this report makes. The goal of this report is to identify and highlight barriers and solutions
presented to us during our research that represent the positionality and subject expertise of our
respondents.
Second, in a portion of this research led by Dr. Lorinda Riley, we investigated housing
preference policy in Hawaiʻi through analysis of existing research followed by focus-group and
individual interviews with stakeholders. In light of the scarcity of affordable housing, housing
agencies and nonprofit organizations often implement tenant selection preferences to prioritize
groups in greater need of housing. In our analysis, we explore the use of preference systems and
their impacts, focusing on their appropriateness, lawfulness, and implications from a fair housing
perspective. To better illustrate our findings, we consulted with field experts. From a broad
13
literature review, several pertinent housing preferences were identified and presented for
discursive analysis with leading housing policy, law, and finance experts in Hawaiʻi. The
recommendations generated from these qualitative interviews center around the need for further
regulation and a proactive housing task force focusing on specific policy proposals, as explained
further in this report.
Third, in a portion of this research led by Dr. Kawika Riley, considering the importance
of Native Hawaiian1 issues and concerns, as the Indigenous people of Hawaiʻi, and in light of the
disproportional disadvantages and historical injustices faced by Native Hawaiians in Hawaiʻi, we
dedicated a portion of our research to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) and the
operations and position of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL), as well as other
conditions affecting fair housing for Native Hawaiians. Our research in this sector involved law
and policy review, interviews with DHHL and HHCA-related experts and institutional leaders,
and investigation into the specific housing challenges experienced by Native Hawaiians. Our
findings revolve around funding challenges, the expansion of housing stock and choice
preferences, and recommendations to address the broad structural barriers Native Hawaiians
face.
As Hawaiʻi looks to recover from the extended challenges of the global pandemic and
ongoing housing crisis, it is critical that we ensure that all Hawaiʻi residents have full access to
safe and reliable housing, regardless of status or background.
1 Throughout this report, we use the term Native Hawaiian to be inclusive of all who identify as having Native Hawaiian ancestry (regardless of bood quantum). However, Chapter 11, following legal statutes discusses differences between the terms “native Hawaiian” and “Native Hawaiian.”
14
1.1 Sampling and Methodology for Interviewees
Most of the large substantive chapters (Chapters 6-9, 10 and 13) of this report rely on
data from qualitative research interviews with expert respondents from 70 different organizations
across the public and private sectors (for the most part we interviewed one person per
organization, but for a couple of organizations we conducted more than one interview and some
interviews included multiple respondents on a single meeting) leading to a total of 72 total
interviews. Of those 70 organizations represented, 59 were non-profit organizations, charities,
and government agencies. The remaining 11 interviews were conducted with respondents from
the private sector, including realty firms, property management companies, and a small number
of landlords. Our sampling methods to reach individuals from realty and/or property
management organizations was distinctive from our approach to other respondents, as discussed
below.
In addition, as noted, Chapter 11 on Native Hawaiian Housing as well as Chapter 12 on
Local Preferences for housing also drew upon additional interviews with experts (including those
from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands
(DHHL) ) as well as focus groups, as explained in those individual chapters.
Regarding the 72 interviews that were the basis for the bulk of this report, we employed a
selective sampling method enhanced by snowball sampling where appropriate. Using the list of
“report stakeholders” generated by the previous Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
(completed in 2022 with the same Principal Investigators), individual research, and public
participation in the Honolulu Fair Housing Month training in April 2024 which was convened by
convened by C&C, HUD, LASH, HCRC, the County of Hawaiʻi offices, and other cooperating
agencies across the state, we were able to identify individuals and organizations whose expertise
15
and proximity to housing issues, tenancy issues, and housing development represented valuable
data for this report. As is general best-practice with qualitative research, we aimed to perform
enough interviews to generate a rich description of the state of housing in Hawaiʻi. Of over 100
organizations contacted, we completed 72 interviews (with representatives from 70
organizations). Within these interviews, our guiding document focused on several fields of
relevant questions. First, we investigated the current status of these organizations, including
shifts in internal structure and program development since the last report. This was performed to
get a sense of changes and adaptations made by these organizations since the last report. Second,
based on dossiers we constructed regarding recent news stories, informational disseminations,
and Google-based research, we asked a series of tailored questions regarding recent
developments in the organization's specific sector. Such questions included inquiries into
changes in their clientele base, new or recently improved programs, and their general sense of
the state of the housing market in Hawaiʻi. This portion of the interview focused primarily on
their identification of what protected classes were served by each organization, and the specific
barriers their organizations perceived these protected classes struggling with. Naturally, the third
portion of our interviews tended to focus on the respondents’ proposed solutions and changes
they believed would have been helpful for their protected classes, organization, and the fair
housing situation in general. Additionally, our interviews touched on relevant emergency
situations that the organizations dealt with. While the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic was a
uniform topic, we also asked some organizations about the 2023 Lāhainā Fire and its impacts.
For our private sector respondents, focused on realty and property management
professionals, we leveraged a weighted random sampling method. At the Fair Housing Training
Summit in April of 2024, we included an entry survey that recorded basic demographic
16
information for all attendees. This survey included a question inquiring whether or not the
attendees would be open to being interviewed at a later date. Of those who filled out the survey,
40 individuals responded positively to being interviewed. We applied a basic random number
generator to that list of participants, with a weight applied to balance the proportion of
participants who identified themselves as belonging to either a realty firm or a property
management firm. This weight was applied to ensure our final sample of 25 private sector
participants was evenly distributed between realty and property management firms. Of those 25
who were randomly selected, 11 agreed to be interviewed.
Our private sector interviews, with realty and property professionals, focused more
heavily on the operations and practices of the respondents. These interviews were also broken
down into three major question fields, delineated by whether the respondent was a realtor or
property manager. For realtors, the first section focused partially on marketing, including the
language used and the medium, and what they felt was the most successful means of marketing a
property in their locale. We then asked about the buyers of homes they represented - the
demographics of who did buy the home, who did not, and what (if any) variables defined the
“right” buyer for a home. The second section focused on lease realty, if applicable, and asked
similar questions to the first. However, here we focused more on what their definitions and
qualifiers of a “good tenant” would be, and the financial analysis process they used in these
situations. Finally, the third section for realtors focused on their understanding of fair housing
laws and regulations, the impacts on their business, what they noticed in general about housing
in Hawaiʻi, and any suggestions they may have in that field.
For property managers, we asked similar marketing focused questions in the first section
of our interviews, with an emphasis on tenant applications and screening processes. We
17
investigated the general demographics of successful and unsuccessful applicants, and the
differences in their screening outcomes. The second section, unlike the realtor guide, focused on
property managers’ experience with fair housing programs, including Section 8 and other
housing programs. Here, we asked questions about their experience with subsidized housing
properties, voucher-holding tenants, and the respondent’s relationship with fair housing
regulatory bodies in their day-to-day duties. In the third section, we asked very similar questions
as the realtors regarding their understanding of fair housing law and regulations, what they
noticed about housing in Hawaiʻi, and any recommendations they might have.
We did not perform any incentivization to either of our sampling processes. The bulk of
our interviews were performed over Zoom, and were both audio recorded and automatically
transcribed (after receiving permission from respondents). Transcription was cleaned and
verified post-interview. Our respondents were anonymized in this report, and the audio
recordings destroyed. To protect anonymity, we refrain from mentioning organizational
affiliation of respondents when quoting or summarizing their perspectives. However, we made a
point to include perspectives from a wide range of organizations. Researchers wrote summaries
of the interviews immediately after performing them, with additional contact of respondents
performed as needed to get a complete picture of their input. A small portion of our interviews
were performed over phone or in-person, and following a similar process but lacking automatic
transcription. Summary tables noting the organizational affiliation of respondents as well as issue
sector are found below.
Table 1.1: List of Organizations Interviewed
18
19
Table 1.2: Interviewee Major Issue Sector Count
20
Table 1.3: Interviewee Organization Types
21
1.2 General Methodology for Quantitative Tables and Analyses
The lion’s share of our quantitative analysis, primarily our demographic and descriptive
tables, relies on publicly available US Census data found in the Decennial and American
Community Survey collections. Both of these sources were leveraged at the state, county, and
census tract levels for the construction of our descriptive tables. Please note that there are some
source-level limitations regarding these sources for descriptive statistics specific to Hawaiʻi.
First, because the American Community Survey (ACS) leverages representative
subsamples of the population, and Hawaiʻi’s population is relatively small, large margins of error
are obligatory in resulting compositions of census tract level data. While we do not present any
data we believe to be misrepresentative, we suggest caution against deterministic interpretation
of our quantitative analyses.
Second, the racial and ethnic categories recorded by the US Census are limited. While the
categories have expanded in recent years, there remains an issue regarding Hawaiʻi’s relatively
large share of multiracial individuals and relatively low homogeneity, especially among our
white, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations. For this study, we have identified multiracial
individuals as their own subcategory where applicable, and specified as many racial categories as
feasible elsewhere. Please note that colorism and ethnicity erasure, especially for multiracial
individuals, remains a pertinent socioeconomic opportunity issue in America (Dixon and Telles
2017).
While the bulk of our quantitative analysis relies on summary statistics and bivariate
regression, we relied on equational statistics for our segregation indices. Segregation breakdowns
were performed in Rstudio using the “segregation” package, the leading computational package
for measuring spatial segregation (Elbers and Gruijters 2024). This package utilizes Theil’s
22
Multigroup Segregation Index (also known as the Multigroup Entropy Index), which solves for
H (as a measure of segregation between 1 and 0) and E (a measure of entropy) as follows:
Here, racial groups (M) are divided into geographic categories (j) with tj representing the
population of the geographic category (state, county, census tract, etc). T, then, represents the
population of the summary-level geography (nation, state, county, etc). πm and πmj in turn
represent the proportion of the population of racial group m and the proportion of racial group m
in geocategory j respectively, and r the ratio of πmj to πj. Please note that the segregation package
utilizes several variants of Theil’s equation to measure different dimensions of geographical
segregation, all of which are dependent on the above equation, that have been redacted for
brevity (Elbers and Gruijters 2024). The full breakdown of the computations utilized by the
segregation package can be found here2. Theil’s multi-group segregation index was chosen as it
is a highly flexible and established means of measuring geographical segregation, allowing for
both binary and multiple racial indices.
2 A Method for Studying Differences in Segregation Across Time and Space - Benjamin Elbers, 2023
23
2.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF HAWAIʻI
Hawaiʻi presents a unique context in which to assess fair housing. The State is known for
its ethnic and racial diversity; there is no majority racial group and the number of individuals
identifying as multiracial is the highest in the United States. Hawaiʻi also has a unique
geography; it is an archipelago of eight larger islands and over 100 smaller ones. In most cases
the center of each island is largely undevelopable meaning that the population is concentrated
along the coasts. This not only has implications for our understanding of spatial isolation, but
dramatically reduces developable acreage leading to a perennial housing shortage. And while
issues of indigeneity are endemic throughout the United States, the fact that the Hawaiian
Kingdom was illegally overthrown in 1893, a fact for which Congress and the President have
apologized but which remains unresolved to date, adds significant complexity to traditional
measures of race, ethnicity, and nationality as reported by the United States Census.
This section attempts to develop a broad demographic profile of Hawaiʻi's residents, with
particular attention to groups protected under the Fair Housing Act. Unfortunately, as will
become clear, we are necessarily utilizing data for which survey instruments were developed by
individuals primarily knowledgeable of the continental United States. But even this continental
data has gaps, specifically around disability and gender identity, two of the most salient
characteristics in contemporary fair housing debates. In short, the data presented in this section
are necessarily imperfect and we hope that our stakeholder engagement process (as described in
subsequent sections) will help reduce these lacunae.
24
2.1 Race and Ethnicity of Hawaiʻi Residents
The US Census collects data on race and ethnicity in six major categories: White, Black
or African American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander, and Other. In the most recent Census, respondents could select as many of these
racial groups as they believed applied to them. A separate question, referred to as ethnicity, asks
respondents to select whether or not they identify as Hispanic (or Latino). In theory, all
respondents who identified as Latino were also required to select an additional racial category,
although, in practice, many selected “Other.”
As shown in Table 2.1, Hawaiʻi has meaningful diversity in terms of race and ethnicity.
Fewer than 10% of state residents identify as Latino. Of the total population, 70% selected only
one racial group and did not identify as Latino, suggesting that approximately a quarter of the
State identified with multiple racial groups within the Census’s six major categories (this
definition of multi-ethnicity would not include, for example, someone who identified as Tongan
and Hawaiian or Japanese and Filipino, because these groups fall under the same macro-racial
category). Regardless of the measurement complexities, Hawaiʻi is an outlier in the United
States, having over twice as many people who identify as two or more races than the country as a
whole.
Among those who identified as a single racial group, about half selected Asian, followed
by white, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The State had very few residents who
identified as Black or American Indian or Alaska Native alone. Among individuals who
identified as multiple racial groups, the most common were 1) white, Asian, and Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders; 2) Asian and Other Pacific Islander; and 3) white and
Asian.
25
Table 2.2 allows us to compare across Hawaiʻi’s counties. Honolulu has the lowest
percentage of residents who identified as non-Latino white alone (just 17% of the county’s
population, with the three other counties at roughly 30%). This is likely due to the high number
of Asian residents in Honolulu. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders represented a higher
percentage of the population on Hawaiʻi and Maui Counties and a lower percentage on Kauaʻi
and Honolulu. The largest proportion of multi-racial individuals live in Hawaiʻi County (23% of
the population plus 11% that identified as Latino), while Honolulu and Maui had the lowest.
Given the complex histories of migration and indigeneity in Hawaiʻi, it is useful to break
down the two broad categories of “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders” into
subcategories, as shown in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. Among residents who identify as Asian alone or
in combination with other racial groups, the largest ethnic groups are Filipino, Japanese, and
Chinese. The ratio stays relatively consistent for Filipino and Japanese residents, but drops by
roughly 50% for Chinese residents when looking at individuals who identified as only one racial
group. This suggests that inter-racial coupling is higher among Chinese residents than other
Asian groups, a pattern previously observed by Hawaiʻi demographers. The State also contains
significant numbers of Korean and Vietnamese residents, with all other Asian groups falling
below 1% of all Asian residents.
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander residents
identify as Hawaiian (~75%). Other major Pacific Islander groups include Samoan (~9%),
Tongan (~2%), Marshallese (~2%), and Other Micronesian (~5%). The percentage identifying as
Native Hawaiian is much higher among those who select one or more races than those who select
one racial group alone, suggesting high levels of inter-racial coupling among Native Hawaiians.
26
In general, this data paints a picture of substantial racial diversity in the State of Hawaiʻi.
In terms of fair housing, this presents several obstacles to the utilization of traditional tools to
detect segregation and discrimination. Much of the literature on race and fair housing has
focused on discrimination against Black or Latino households. In the context of complex racial
dynamics, it is important to orient our understanding of racial and ethnic discrimination in a way
that is sensitive to these complex dynamics. Also, as we describe in detail below, our complex
racial context makes it more difficult to ensure language access and culturally competent housing
programming; this, in turn, necessitates a higher level of resource investment than might be
typical in a context of two or three dominant racial/ethnic groups.
2.2 Economic Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity
Each of the racial/ethnic groups in Hawaiʻi has its own special history leading to
significant economic stratification by race and ethnicity. While it is beyond the scope of this
analysis to summarize the relevant histories (see Coffman 2016; Okamura 2008; Osorio 2002;
Silva 2004 and Takaki 1984 for some examples), we would expect that the colonization and
illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom would have material impacts on the wellbeing of
Native Hawaiians. In a different way, the waves of immigration from Asian countries, at first to
serve as plantation laborers, created important differences within and between Asian residents.
And finally, the process of migration of citizens from Micronesia, under the auspices of the
Compacts of Free Association and related to continued military interests in the region, creates a
unique set of circumstances for some Pacific Islanders.
As shown in Table 2.5, these legacies result in substantially different levels of income by
racial group. Households headed by an individual who identified as Asian have the highest
median household incomes at $105,595. White and multiracial individuals have $92,015 and
27
$97,153 respectively. These figures are all substantially higher than Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islanders who, at the median, earn $20,000 less per household per year. The small
number of Black and American Indian Households also earn less than Asian and white
households.
Homeownership, the preeminent source of wealth in America, is also not evenly
distributed across racial and ethnic groups, as shown in Table 2.6. The State has a
homeownership rate of roughly 62%, meaning just under two thirds of households are owner
occupants. This figure is several percentage points lower than the nation as a whole, and
Hawaiʻi’s homeownership rate is consistently among the lowest in the nation. This is likely a
result of many factors: the State’s high housing costs, its relative lack of land suitable for single
family development, and a significant portion of the population residing in the State temporarily.
Homeownership is particularly high among Asian groups whose ownership rate is 73%.
They are followed by white and multiracial households at 58%. Of the large racial groups,
Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders report the lowest rate of homeownership at 47%
(although Latino, Black, and Native American households have even lower levels).
When viewing Table 2.7, we see that the rate of homeownership is highest outside of
Honolulu. Roughly 71% in Hawaiʻi County, 65% in Kauaʻi County, and 65% in Maui County. In
each case, this is likely due to the higher proportion of rural and suburban development patterns
in these counties, which will naturally have lower rates of renting. Similar race and ethnic
patterns are visible in each county.
2.3 Gender and Household Composition
As shown in Tables 2.8 and 2.9, biological sex ratios are roughly 50-50 in the State and
in each county.
28
Table 2.10 summarizes household composition and the gender of the householder in each
county. Roughly half of all households in the State are married couples, about 8% are
cohabitating couples (with significant county variation), 17% are headed by an unpartnered male,
and 25% by an unpartnered female.
About 30 percent of all households have children (31% in Honolulu, 28% in Hawaiʻi
County, 29% on Kauaʻi, and 33% on Maui). Compared to the US as a whole, a larger proportion
of households contain elderly individuals: 38% in Honolulu, 43% in Hawaiʻi County, 45% on
Kauaʻi, and 40% on Maui. This high level is a testament to the State’s well-documented aging
population, and younger individuals are more likely to leave due to high housing prices and in
search of economic opportunity.
2.4 Disability Characteristics
Data on disability status is far from perfect. However, the American Community Survey
(ACS) does collect some data to help establish a rough baseline as shown in Table 2.11.
Approximately 14% of Hawaiʻi residents report having a disability. This is much higher among
the elderly (32%) than working age adults (11%) and children (5%). Given this age profile, it is
not surprising that independent living and ambulatory related disabilities are the most common
categories (7% of State residents). Cognitive disabilities constitute a close third at 6%, followed
by hearing (4%), vision (2%), and self-care (2%).
Different race and ethnic groups reported disability at different levels. It is important to
remember that disability self-identification is based on the prevalence of disabilities but also
cultural understandings of disability and access to healthcare for diagnosis. Nevertheless, Latino
and Asian residents reported lower levels of disability (12 and 14% respectively) than Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders (16%) and white respondents (17%).
29
Works Cited
Coffman, T. (2016). Nation within: the history of the American occupation of Hawaiʻi. Duke University Press. Okamura, J. Y. (2008). Ethnicity and inequality in Hawaiʻi. Temple University Press
Osorio, J. K. (2002). Dismembering Lahui: A history of the Hawaiian nation to 1887. University of Hawaiʻi Press. Silva, N. K. (2004). Aloha betrayed: Native Hawaiian resistance to American colonialism. Duke University Press.
Takaki, R. (1984). Pau hana: Plantation life and labor in Hawaiʻi, 1835–1920. University of Hawaiʻi Press.
30
2.5 TABLES AND FIGURES
31
Table 2.1: Racial and Ethnic Breakdown, State of Hawaiʻi
32
Table 2.2: Racial and Ethnic Breakdown by County, State of Hawaiʻi
33
Table 2.3: Subcategories of Asian Racial Groups, State of Hawaiʻi, 2020
34
Table 2.4: Subcategories of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Racial Groups, State of Hawaiʻi
35
Table 2.5: Median Household Income by Racial Group, State of Hawaiʻi
36
Table 2.6: Homeownership Rates, State of Hawaiʻi
37
Table 2.7: Homeownership Rates by County, State of Hawaiʻi
38
Table 2.8: Biological Sex Ratio, State of Hawaiʻi
39
Table 2.9: Biological Sex Ratio by County, State of Hawaiʻi
40
41
Table 2.10: Household Type by County, State of Hawaiʻi
42
Table 2.11: Summary of Disability Status, State of Hawaiʻi
43
3.0 SEGREGATION, OPPORTUNITY, AND CONCENTRATED POVERTY
3.1 Racial Segregation
Figures 3.1-3.4 visualize the percentage of each racial group in census tracts in each
county. As is clear from a cursory visual inspection, not all racial groups are evenly distributed
across the state. In Honolulu, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are more likely to
live on the northern and western coasts of the island (including in Hawaiian Homelands areas),
while Asians tend to be housed in the central corridor of the island and white households tend to
be located in areas in proximity to military bases. In Hawaiʻi County, Asian residents are more
concentrated in Hilo, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander residents are more likely to
be in rural areas. White residents are more common outside of the Hilo area. On Maui, white
residents are more likely to be found in Western and Central Maui, while Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islanders tend to live on Molokaʻi or in East Maui. Asian residents on Maui tend to
live on the western portion of Maui Island. Finally, Kauaʻi has more white residents along the
northern shore, more Asian residents toward the west and around Lihue, and more Native
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander residents near Kapaʻa.
The literature quantifies these patterns as residential racial segregation – a variety of
measures that assess how unevenly racial groups are spread across different neighborhoods. In a
hypothetical society with no segregation, each county, zip code, or census tract would have the
same proportion of all racial groups as the State as a whole. The more the distribution of
different racial groups deviates from that standard, the higher the measure of segregation.
Before conducting a statistical analysis, it is important to consider what segregation really
means, its origins, and why it might be considered a social problem when it comes to fair
housing. On the one hand, individuals with similar characteristics or interests may be more likely
to live near one another. For example, those who enjoy urban amenities may live in urban places,
44
while those desiring proximity to nature are more likely to live in rural areas. Cultural
communities such as Chinatowns can concentrate important cultural amenities that are
appreciated by individuals who grew up with a particular set of tastes. They can also provide
important sources of social support such as language access or informational networks that can
be beneficial, particular for new arrivals. In terms of Indigenous sovereignty, tribal membership
is going to be correlated with racial self-identification and thus we would expect a concentration
of certain ethnicities on land designated for particular Indigenous communities or nations.
All of these dynamics are evidenced in Hawaiʻi and are largely not patterns that should
be a target of policy intervention. Hawaiian Homelands, for example, are a critical resource for
Hawaiians that does not constitute segregation in the traditional sense. Additionally, the process
of migration and immigration from Asia and Oceania has generated important cultural
communities in particular places that have assisted those groups with the transition to Hawaiʻi
and remain important sources of cultural preservation.
On the other hand, many aspects of segregation do not represent the outcomes of
homophily or the voluntary sorting of individuals around particular cultural or geographic
resources. Much of what drives residential patterns in the United States, including the State of
Hawaiʻi, is driven by economic resources, directly discriminatory practices, or laws and policies
that have been in their effects discriminatory. These mechanisms of residential sorting present a
compelling argument for intervention as they constitute unequal access to community resources,
amenities, jobs, social networks, and opportunity for particular racial and ethnic groups.
Perhaps the most obvious cause of involuntary segregation is direct discrimination by
landlords, property managers, lenders, or realtors. This is precisely the kind of activity the Fair
Housing Act was first and foremost designed to address. Evidence suggests that such behavior
persists to this day, but it has become less overt and more based on economic and social
45
characteristics correlated with race than explicitly on race itself. Historically, of course, such
behavior was present in Hawaiʻi, and history shapes the contours of contemporary residential
attainment. The second cause of involuntary segregation is institutional policies that ultimately
concentrate certain groups of people in particular areas. As discussed at length in the next
section, the siting of affordable housing developments is a prototypical example of how a
purportedly race-neutral policy can have strong impacts on segregation.
Finally, segregation emerges from the basic logics of the free market for housing. When
income and wealth are correlated with race, certain groups will have more resources than others.
All neighborhoods are not created equal and some will be more desirable than others, making
them more expensive. Additionally, the presence of high-income neighbors is itself a desired
amenity by many residents, increasing costs in particular communities and effectively excluding
lower-income newcomers. It is particularly because of this final source, which requires no
explicit racial animus nor any bad actors, that it is important to view our policy responses to
segregation as not simply the elimination of discriminatory policies and procedures, but in an
affirmative sense to increase the supply of low-cost and subsidized housing in high-amenity
communities.
Hawaiʻi has a generally low segregation index when compared to proximal states, as
shown in Table 3.1. At a state level, Hawaiʻi’s low Theil Score indicates that, by and large, a
statistically significant number of each of the primary Census racial categories are present when
considering all of Hawaiʻi’s counties as a whole. Coupled with our relatively low Mutual
Informational Index (MII) score and high Entropy Ratio, we can surmise a degree of certainty
that racial populations in Hawaiʻi are relatively well represented across a variety of contexts.
While state-level segregation may be comparatively low, that does not mean it is
nonexistent when we analyze at lower dimensions. Table 3.2 represents the normalized entropy
46
score of each county in Hawaiʻi - the level of segregation decomposed by each race against all
other races, secondarily decomposed by county. In other words, the Theil score represents the
overall segregation score between and within each county. Kalawao County, an outlier county of
Hawaiʻi (encompassing Kalaupapa on the island of Molokaʻi), is extremely small, with a
population count of roughly 90 people. Segregation and entropy scoring struggles with
populations this small, resulting in Kalawao County returning an anomalously high Theil score
of 3.28, a functionally erroneous metric. Considering the inability of segregation scoring to
function with this county, coupled with its extremely low population, Kalawao County was left
out of this analysis. When interpreting Table 2.2, we can see that, at a county level, overall
segregation is low, with Theil scores being quite close to zero, the maximum being 1. This
means that segregation in each county is low, and is comparatively low between counties as well.
Hawaiʻi County has the highest Theil score here, meaning it has higher segregation than the
other counties and, in a decompositional sense, has a higher internal level of segregation.
Finally, Table 3.3 represents the local segregation of each primary Census racial category
across the census tracts of Hawaiʻi. Mutual-Local Segregation decomposes racial population
density against geographic location, here represented by tract-level racial population counts. In
other words, these scores represent the different levels of segregation each racial category
experiences in a geographical sense. Here, we can see that despite Hawaiʻi’s summarily low
level of segregation in higher-level dimensions, segregation still very much exists in the low-
level dimension. Black and Native American residents of Hawaiʻi experience the highest levels
of spatial segregation at a tract level, meaning that some tracts in Hawaiʻi have very high
populations of Black and American Indian or Alaska Native residents (relative to their presence
in the state or county overall), with a relatively low spread of those populations into other tracts.
As those populations represent a small portion of Hawaiʻi’s residents, their local segregation
47
score is more likely to be high. Similarly, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander local segregation
scores are moderate, representing a relatively high degree of spatial segregation in comparison to
white and Asian populations. As discussed, this is likely partially due to the prevalence of
Hawaiian Homelands as somewhat homogenous communities, but analysis extends beyond this
context as well. Table 3.3 suggests that Native Hawaiian residents have formed communities tied
to specific places, here census tracts, and are less represented across the islands as a whole,
whereas white and Asian communities are found spread across the islands. While this report
serves to shed some light on why this may be, we can look at an immediate example to
understand this segregation incongruence. Figure 3.1 shows that, in Honolulu County, Native
Hawaiian residents primarily occupy a handful of census tracts in the northern, western, and
eastern parts of Oʻahu. When referring to Figure 3.5, we can see that some of these tracts are
areas of concentrated poverty. Native Hawaiian populations suffer from notable and well-
recorded structural disadvantages in Hawaiʻi, and from these figures we can surmise that these
disadvantages extend to housing as well (though it is worth noting that concentrated Native
Hawaiian population can also denote cultural and social strengths). The moderate level of
segregation we see in Native Hawaiian populations may be partially caused by housing prices,
policies, and cultural factors, which we discuss further in later chapters.
3.2 The Geography of Opportunity and Concentrated Poverty
Beyond segregation measures, it is important to attend to the types of neighborhoods
experienced by low-income residents and other marginalized communities. Specifically, we
should look at measures for whether or not places have a deleterious impact on those who live
within them. When such communities exist, it is necessary to intervene proactively to ensure that
all State residents have an opportunity for upward economic mobility.
48
The question of “do neighborhoods matter” is more complex than one might think. There
is no doubt that individuals who live in particular places have higher or lower economic well-
being than those who live elsewhere. However, questions remain about how much of that
difference is driven by the neighborhood itself rather than the fact that people who are upwardly
economically mobile will exit low-income places and select into higher- income ones. In other
words, any individual’s economic well-being is a function of the contexts in which they live, but
the contexts in which an individual lives are also a function of their economic well-being. After
decades of debate, the highest quality research suggests that neighborhoods can have an
independent impact on long-term outcomes, particular for children in early elementary school
(Chetty et al. 2016). This impact comes from many sources such as exposure to neighborhood
violence, social networks, educational resources, and employment availability (Sharkey 2018,
DeLuca and Dayton 2009).
One proxy for concentrated disadvantage are Census tracts where the poverty rate (the
percentage of residents earning below the poverty line) is in excess of 20%. Like any threshold,
there is little meaningful difference between a neighborhood with a poverty rate of 19%
compared to one with 21%. However, this threshold nevertheless provides a heuristic to identify
neighborhoods the research suggests can have a deleterious impact on the long and short-term
well-being and economic opportunity of residents.
As shown in Figure 3.5, the State of Hawaiʻi has relatively few such areas.3 In Honolulu,
high poverty communities fall along the western shore of the island and selectively throughout
the urban core. Although their size is exaggerated by the large uninhabited portions of the
county, Hawaiʻi County’s high poverty areas fall on the eastern portions of the county,
3 Hawaiʻi has relatively high median incomes when compared to other states. However, it is also an outlier in terms of cost of living. For this reason, the Federal Government calculates the poverty line in Hawaiʻi (and Alaska) separately from the continental United States. More information on poverty thresholds can be found here: https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines
49
specifically the rural areas. Kauaʻi has no tracts that meet this criterion of 20% poverty.
(However, when looking at census block groups (a smaller unit) there are groups which do show
poverty rates above the 20% threshold). In Maui County, poverty is concentrated in eastern
Molokaʻi and two areas of west Maui.
For all counties, but particularly Kauaʻi and Maui, the relative scarcity of census tracts
that fall above the 20% poverty rate threshold should not be interpreted as suggesting that there
are not individuals who struggle with basic human needs or that there are not meaningful
concentrations of disadvantage and poverty. Census tracts attempt to approximate socially
meaningful communities, but they nevertheless often include a mixture of high- and low-income
areas. This issue is exacerbated by the unique land-use patterns of Hawaiʻi, where census tracts
can exhibit an income gradient based on relative distance to coastal areas and rural valleys. For
example, the north shore tracts of Kauai i are known to have luxury housing and high income
residents (especially along coastal areas), while more modest means households are also likely to
reside in other parts of such tracts, bringing down any median measures. (This is seen in Census
Tract 401.05 of north Kaui, Kalihiwai-Kilauea, where the aggregate poverty tract rate is 13.4%
but where one constitutive block group has a higher rate of families under poverty, per the ACS
2022 5-year estimates. In another illustration, there are Census Designated Places of Kauai, such
as Kilauea, which come closer to the 20% threshold).
Our data are thus not meant to suggest that communities and households within Kauaʻi
do not struggle with poverty, an issue that policy makers should keep in mind, only that official
census tract data, which has distinctive limits in this context, does not cross one specific data
threshold—specifically looking at tract units. When formulating our data to account for census
blocks, neighborhoods, and based on our experiential and qualitative understanding, a significant
portion of Kauaʻi does experience poverty. Indeed, as mentioned above, at the block group
50
level, concentrations of poverty over the 20% threshold are present (for example on West Kaui,
block group 6, Census Tract 409, in Kekaha-Waimea has a rate of 24.4% families living under
the poverty line, per the ACS 2022 5-year estimates). Please keep in mind that when using
census data, limitations are expected, especially at the tract-level, and that further consideration
is necessary when making any inferences.
A useful measure of the impact of place on economic mobility comes from the
Opportunity Insights project (Chetty et al. 2018—the source data for Figures 3.5-3.9 below).
This project utilized income tax and census data to look at the long-term socioeconomic mobility
of children who grew up in particular neighborhoods. In a society where all children had the
same opportunities, there would still be differences in neighborhood economic well-being (as
mentioned above, adults who fared better would sort into more desirable places). However, there
would be no differences in terms of the average adult incomes of children born in any particular
communities. In theory, if all children had the same contextual opportunities, then children of
poor parents or who were born in high-poverty neighborhoods would be just as likely to become
affluent as adults as those born to wealthy parents or in low-poverty neighborhoods. Research,
however, shows that indeed in places throughout the United States, including Hawaiʻi, places
(neighborhoods, counties, even states) vary in terms of how much they support economic and
social mobility over the life- course.
The maps presented in Figures 3.6-3.9 engage this concern, addressing the question of
how much do children who grew up in particular neighborhoods earn at age 35 in the year 2016,
measured from their childhood neighborhood contexts in the early 1980s (no matter where they
ended-up living as adults at age 35). Each county is presented twice, once for all children who
grew up in a particular tract and then again just for the children of low-income parents. One way
to think about the difference is that the first map allows for the reality that parental financial
51
resources, independent of neighborhood, can impact adult outcomes. In the second map, parental
financial resources are held constant and the analysis simply indicates whether children who
grew up in the tract were upwardly or downwardly mobile in terms of earnings as adults.
One important note is that these maps represent children who grew up in these places
over 35 years ago, roughly 1981, meaning that contemporary neighborhood dynamics may be
very different. In Honolulu, the first map suggests that children born in the urban core (and were
exposed to neighborhoods there in the 1980s) did fairly well as adults, while those born in the
more rural north and west sides of the county were more likely to become low-income adults.
However, the second map suggests that much of urban core’s success is due to higher levels of
parental resources in those areas. Low-income children did better if they grew up in the urban
core, but failed to achieve significant income-mobility in most places. There are, however,
important exceptions. The southeast part of the county, for example.
A similar pattern is evident in the three other counties. Higher income areas tend to
produce adults with higher incomes. While low-income children born in those areas do
outperform low-income children born elsewhere, the impact is muted, likely by the parental
resources. One clear exception is east Maui, which does remarkably well in promoting upward
mobility for low-income children.
In summary, Hawaiʻi differs from the classic case of high-poverty, low-opportunity inner
cities and low-poverty, high-opportunity suburbs. While Honolulu does have some areas in the
urban core that seem to have deleterious impacts on well-being, the majority of high-poverty,
low-opportunity places are outside of the urbanized areas in more rural communities. As noted
above, these areas are also more likely to have larger populations of Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander residents. All combined, these patterns do suggest that the mandate of
affirmatively furthering fair housing in Hawaiʻi cannot focus solely on the provision of
52
affordable housing but must promote spatial inclusion. As discussed in the next section, this
generally requires the siting for subsidized housing in low-poverty areas, something that the
State has struggled to achieve historically.
53
Works Cited Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2016). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. American
Economic Review, 106(4), 855-902. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2018). The opportunity atlas: Mapping the childhood roots of social mobility (No. w25147). National Bureau of Economic Research.
DeLuca, S., & Dayton, E. (2009). Switching social contexts: The effects of housing mobility and school choice programs on youth outcomes. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 457-491. Sharkey, P. (2018). The long reach of violence: A broader perspective on data, theory, and
evidence on the prevalence and consequences of exposure to violence. Annual Review of
Criminology, 1(1), 85-102.
54
3.3 TABLES AND FIGURES
55
Table 3.1: Mutual-Information and Theil Segregation by State, West Coast and Diversity Proximal
56
Table 3.2: Mutual-Information and Theil Segregation by County, State of Hawaiʻi
57
Table 3.3: Local-Mutual Segregation by Race, State of Hawaiʻi
58
Figure 3.1: Racial Distribution by Census Tract, Honolulu
59
Figure 3.2: Racial Distribution by Census Tract, Hawaiʻi County
60
Figure 3.3: Racial Distribution by Census Tract, Kauaʻi
61
Figure 3.4: Racial Distribution by Census Tract, Maui
62
Figure 3.5: Areas of Concentrated Poverty, State of Hawaiʻi
63
Figure 3.6: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Honolulu County (2016)
Source: Chetty et al. 2018
64
Figure 3.6 Cont.: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Honolulu County
(2016)
65
Figure 3.7: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Kauaʻi County (2016)
66
Figure 3.7 Cont.: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Kauaʻi County (2016)
67
Figure 3.8: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Maui County (2016)
68
Figure 3.8 Cont.: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Maui County (2016)
69
Figure 3.9: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Hawaiʻi County (2016)
70
Figure 3.9 Cont.: Household Income at Age 35 for All Children vs Children with Low-Income Parents, Hawaiʻi County (2016)
71
72
4.0 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DEMOGRAPHICS AND LOCATION
The two prior sections have emphasized two findings. First, opportunities for economic
mobility and well-being are not evenly distributed through the state. And second, that many
protected classes experience economic marginalization, which is exacerbated by neighborhood
contexts. While traditional measures of segregation suggest Hawaiʻi to be relatively integrated
along racial and ethnic lines, this does not suggest that economic segregation, driven by the lack
of affordable housing in many communities, does not have profound impacts on the well-being
of particular protected groups.
This second consideration is the role that subsidized housing plays in exacerbating spatial
marginalization of low-income households. In particular, we focus on four programs:
1) Public Housing, which is owned and managed by the Hawaiʻi Public Housing
Authority;
2) Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), which are funded by HUD, administered by local
public agencies, but allow low-income households to access their choice of modestly
priced homes in the private market;
3) Project-Based Vouchers (also known as Project-Based Section 8 or Rental Assistance),
which is also funded by HUD and administered by local public agencies but is targeted to
specific multifamily properties (mostly privately-owned) to subsidize those living there;
and
4) Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), which subsidize the development or
preservation of affordable rental properties.
73
The first, third, and forth of these are referred to as “supply-side subsidies” because they are
linked to particular developments and thus fixed in place. Vouchers are referred to as a “demand-
side subsidy” because they help households afford housing that they themselves select, at least in
theory. Importantly, the first three programs are targeted towards the lowest income households
in the state, including those with no income. LIHTC rents are lower than comparable market
rents but are designed for a slightly higher tranche of lower income renters.
Our core question is whether these four programs enable poor and low-income
households to access housing in lower poverty neighborhoods. There is no doubt that all four of
them assist with the material challenges associated with high rents and low incomes. This alone
makes them important components of the social safety net. However, subsidized housing
programs have historically exacerbated economic and racial segregation, pushing non-white
families into high poverty communities and restricting their ability to locate elsewhere. HUD has
long interpreted its mandate to affirmatively further fair housing as requiring the expenditure of
additional resources to locate subsidized housing development across a diverse range of
neighborhoods and thus allow low-income renters a true range of options when selecting their
homes.
This ambition has been challenged by a number of factors. In the early days of the Public
Housing program, cities across the country used explicit racial criteria and constructed projects
in such a way as to “protect” white communities from an influx of non-white residents. Such
practices are long gone, but many of the buildings are still standing and supply-side programs
continue to struggle to site projects in higher income areas. There are many reasons for this. First
and foremost, it is more expensive to acquire land in higher-income places. In Hawaiʻi, land
prices are a significant factor in development, and both public and private development projects
74
can struggle to identify suitable parcels in higher-income places. In such places, they are more
likely to be outbid by market-rate developments. Moreover, higher-income communities are
sometimes hostile to new development in their neighborhoods and, particularly, of subsidized
development. Whether the fears articulated relate to traffic congestion or a loss of neighborhood
character – or simply dislike the idea of low-income neighbors – development often instigates
so-called “NIMBY” (Not In My Backyard) opposition; higher- income communities have
resources to leverage their political resources to kill projects, sometimes before they even begin.
Lower-income communities also sometimes oppose development, but this opposition is
generally less intense, as lower-income communities also sometimes recognize the need for more
subsidized housing. And, politicians may be more likely to be swayed by higher-income
communities who are more likely to vote and make campaign contributions.
The story for the demand-side programs, specifically the HCV program, is more
complex. Participants in the program cannot simply select any rental unit they desire; in order to
reduce costs, HUD limits the maximum HCV rent to a locally adjusted payment standard,
roughly the median rent. Thus, at any given moment, about half the properties in the State are
ineligible for the HCV program. However, Hawaiʻi determines the maximum rent for each zip
code independently, meaning that the maximum rent is higher in high-cost zip codes and lower
and low-cost zip codes. For example, the two-bedroom 2023 Fair Market Rent (FMR) was
$3,210 in 96734 (Kailua) but $2,050 in 96712 (Haleiwa). This should, in theory, result in a more
even distribution of voucher-subsidized households.
Unfortunately, the rent ceiling is only part of the story. In order for an HCV household to
secure housing they must be accepted by a landlord. Landlords in high-poverty areas often
enthusiastically participate in the HCV program because their subsidy affords them the benefit of
75
timely and reliable rent payments (Garboden et al. 2018). However, landlords in low-poverty
areas often resist participation. Several years ago, Hawaiʻi outlawed the denial of voucher
households simply because of their voucher status, although the State made no provisions for
enforcement of the law and created exemptions for small rental property owners (see Chapter
Seven below). Moreover, even if landlords don’t engage in direct discrimination, it is still legal
for them to implement legal screening criteria (such as credit scores and housing history) that can
systematically eliminate large shares of HCV households.
4.0.1 Public Reactions to Affordable Housing
To get a better understanding of public reactions to building affordable housing, we
surveyed a database of the Honolulu Star Advertiser for articles pertaining to affordable housing
in Hawaiʻi. Analysis suggests that different members of the public voice opposition to the
development of affordable housing. However, community support is also evident, and many
affordable housing projects do not elicit newsworthy opposition. Resistance to affordable
housing may be rooted in a dislike for change as well as misunderstanding of the impacts of
affordable housing, despite a general consensus that more affordable housing is needed in
Hawaiʻi. Our survey of news sources revealed that increased traffic and congestion in the
neighborhood is the top concern vocalized by opponents to affordable housing; the second most
frequent concern documented in news sources is parking, followed by public perceptions that a
given development does not fit the character of a given neighborhood.
Two approaches to identifying projects and public reactions were used. The first was a
general survey of projects reported on by Honolulu Star Advertiser (using a set of search terms
including “affordable” “public” “low-income” housing, etc.), and the second approach focused
on a search for news about a known list of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties
76
completed over the last five years. A targeted search by property names from this list was
conducted. For both approaches, only articles written during the last five years and focused on
Hawaiʻi were considered. News sources discussed projects at all phases of the development and
building process, from buying the land and completing permitting and entitlements to
construction. Accordingly, articles concern projects that may be completed over a longer time
horizon (beyond the five years of article publication).
Of the 58 different projects discussed in the news sources review, 12 or 20.6% had
documented public reactions, listed in Figure 4.4. Of these 12 projects, which had reports of
vocal public opposition, not all of the opposition represented the majority of community
members. Opposition mostly centered around traffic and congestion concerns as well as
development being perceived as “out of context” or “not fitting” for the neighborhood (too tall,
too big, etc). Even for projects about which opposition escalated to protests and lawsuits, it was
unclear if these voices represented the community as a whole. Knowing this, it would not be
good to assume that opposition to affordable housing is the consensus. In fact, two of the 12
building projects had reports of almost exclusively positive reactions from community members,
and all 12 of these projects had at least some documented public support. Of the other 46 projects
for which news sources did not document public reactions, there were often words of support by
politicians or policy makers, reflecting a general consensus that affordable housing needs to be
built despite small disagreements over execution and location. Overall, the sentiments towards
building and the specific projects, as described in the reviewed news sources, were positive.
Using the second search method (LIHTC list), most of the properties did not have
relevant articles in the last five years; however, the articles yielded mostly supportive reactions
from the public. Of the 13 projects mentioned in news sources, four (30.7%) of the articles
77
documented community opposition mostly due to traffic reasons. For one project, all of the
reports documented uniformly positive public reactions. For the other eight projects, there was
documented public support but it iwas unclear if the support was coming from the specific
neighborhood affected or the Hawaiʻi community overall.
Overall, the analysis of over 300 articles from Honolulu Star Advertiser shows a mostly
positive view of affordable housing by community members as well as local politicians. Projects
yielded in the search were mostly located on Oʻahu, with a few located on Maui, Hawaiʻi Island,
Kauaʻi, and Lānaʻi. Many people understood the need for affordable housing, and arguments
were often over the execution of the projects. While so-called “NIMBYism” is voiced regarding
some projects in a relatively narrow way, reporting suggests this applies to a relatively small
portion of projects. The lack of news reporting on public reactions to many of the affordable
housing projects suggests that limited newsworthy opposition occurred. Another important thing
to note is that we did not assess the validity of the claims made by those in opposition to
affordable housing projects. However, for reference, at least three projects for which reports
detailed strong public opposition cited claims that were not backed up by environmental, traffic,
nor other impact assessments.
4.1 Demographic Makeup of Subsidized Housing Recipients
It is important to recognize that subsidized tenants are not simply low-income but are
more likely to be members of other socially or economically marginalized groups. Unfortunately,
no reliable data exists of LIHTC households, but Table 4.1 presents some summary statistics for
families participating in the other three programs. Not surprisingly, given that program eligibility
is based on being low-income, nearly every household in any of the subsidized programs falls
78
under the category of low-income with over three-quarters as extremely low-income (<30% of
Area Median Income).
In terms of relevance for Hawaiʻi’s population, HUD’s race and ethnicity reporting is
even less nuanced than that provided by the Census. For example, 63% of subsidized households
(and 79% of Public Housing households) selected “Asian American and Pacific Islander,” a large
group that constitutes some of Hawaiʻi’s highest and lowest earning ethnicities. Nonetheless, the
data suggests that subsidized households are slightly more likely to be non-white than the general
population (80%) and that this is particularly true in Public Housing (88%) and less true in HCV
and Project-Based Section 8.
Just over a third of subsidized households have children, two- thirds are female-headed,
and roughly 30% are female-headed with children (except for Project-Based Section 8, which is
much lower). Disability is also common among this population, with one-in-five subsidized
individuals qualifying as disabled. About 30% of non-elderly households and 50% of elderly
households had at least one disabled member.
Despite the limits of these statistics, it is clear that many subsidized households in each
program are not only low-income but part of a group that has been historically marginalized or
risk facing challenges or discrimination based on their status related to age, gender, disability,
and race/ethnicity.
4.2 Neighborhood Characteristics of Subsidized Housing Recipients
Subsidized households are more likely to live in higher-poverty communities than all
households and all renter households, as shown in Table 4.2. As noted above, Hawaiʻi has
relatively low rates of poverty. Sixty-four (64) percent of all households live in tracts with a
poverty rate below 10%, and 90% live in tracts below 20%, the heuristic threshold for a “high-
79
poverty” community. Renters are on average much lower income, but 86% nevertheless live in
lower poverty tracts (i.e. below 20% poor).
These numbers drop significantly for subsidized households. Of all four subsidy types
examined, Housing Choice Voucher recipients and those living in Low Income Housing Tax
Credit Properties performed the best. About 73% of HCV families and 80% of LIHTC
households lived in lower-poverty areas. Nevertheless, for both programs, the prevalence of
households in high-poverty tracts is higher than the state average, and for HCV roughly twice the
statewide average for renters (27% for HCV and 19% for LIHTC compared to 10% for all
households and 14% for renter households). Public Housing residents, not surprisingly, had the
highest exposure to high neighborhood poverty compared to participants in any of the other
programs examined. 43% of Public Housing residents live in high-poverty census tracts. This
number is likely the result of both the historic siting of Public Housing in low-income
communities but also the demographic fact that public housing residents themselves are
necessarily concentrated in place and thus their residence in a tract will increase the tract
poverty rate. This is almost certainly why so few Public Housing units are found in the lowest
poverty areas (just 16%). Project Based Section 8 developments outperform Public Housing at
both the high and low end of the distribution, but are more heavily concentrated in 20-30%
poverty tracts.
Figures 4.1-4.3 present a formal test for the association between subsidized housing types
and tract poverty rates. As shown in all three cases, higher tract poverty rates are associated with
a higher number of subsidized units in their neighborhoods.
In conclusion, despite relatively few areas of concentrated poverty across Hawaiʻi, there
is nonetheless an identifiable association between poverty rates and subsidized housing. As
80
summarized in the previous section, this can create significant barriers to economic mobility and
general well-being for some of Hawaiʻi's most vulnerable residents. It thus necessitates an
affirmative commitment to locating affordable development in lower-poverty areas so as to
afford low-income households choice when it comes to their housing search. We must also
recognize that such affirmative housing policy is not free. Affordable housing developers are
incentivized to develop in low-income tracts because it is expeditious and lower cost. In order to
promote alternative siting, monies must be invested to compensate for these differentials and
policy capital must be expended to overcome neighborhood opposition to low-income neighbors,
multifamily development, or subsidized projects.
For Housing Vouchers, as discussed below, it is necessary not only to prohibit
discrimination against HCV recipients but to actively fund enforcement and testing to ensure
compliance. Similarly, recent work has pointed to the value of housing navigation to help low-
income voucher families achieve a broader range of residential outcomes (Bergman et al. 2024)
(see also section below in Chapter 12.8.4. on Housing Navigation). This does, of course,
necessitate investments in a higher level of counseling and support than voucher families
typically achieve, but the impact can be substantial.
81
Works Cited
Bergman, P., Chetty, R., DeLuca, S., Hendren, N., Katz, L. F., & Palmer, C. (2024). Creating moves to opportunity: Experimental evidence on barriers to neighborhood choice. American Economic Review, 114(5), 1281-1337.
Garboden, P. M., Rosen, E., DeLuca, S., & Edin, K. (2018). Taking stock: What drives landlord
participation in the housing choice voucher program. Housing Policy Debate, 28(6), 979-1003.
82
4.3 TABLES AND FIGURES
83
Table 4.1: Demographics of Subsidized Housing Recipients in Hawaiʻi
84
Table 4.2: Distribution of Subsidized Households by Tract Poverty Rate
85
Figure 4.1: Correlation between Tract Poverty Rates and HCV Units per Tract
86
Figure 4.2: Correlation between Tract Poverty Rates and Public Housing Units per Tract
87
Figure 4.3: Correlation between Tract Poverty Rates and LIHTC Units per Tract
88
Figure 4.4: Public Reactions and Concerns to Subsidized Housing Development
89
5.0 SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT DATA
Complaints from the public received by legal advocacy organizations as well as state and
county agencies provide insight into patterns of fair housing violations in the State of Hawaiʻi.
Below, we report primarily on complaint records received by the Legal Aid Society of Hawaiʻi
(LASH), The Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC), and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).4 Records from these agencies were anonymized and shared with
our research team. We expect that, taken together, these records provide a comprehensive picture
of fair housing complaints (and thus potential violations) reported by the public. It is important
to underscore that any dataset of complaints would be reflective of both underlying violation and
decisions to report those violations by aggrieved parties. There are many reasons why members
of the public would not report complaints including: lack of familiarity with fair housing and
tenant rights; lack of agency, time or other resources; fear of stigma or retaliation; and lack of
familiarity with or perceived access to agencies. Specific groups are likely to be systematically
under-represented. For example, it is possible that despite outreach by agencies, language
barriers also impact the reporting of complaints. At the same time, complaints are subjective and
are not necessarily reflective of fair housing violations that would hold up to legal or other
scrutiny.
In addition to the three primary agencies, we also draw upon records from the partner
agencies funding this study: Kauaʻi County Housing Agency, Maui County Housing Agency, the
County of Hawaiʻi Office of Housing and Community Development, the Department of
4 HCRC “receives, investigates, conciliates, and adjudicates complaints of discrimination” in housing as well as
employment, public, and state funded services.” LASH is a federally funded nonprofit that is “Dedicated to
achieving fairness and justice” through legal advocacy, outreach and education.” HUD is responsible for national
policy and programs that address housing needs in the US. HUD also collects, investigates, and prosecutes cases of
housing discrimination and data on this is collected on a state- by-state basis.
90
Community Services, and the Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation
(HHFDC). Though these agencies are not formally charged with receiving nor logging fair
housing complaints, and each would have their own approaches, if any, for receiving and
tracking such complaints, agency-specific data provides additional insight into local complaints.
The data received from these specific agencies are not expected to be systematically
representative of their jurisdiction. Also, per our communications with their staff, HHFDC does
not collect fair housing complaints but they do keep a log of official court cases filed by HUD
and HCRC.
The organizations who provided data offer overlapping services and resources to support
those alleging fair housing violations. Our understanding is that county-specific agencies may
refer complaints they receive from the public to LASH (including to their tenant-landlord
hotline), HUD, or HCRC for further legal help. HCRC, LASH, and HUD also have their own
complaint intake process and may even refer cases to other agencies where appropriate. Both
LASH and HCRC are charged with legal enforcement of fair housing violations including by
advising clients, pursuing legal action, or referring cases to HUD or to other agencies (for LASH,
this includes referrals to HCRC). Members of the public may contact and engage each of these
agencies directly to lodge complaints or pursue legal action or other forms of fair housing
resolutions.
Taken together, these sources show that most fair housing complaints relate to disability
status, while records also show high rates of retaliation (a fair housing violation in its own right).
A third category of common complaints relates to fair housing discrimination on the basis of sex.
Disability is the most common basis of complaint for all racial/ethnic groups with the exception
of Black complainants and Micronesian complainants. Among those complainants identifying as
91
Black, the largest categories of complaints are based on race/color, and the second-largest
category of complaints relates to disability. Among those complainants identifying as
Micronesian, the largest categories of complaints relate to national origin and/or ancestry, with
the next most common category of complaint relating to family status.
5.1 State Level Complaint Data
Here we report on the records provided to our team by LASH, HCRC, and the Hawaiʻi
field office of HUD. As noted above, the records from these agencies are not mutually exclusive,
meaning that some cases are captured in the data of more than one agency. However, we report
on each agencies’ data independently because the records do not allow us to specify the exact
extent of the overlap (due to the anonymizing of legal complaints). Based on our analysis, it
appears that approximately 40% of LASH cases recorded and shared with us are referred to
HCRC or HUD and thus are also contained in their records.
Agencies like HUD document and pursue “perfected complaints” that are vetted for
allegations with the correct protected class violation tagged and for being clearly within the
federal jurisdiction. This means that protected class groups that do not belong (either marked by
mistake, or incorrectly marked as a protected class group) are not included in the count. By
contrast, it is our understanding that LASH and HCRC’s data is a mix between a light vetting
process and self-reported claims (which may explain the larger numbers included in those data
sources).
One additional challenge is that each of these agencies differs in how they recorded
specific features of fair housing complaints as well as any subsequent referrals, legal actions, and
92
resolutions.5 Thus, for example, we report below on trends related to the racial/ethnic
background of individual complainants for the LASH data only.
5.1.1. Legal Aid Society of Hawaiʻi Data
LASH records show that 1,050 cases were opened from January 1st, 2019, through June
27th, 2024. Of these, 873 cases indicate that at least one protected class was “implicated” (with
177 cases lacking a record for this field). Of these 873 cases, 343 cases (39.3%) were referred to
HUD or HCRC. Also, of the 873 cases that mentioned a protected class, the large majority (688
or 78.8%) of them mentioned only one implicated protected class. However, 185 (21.2%) of
those cases mentioned two or more protected classes as potentially implicated. As shown in
Table 5.1, we show rates of the types of complaints by each mention (1,081) of a specific
protected class as well as the share of each case that mentions a specific type of complaint (alone
or in combination with another type of complaint). Since each case can mention more than one
type of complaint (i.e. or can implicate more than one protected class), the total number of
mentions of protected classes exceeds the total number of individual case records (873 cases).
We considered protected classes in terms of both federal and state protections, which is
important because state-level protections include additional categories. To understand the
distribution of complaints, we used almost the same categories that LASH used in their own
record keeping, but combined complaints implicating “race” and “color”; we also combined
national origin and ancestry since those most often occur together. The tabulated categories are:
disability, sex (including sexual orientation), race and/or color, family status, national origin
and/or ancestry, age, gender (including gender expression and/or identity), Section 8 / HCV,
religion, HIV status, and domestic violence. While domestic violence legally falls under
5 For example, LASH data provided to us notes if cases are referred to HUD or HCRC, while HCRC did not provide
this data.
93
protections related to the “sex” or gender category, since they were differentiated in the LASH
data, we also report this tabulation separately to show its scope.
Disability is by far the protected class that is most prevalent in the records: 70.3% (616)
of cases that mention any protected class mention disability as a contributing factor, and 56.5%
(493) of cases exclusively mention disability as the implicated protected class (as shown in Table
5.1, when tabulated by mention, 57% of all mentions of any protected class relate to disability).
The next largest category is sex (16.6% of cases, and 13.4% of mentions), followed by race
and/or color (10.1% of cases and, 8.1% of mentions) and family status (8.4% of cases and 6.8%
of mentions). This is consistent with findings from HCRC and HUD in that disability is the
largest substantive type of complaint (aside from retaliation, which is the highest frequency
complaint in HCRC data).
LASH records also indicate the “race” and “ethnicity” of complainants, with ethnicity
referring only to Hispanic or non-Hispanic background. Only one race is listed per record,
meaning that the data does not allow us to track patterns of multi-racial identification. Analysis
of the racial breakdown of complainants was done using only race since the majority of people
(all except 29) who marked Hispanic/Latino also marked Hispanic/Latino in the race category.
White (34.8%), Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian (18%), Black (7.4%), and those who did not
respond to race questions (6%) make up the majority of complainants (out of the full sample of
1,050 cases). This suggests there could be an over-representation of white and Black
complainants, relative to their rates in the state population, per Census data (reviewed above):
the rates of Black complainants in these data is notable given their relatively small share of the
state population. However, as the Census allows multiple race responses, unlike the LASH data,
additional data would be needed to reach a definitive conclusions.
94
We also reviewed patterns by race/ethnicity in terms of the types of complaints raised. As
in the full data, disability is the most commonly implicated issue for most racial/ethnic groups.
Two groups show an exception to this pattern: Black/African Americans and Micronesians. For
those identifying as Black, 34 cases logged complaints based on race and/or color (alone or in
combination with other concerns), and 30 cases logged complaints that concerned disability
(alone or in combination with other complaints). While the numbers are small and larger
samples would be needed for tests of statistical significance, this suggests that for Black
individuals, discrimination based on race and/or color is a more common type of concern than
others (or at least as important as disability-based discrimination).
For Micronesian people6, 13 out of the 33 logged complaints were based on national
origin and/or ancestry (alone or in combination with other concerns), and complaints based on
family status were logged by six people, making these their top two issues cited (as compared to
only four who filed complaints related to disability). This deviates from an overall pattern
among all races combined, and even from all of those who identified as one of several Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander backgrounds: for these larger categories of racial groups,
complaints based on disability are clearly the most common type of complaint.7 These patterns
thus suggest that, even among other Pacific Islanders, Micronesians are facing distinct challenges
related to national origin and/or ancestry (including language).
The number of cases opened by LASH has been increasing since 2019. 2024 is on track
for numbers similar to 2023, as we only have data up until July of 2024. Additionally, LASH
6 These were individuals for whom race was identified as “Micronesian”, presumably thus with ancestry from the Federal States of Micronesia (rather than generally from the region as whole). Smaller numbers of individuals in the LASH data are identified according to race as “Marshallese” or “Palauan.” 7 Including those identified in the records as “Micronesian” (presumably from the Federated States of Micronesia), “Palauan”, “Marshallese,” “Native Hawaiian”, “Part-Hawaiian,” “Tongan”, “Samoan”, “Guamanian/Chamorro”, and “Other Pacific Islander”.
95
data provides information about legal settlements. A total of 21 cases reported resulting in a
settlement agreement with four receiving damages ranging from $5,000 to $30,000. 15 people
were able to obtain damages even without a settlement agreement, ranging from $200 to
$36,000. Only 1.4% of opened cases resulted in a person obtaining damages. Finally, the LASH
data also indicates a number of cases for which reasonable accommodation requests were made
(404), and the number of granted requests (126).
5.1.2 Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission Data
In total, 234 cases were opened from July 2019-July 2024 which is approximately the
same time frame as data collected from LASH. All of the cases in their records identified a
specific fair housing violation and a protected class.
As shown in Table 5.2, we tabulated each mention (487) of a specific class implicated in
the complaint. As in the analysis of the LASH data, since the cases of individual people may
mention or implicate multiple protected classes, the total number of mentions exceeds the total
number of individual case records. Of the 234 cases, 64 (27%) mentioned only one protected
class, and the majority (73%) of individual cases mentioned at least two different protected
classes (with several mentioning up to four or five). The categories tabulated here reflect how
HCRC records reflect state law, including classifying complaints separately by sex (which we
combined with sexual orientation) and gender (which includes both gender identity and gender
expression). HCRC also distinguishes complaints based on marital status from those based on
familial status (while LASH only tracked complaints based on familial status). In our tabulations
we also combined national origin and ancestry.
One notable difference is that HCRC’s cases are dominated by retaliation cases. 155
(66.2%) of cases mention retaliation, making it the largest protected class complaint. Retaliation
96
cases often (all but four) cite at least one other protected class. Of cases that mention retaliation,
disability, sex, and race/color are the other protected classes that are most often implicated.
Outside of retaliation, disability is the second most cited factor, with 146 (62.4%) cases
mentioning this issue (alone or in combination with other issues). Sex- based discrimination
(including based on sexual orientation) is the next most common type of complaint, with 25.2%
of cases mentioning this issue (alone or in combination with other issues). Race/color are
implicated in the next largest share of complaints, at 20.1% of cases.
HCRC also tracks settlement status (though does not track monetary damages).
According to their data, 65 (27.8%) of the 234 HCRC cases (reported over the last five years) are
reported as closed, due to insufficient evidence. 96 (41%) are still open and have not yet reached
resolution nor settlement. 60 (25.6%) of the 234 cases have ended up in a settlement or a
resolution.
5.1.3. Housing and Urban Development Data
HUD staff shared their administrative data with us, which included records of 273 cases
who logged complaints from January,1 2019 through July 1, 2024. 109 of the 273 complaints list
only one protected class, and 164 mention at least two. Of the 164 cases that list more than one
protected class, 144 (87.8%) of them concerned retaliation (in conjunction with other issues). For
comparison, HCRC had 151 (88.8%) cases where two or more protected classes were cited, one
being retaliation. Of the HUD cases that mention retaliation, the additional complaints related
primarily to the following classes: disability, sex race/color (for these data, as for the other
datasets, we combined complaints based on race and/or color together).
As summarized in Table 5.3, HUD data is also consistent with LASH and HCRC data in
that disability, sex, and race/color, and family status are leading substantive issues, in terms of
97
the share of complaints—and overall, disability and retaliation are the most frequent bases of
complaints (alone or in combination with other types of complaints). HUD data only reports on
federally -protected classes, as opposed to groups protected by Hawaiʻi State law. As shown in
Table 5.3, 162 cases (59.3% of cases) involved complaints related to disability, 149 (54.6%)
cases involved retaliation, 72 (26.4%) involved sex (including sexual orientation), and 52 (19%)
involved race/color.
Many of HUDs complaints remain open (91 cases, 33.3%), most of which are from 2023
and 2024. Of the 182 cases that are closed, 83 (45.6%) of them are closed on the basis that there
is no proof of discrimination. By contrast, 64 (35.2%) cases had successful settlements or
conciliation. The other 19.2% of cases were closed due to the withdrawal of the complaint or an
inability to locate parties.
5.2 County-Level Complaints
Below we address some findings based on records received from county-level offices. As
mentioned above, these agencies are not formally charged with collecting nor adjudicating
complaints from the public. County agencies that we reached out to have varied systems, if any,
for collecting and referring data and sharing advice to constituents. Their records are not
expected to be representative of larger patterns. Records show that complaints deal with a range
of issues including the following—some of which would not necessarily fall under the scope of
fair housing violations. Below is a non-exhaustive list of issues raised in these data:
● Landlord not maintaining property
● Landlord evicting without proper notice or without cause
● Verbal abuse by landlord
● Disability discrimination and reasonable accommodations not being made
98
● Harassment from neighbors
○ Verbal harassment
○ Physical harassment
○ Sexual harassment
● Questions about service animals and rights around pets
○ Claims of “fake” service animals
○ Not renewing lease because of service animal
○ Landlord won't rent to them because they have a service animal
○ Misbehaving pets that are “service animals”
● Landlord raising rent over one thousand dollars without notice
● Religious intolerance
● Noise complaints
● Unequal terms and conditions based on national origin and limited English proficiency
● Increase in price of laundry services
● Tenant verbally abusing housing staff and having violent outbursts
● Eviction based on ownership of a firearm
● Discrimination based on how many people in the family there were even though it was
under the legal limit for the unit
● Section 8 tenants having violating guest policy of lease
● Landlord unfairly treating tenant due to Section 8 status
Below we list the number of calls made to each county agency, though not all calls are unique
cases (i.e. an office may have received multiple calls about the same issue).
99
Kauaʻi: From January 2022 to June 2024, 26 calls were logged by the Kauaʻi County
Housing Agency. The content of twelve calls justified being referred to HCRC, HUD, or LASH
for further action.
Hawaiʻi County: From January, 1 2020 to June 30, 2024, 100 calls were logged by the
Office of Housing and Community Development. 30 of these calls justified being referred to
HUD, HCRC and LASH for further action
Honolulu County: The Department of Community Services shared a log of 10 calls from
2019 to 2024. Referral patterns are unclear, but at least one case was referred to HCRC, HUD, or
LASH.
Maui County: The County office shared a log of complaints covering the years 2019 to
2023. 58% of these cases were referred to HCRC, LASH, or HUD for further legal advice or
action. Other callers were either referred to the landlord-tenant hotline or directed to further
explore housing discrimination laws.
5.4 Summary Analysis of Complaints
5.4.1 Disability and retaliation are the top complaints
Across the data sources, concerns about fair housing violations on the basis of disability
remain a dominant concern (and for LASH and HUD data, it is the most common basis of
complaint—and for HCRC after retaliation, it is the second most common complaint). In
addition, the two sources that track retaliation show that, in its own right, this is a leading
concern: it’s the most common basis of complaint and the second most common basis of
complaint according to HCRC and HUD respectively.
100
5.4.2 Retaliation
Retaliation cases make up a large proportion of HUD and HCRC cases, and questions
still remain about why this is the case. In presentations given by HCRC, experts have suggested
that there is something unique about personal relationships and the housing market in the context
of Hawaiʻi such that landlords are more likely to respond pointedly to perceived breaches of
interpersonal trust by tenants. Our respondents affirmed, but could not concretely explain, this
phenomenon, suggesting that research be performed to investigate the relatively high rate of
landlord retaliation found in Hawaiʻi.
5.4.3 Discrimination based on Sex, Race/Color, and Family Status are also top complaints
Across the three main data sets, complaints on the basis of sex (including sexual
orientation) are a top three concern (the second most common concern in the LASH data). It is
worth noting that for the state-focused data, gender-based complaints were tallied separately
from sex-based complaints, though these issues could be treated as overlapping and indeed have
been treated as such, per HUD guidelines, in federal settings. When considered along with
gender-based discrimination, or in its own right, sex-based discrimination in various forms
appears to be a major issue and barrier to fair housing in Hawaiʻi.
Future analyses should also focus on overlapping concerns related to “sex” (which
federally in recent years has been defined expansively to include gender identity/expression and
sexual orientation, etc.) and gender (which include gender expression and identity).
Discrimination on the basis of sex can also include sexual harassment. While a relatively recent
analysis of impediments to fair housing for Hawai’i focused on disability, with good reason, a
future analysis could more deeply focus on potential concerns related to sex and gender-based
discrimination.
101
In terms of frequency, complaints related to discrimination on the basis of sex are
followed by complaints about discrimination based on race and/or color. The next most frequent
complaints relate to family and marital status. These are the top five most common issues across
the main data sources.
Complaints regarding national origin and ancestry (including relating to language) also
occur regularly, and according to LASH data, appear to be the most frequent basis of complaints
for Micronesian households. As discussed below, community stakeholders who informed other
portions of this report identified challenges experienced by Microensian households, including
those who have Limited English Proficiency. Also, LASH data suggests that fair housing
concerns based on race/color are a concern especially for African Americans (for whom this was
the most frequent basis of complaint). Future analyses should aim to specify how much
language barriers are reflected in the patterns of national origin/ancestry discrimination. With
better data on the racial or ethnic identity of complainants, these patterns could be validated,
though they suggest that Micronesian as well as Black/African American households face
distinct and persistent challenges of discrimination on the basis of national origin/ancestry and
race/color, respectively.
102
5.5 TABLES AND FIGURES
103
Table 5.1 Types of Complaints by Issue/Protected Class (alone or in combination with other complaints), LASH Data
Type Number of complaints (alone or in combination)
Percent of cases (n=873) Percent of all mentions (n=1,081)
Disability 616 70.6% 57.0%
Sex 145 16.6% 13.4%
Race 88 10.1% 8.1%
Family Status 73 8.4% 6.8%
National
Origin/Ancestry 42 4.8% 3.9%
Age 41 4.7% 3.8%
Gender 33 3.8% 3.1%
Section 8 20 2.3% 1.9%
Religion 8 0.9% 0.7%
Domestic
Violence 8 0.9% 0.7%
HIV status 4 0.5% 0.4%
Retaliation 3 0.3% 0.3%
Source: LASH Data January 2019-July 2024
104
Table 5.2 Types of Complaints by Issue/Protected Class (alone or in combination with other complaints), HCRC Data Type Number of complaints (alone or in combination)
Percent of cases (n=234) Percent of all mentions (n=487)
Retaliation 155 66.2% 31.8%
Disability 146 62.4% 30.0%
Sex 59 25.2% 12.1%
Race/Color 47 20.1% 9.7%
Family Status 35 15.0% 7.2%
National
Origin/Ancestry
16 6.8% 3.3%
Age 12 5.1% 2.5%
Gender 10 4.3% 2.1%
Religion 5 2.1% 1.0%
HIV status 2 0.9% 0.4%
Source: HCRC Data July 2019-July 2024
105
Table 5.3 Types of Complaints by Issue/Protected Class (alone or in combination with other complaints), HUD Data
Type Number of
complaints (alone or in combination)
Percent of cases
(n=273)
Percent of all
mentions (n=503)
Disability 162 59.3% 32.2%
Retaliation 149 54.6% 29.6%
Sex 72 26.4% 14.3%
Race/Color 52 19.0% 10.3%
Family Status 38 13.9% 7.6%
National Origin 22 8.1% 4.4%
Religion 8 2.9% 1.6%
Source: HUD data 2021-2024
106
6.0 DISABILITY AND HEALTH
Lack of accessible and affordable housing supply
The experts we interviewed underscored how lack of housing supply, at all income
levels, especially for those with physical disabilities is a major issue. Key respondents
specifically mentioned limits in physically accessible housing supply for subsidized units.
6.1 HUD Accessibility Requirements
Both privately-owned and publicly-assisted housing, regardless of whether they are rental
or for sale units, must meet the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act when they are
located in a building of four or more units, built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991. To
help builders comply with these requirements, HUD issued in 1991 its Fair Housing Act
Accessibility Guidelines8. In 1994, the Department responded to questions on the Guidelines by
issuing a Question and Answer Supplement to the Guidelines9. In 1996, HUD provided further
guidance on ways to design and construct housing that complies with the Fair Housing Act by
issuing the Fair Housing Act Design Manual10, which is filled with detailed illustrations and
sample room designs. HUD has designated the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines, when
used in conjunction with the Question and Answer Supplement, the Fair Housing Act Design
Manual, and five other documents as safe harbors for compliance with the Fair Housing Act
accessibility requirements.
All federally-assisted new construction housing developments with five or more units
8 Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/fhefhag 9 Supplement to Notice of Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines: Questions and Answers about the Guidelines: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/fhefhasp 10 Fair Housing Act Design Manual: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/destech/fairhousing.html
107
must design and construct five percent of the dwelling units, or at least one unit, whichever is
greater, to be accessible for persons with mobility disabilities. These units must be constructed in
accordance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)11 or a standard that is
equivalent or stricter. An additional 2 percent of the dwelling units, or at least one unit,
whichever is greater, must be accessible for persons with hearing or visual disabilities. For more
information on the accessibility requirements for federally-assisted new construction and
substantial alterations of existing federally-assisted housing, see Section 504: Disability Rights in
HUD Programs12 (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.a.).
In order to be in compliance with the Fair Housing Act, there are seven basic
“Accessibility FIRST” design and construction requirements that must be met (United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.b). These requirements can be viewed in
Appendix 6.A.
An advocate for disability rights that we spoke to highlighted challenges faced in
providing reasonable accommodations, specifically a significant demand for accessible housing
and the lengthy wait times clients experience. He emphasized the importance of written requests
for accommodations, as this often leads to better outcomes for the client.
Another disability expert cited that ground floor units and units compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are difficult to find. An additional respondent further
explained that new housing communities, such as kūpuna (elderly) housing, may only have three
accessible units within an entire building. A different respondent indicated that, though their
11 Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards: https://www.access-board.gov/aba/ufas.html 12 Section 504: Disability Rights in HUD Programs: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disability_main
108
agency is doing their best to assist consumers to apply for affordable housing through subsidies
and Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), the supply of subsidized communities being
newly built does not meet the demand – this is especially true for people with disabilities, who
require reasonable accommodation and ADA units. According to another respondent, accessible
parking spaces also remain at a minimum.
HUD defines reasonable accommodation as follows:
“A reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces, or to fulfill their program obligations. Please note that the ADA often refers to these types of accommodations as ‘modifications.’ Any
change in the way things are customarily done that enables a person with
disabilities to enjoy housing opportunities or to meet program requirements is a reasonable accommodation.”
Since the publication of the 2016 report on the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice in Hawaiʻi with a Focus on People with Disabilities, multiple complaints and lawsuits
related to the lack of accessible and affordable housing have been amplified by local news
sources. These complaints include:
● Concerns about the out-of-order elevator at Kulaokahua Apartments on Oʻahu, a housing
complex whose residents are all 62 years or older and many are living with disabilities.
This is the building’s only elevator, and residents – including a woman in a wheelchair
and a man with no cartilage in his knees – reported having to either walk up and down the
stairs or stay in their apartments after receiving no word from management for two weeks
after the breakdown (Carpenter, 2022).
● Similar concerns about the out-of-order elevator at Waikiki Walina Apartments, a 10-
story building on Oʻahu. After three months with no repair, it was reported that several
109
tenants who moved out had to leave their furniture and other personal belongings;
residents with disabilities report chronic pain and an inability to leave their apartment.
Hawaiʻi Disability Rights Center has stated that federal law requires building
management to provide reasonable accommodations (Morales, 2022).
● A Hawaiʻi developer and other companies were accused of not designing and building
five multifamily housing complexes with the required accessible features, allegedly
violating the Fair Housing Act. The Justice Department reached a settlement that requires
the companies to pay a fine and make changes to their properties, including the addition
of ramps, accessible parking and making apartments easier for people with disabilities to
enter and use (Office of Public Affairs, 2023).
6.1.1 Disability and Housing Assistance
Respondents also emphasized specific challenges for individuals with physical
disabilities—for example those requiring the use of a wheelchair—hoping to use Section 8
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs). One respondent elaborated to say that the chances of finding
a landlord who accepts Section 8 HCV, is willing to accept a wheelchair user and make
reasonable accommodations to ensure the unit accessible are “zero”; this puts potential tenants at
risk of losing their Section 8 HCV benefits.
Section 8 HCV recipients with disabilities who rely on Social Security, and those with
fixed incomes, may face unique challenges. A realtor and property manager respondent shared a
story about a tenant on disability who continues to struggle with affordability despite receiving
assistance from HUD. Federal assistance programs for people with disabilities can be found in
Appendix 6.B.
110
6.1.2 Disability and Homelessness
An interview respondent voiced concern about lack of affordable inventory and reported
that people with disabilities are at great risk of homelessness13. This is reflected in the homeless
point-in-time count data for Hawai’i counties, summarized below, that show relatively high rates
of those with disabilities in both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, as well as
in homeless service utilization data.
In 2024, Bridging the Gap (BTG) enumerated 1,895 individuals experiencing
homelessness on Hawaiʻi Island, Kauaʻi and Maui. BTG found that 674 individuals are
Chronically Homeless (CH)14. Thirty-nine individuals are Chronically Homeless People in
Families15, comprising 14 families. 637people identified as having a serious mental illness, 537
reported chronic substance abuse, and six people are living with HIV/AIDS (Ka Mana Na Helu,
2024). Additional details reflecting disability and homelessness in Honolulu County from the
Bridging the Gap 2024 can be found in Appendix 6.C.
According to the Honolulu County point-in-time count of 2024, 26% percent (of those
who responded to the surveys) of adults and unaccompanied minors reported a substance use
disorder and 33% reported a mental illness. Two percent of adults and unaccompanied minors
13 In this report we use the term homelessness and houselessness interchangeably. We default to the term homeless, which is more common in policy discussions. However, we acknowledge that some respondents feel the term “houseless” is less stigmatizing and thus preferred. The use of the term “houseless” recognizes that people can make their homes in diverse ways, aside from within traditional formal housing. Where respondents preferred the term “houseless” we used that language below, particularly when discussing the viewpoints of qualitative interviewees. 14 Chronically Homeless (CH) Individual refers to an individual with a disability who has been continuously homeless for one year or more or has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years where the combined length of time homeless in those occasions is at least 12 months (Ka Mana O Na Helu ,2024). 15 Chronically Homeless (CH) People in Families refers to people in families in which the head of household or other adult member has a disability and has either been continuously homeless for one year or more or has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years where the combined length of time homeless in those occasions is at least 12 months. (Ka Mana O Na Helu ,2024).
111
reported living with HIV/AIDS. A notably high share of adults and unaccompanied minors
reported one or more disabling conditions or a physical, developmental or other disability, 55%
and 36% respectively (Partners in Care, Oʻahu’s Continuum of Care, 2024). Additional details
reflecting disability and homelessness in Honolulu County from the Point In Time Count 2024
can be found in Appendix 6.D.
Respondents identified challenges faced by people with disabilities who seek access to
emergency and transitional homeless shelters. In the view of a different respondent, difficult
shelter conditions push houseless people with disabilities to sleep in their cars or on the beach,
rather than in a shelter. She continued to say that this is also true of our kūpuna with disabilities;
they are finding themselves houseless and unable to access the limited shelter system.
6.1.3 Limited Housing Supply at an Affordable Level
People with disabilities at lower levels of income face significant challenges obtaining
accessible and affordable housing and this issue persists until today (CDS 2016). Per the
complaints outlined above, HUD requires specific shares of new units to be ADA compliant, but
disability advocates are saying that this is not nearly enough. Hawaiʻi continues to have a limited
supply of accessible housing at an affordable level.
6.1.4 Increase the Inventory of Accessible Housing
A variety of initiatives to increase the stock of affordable housing were described in the
2016 report on the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in Hawaiʻi with a Focus on
People with Disabilities (CDS 2016). This current report amplifies the recommendations of that
analysis, as the majority of the impediments and recommendations continue to hold relevance;
we also identify potential solutions articulated by stakeholders interviewed for the current study.
112
Increase targeted funding to design accessible housing in all forms (i.e. residences,
apartments, subsidized housing).
Implement universal design in all new building projects to enable “visitability” and aging
in place. Design must incorporate seven elements to be considered universal: flexibility,
equitability, simplicity, easy-to-understand features, tolerance for error by the user, low physical
effort and correct sizing and space. These design elements include features such as dimmed
lights above the toilet, lever handles in lieu of traditional door knobs, tiered countertops on
kitchen islands and showers with no curbs. These elements are subtle nods to safety, regardless
of a person’s age and mobility (Cruz-George 2023).
Revise building codes and zoning. Disability advocates we spoke to indicated that
universal homes are needed so that everyone can live everywhere and advocated for the inclusion
of design principles into building codes. (Also discussed in the 2016 Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice in Hawaiʻi with a Focus on People with Disabilities).
6.2 Deficient attitudes, skills and knowledge to support people with disabilities in obtaining
and retaining housing
A lack of knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to support people with disabilities
exists among personnel and systems that are often the “gatekeepers” of housing opportunities for
this population (CDS 2016: 108). Whether intentional or not, such deficiencies can result in
discrimination, exclusion and a lack of equity throughout the housing application process. A
realtor and property manager respondent underscored the need for fair housing education,
particularly for landlords who may not be aware of legal prohibitions against discrimination. She
said that the financial benefits of Section 8 HCVs can counter concerns that landlords might have
about who can afford rent and that they need to be reminded of this. She also mentioned that
113
landlords might not know that their preferences related to disability, familial status, race and
gender would be considered discrimination. She pointed out that biases often influence landlord
decisions, which can further complicate the housing landscape for vulnerable groups, including
individuals with disabilities and those in recovery.
These deficiencies in skills and knowledge to support people with disabilities in their
housing journey further extends into the housing coordination systems (CDS 2016). County
Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRC) were a focus of the 2016 Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice with a Focus on People with Disabilities, with an emphasis
on their potential to be a one-stop shop for disability-related resources. We reached out to each
county ADRC as a follow-up for the current study.
Our interviews found that this potential of ADRCs to support housing access remains
unrealized. Respondents from county ADRCs spoke about the ways in which their agencies
struggle with the segmenting of community services. One respondent explained a sense of
separation or lack of awareness of housing support programs and suggested that this left clients
without support in navigating housing systems. Other entities to which ADRC may refer clients,
such as Veterans Affairs (VA) service and Medicaid, are focused on their own scopes of work
for which they are contracted – and so there is a lack of integrated care to meet the needs of the
public. He stated that a major challenge for ADRCs in realizing their potential to be a one-stop
shop for people with disabilities is their inability to navigate services and programs, including
housing related services, that are not within their sphere or system.
Interviews did suggest ways that ADRC’s can beneficially collaborate with other
agencies in holistic support of elderly individuals and those with disabilities. Honolulu ADRC
offered an example of a Memorandum of Understanding with WorkHawaiʻi, in which kūpuna
114
participate in their Rent to Work program. Participants receive job skills training but also support
in finding or maintaining permanent housing, as part of the job skills training provides them with
funds for rent money. Collaborations like this show promise. In addition, respondents
recommended increased funding to county ADRCs to provide direct services to individuals with
disabilities including emergency preparedness rosters in the event of a disaster such as the
wildfires on Maui.
By contrast, other organizations showed the benefits of integrating health, mental illness,
HIV, and disability support services with housing navigation. A respondent from a health
promotion organization that also offers housing support explained the ways in which they
“embrace” the different aspects that make up each person who comes through their doors, many
of whom are at the intersection of living with HIV, mental health issues, substance use and
houselessness. This organization addresses these unique components of each individual client
through their programming in HIV prevention, syringe exchange, homeless outreach and LGBT
support services. Connecting services and holistic treatment of clients is important given the
higher rates of HIV positivity among the homeless population (vs. the stably-housed population)
and the finding that housing instability can create barriers to medical treatment for a range of
illnesses, including HIV treatments (Thakarar et al. 2017:1).
Housing navigator positions can prove helpful in mitigating discrimination for disabled
individuals and those facing other challenges on the housing market (see also discussion below
in section 12.8.4). For example, a representative of an organization that serves LGBT youth
aged 18 to 24 described how their housing navigator position plays a crucial role. Funded by a
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) grant, the housing navigator educates
landlords about the organization’s rent subsidy program, which fosters mutual understanding
115
between landlords and tenants while reducing discrimination. Housing navigators connect clients
with landlords and mitigate issues before they escalate, which ensures smoother transitions into
stable housing. This position not only increases awareness about HIV as a disability, but also
aids with the comfort level of landlords in accepting other rent subsidies including HCV
vouchers. The respondent recommended that other organizations hire housing navigators because
they provide intervention services, support to clients in securing housing, and reduce fear and
stigma associated with HIV and other conditions.
6.2.1 Online applications as a challenge for individuals with disabilities
Respondents raised concerns about new barriers for those living with disabilities related
to online applications. This is especially significant given the proliferation of online-based
service applications, especially since COVID-19. A key civil rights advocate explained that
while online applications exist, most intakes are still conducted via phone as many clients find it
easier to communicate their needs verbally. A different disability rights advocate added that
clients who are blind or visually impaired often require assistance to apply for programs like
HCV or other voucher programs; he emphasized the challenges posed by time constraints and
their need for support. Finally, yet another disability rights advocate also explained the
difficulties of online applications for people with disabilities, particularly those who are visually
impaired, as it is often difficult to make the font size larger. Hawaiʻi Department of Health
Disability Communication Access Board offers the following guidelines on the accessibility of
programming and services (State of Hawaiʻi 2024):
“Each agency’s home page should include contact information in order to allow the public an alternative means to ask questions or request
additional information. At a minimum, contact information should include a phone number, fax number and general e-mail address. E-mails received by a state agency should be responded to within two (2) business days.”
116
The policy on the accessibility of programming and services can be found in Appendix 6.E.
Please see also specific guidelines for website accessibility in Appendix 6.F.
6.2.2 Specific Challenges for those with Developmental Disabilities
Key respondents cited comprehension of leases as a major barrier for tenants with
developmental disabilities, as they may not understand what they are signing. The jargon with
which leases are written may result in a lack of clarity, including about responsibilities of the
tenant.
Other reports and advocacy efforts have also identified unique challenges facing those
with developmental disabilities, especially those reliant on family caretakers who may face their
own aging and disability challenges. For example, in a 2018 forum for developmentally disabled
advocacy in West Hawaiʻi. James Kilgore, Executive Director of Full Life Hawaiʻi, emphasized
the “precious little housing inventory” available for families with members living with
developmental disabilities, especially as their familial caregivers advance in age. Kilgore
recounted stories of people leaving the island if their families – often elderly parents – are unable
to care for them. He added that he knows of only two group homes in West Hawaiʻi and each
have extremely limited space and long waiting lists (Dibble 2018).
6.3 Increase education and support for landlords regarding the housing process for people
with disabilities
Our respondents emphasized the importance of landlord education to eradicate housing
discrimination for people with disabilities. Multiple stakeholders interviewed for this Analysis
of Impediments emphasized the need to educate landlords on fair housing issues related to rent
subsidies such as HCV and voucher programs, as well as placement of tenants. Additional
117
education about potential tenants living with disabilities would also be useful in addressing the
fear that some landlords may have of accepting a tenant with a disability with which they are not
familiar. Civil rights experts described the need for education on the specifics of reasonable
accommodation.
6.4 Lack of clarity about and landlord resistance to assistance animals
It was well noted throughout the stakeholder interviews for this Analysis of Impediments
that the presence of assistance animals can complicate housing qualifications for people with
disabilities, as landlords can be hesitant to rent to people with animals even when for disability
accommodation. The Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission defines assistance animals as:
“animals that work, assist, or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability. They can also be animals that provide emotional support. They are not pets. Assistance animals can include: service animals, support animals, therapy
animals, and comfort animals. An assistance animal does not have to be a dog.
Cats, birds, rabbits and other animals have been recognized as assistance animals.” (HCRC 2015) Respondents also raised a lack of overall clarity about service animals as a housing issue.
Accepting service animals is a requirement for landlords to meet reasonable accommodation
requests; however, many tenants with disabilities hesitate to disclose their service animals when
applying for housing out of fear of rejection from potential landlords. Civil rights expert
respondents explained that this lack of disclosure can often lead to landlord-tenant disputes, and
when the animal is discovered on property it can create confusion and problems. However,
respondents indicated that this fear is substantiated by the fact that rejection does sometimes
occur after a potential tenant’s self-disclosure of a disability or related service animal. It should
also be noted that some stakeholders alluded to the legitimacy of the title for certain animals –
for example, a request for the accommodation of ten emotional support chickens seemed to be
118
met with some suspicion on Maui. Reasonable restrictions on the use of an assistance animal can
be found in Appendix G.
Clear guidance and education on service animals for both landlords and tenants was
regarded by our respondents as a major field of improvement for Hawaii’s housing authorities.
The following recommendations were suggested as best practices.
First, education initiatives for landlords and property managers should be focused on
helping them to understand the differences between service animals, emotional support animals
and pets, as well as the laws for reasonable accommodation. This may help to facilitate
disclosure of service animals by potential tenants during the application process, minimizing the
potential for related landlord-tenant disputes. Additionally, education and training for people
with disabilities on how to minimize their service animal’s impact on neighboring tenants is
needed.
6.5 Summary of Recommendations
The majority of recommendations in this section relate to increasing the inventory of
accessible housing, education and support for landlords regarding the housing process for people
with disabilities, accessibility throughout the housing application process, and resources for
personnel offering housing support to people with disabilities.
First, increase targeted funding to design accessible housing in all forms (i.e. residences,
apartments, subsidized housing). Implement universal design in all new building projects to
enable visitability and aging in place. The 2016 Analysis of Impediments with a Focus on People
with Disabilities underscored this with a strong recommendation to revise both building codes
and zoning requirements to promote the construction of accessible and visitable housing (CDS
2016).
119
Second, increase education and support for landlords regarding the housing process for
people with disabilities, which will help to eradicate housing discrimination for people with
disabilities. This should include clear guidance and education on service animals, for both
landlords and tenants.
Third, accessibility is needed throughout the housing application process: housing
navigation and support services should be integrated into other programming for people with
disabilities, to address the need to recognize the broader, holistic needs of individuals and
combat siloing. Respondents recommended promoting more accessible web design following
best practices, including accessible website design for housing application processes. Specific
guidelines for website accessibility can be found in Appendix 6.F. Establishing a method of
anonymous reporting so that people with disabilities have a pathway to pursue their housing
concerns without fear of retaliation from landlords were also strongly recommended.
Finally, additional resources are needed for personnel offering housing support to people
with disabilities. Offer translation support for personnel offering housing support to people with
disabilities. For example, respondents at a youth shelter have created a lease “cheat sheet” for
case managers to help clients with developmental disabilities understand their leases in very
simple terms, which can serve as a model for other entities. We identified
Continue to support the potential of county ADRCs to help integrate housing navigation
and support services to serve elderly community members and those with disabilities in a holistic
manner.
120
Works Cited
Carpenter, M. (2022, March 21). Out-of-order elevator leaves kupuna concerned over
accessibility at housing complex. Https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/03/22/out-of-order-elevator-leaves-kupuna-concerned-over-accessibility-housing-complex/
Center on Disability Studies at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (CDS). (2016, November).
Analysis of Impediements to Fair Housing Choice in Hawaiʻi with a Focus on People with Disabilities. Hawaiʻi.gov. https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/files/2016/12/ANALYSIS-OF-IMPEDIMENTS-TO-FAIR-HOUSING-CHOICE-WITH-A-FOCUS-ON-PEOPLE-WITH-DISABILITIES_2016-NOV.pdf
Cruz-George, C. (2023, October 3). Universal Design and its Subtle Secrets. Hawaiʻi Home + Remodeling. https://www.hawaiihomemag.com/universal-design-and-its-subtle-secrets/
Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC). (2015, October 15). Assistance Animals As
Reasonable Accommodation in Housing. Hawaiʻi.gov. https://labor.hawaii.gov/hcrc/files/2019/12/HCRC-flyer-assistance-animal-FINAL-10.15.2015.pdf Ka Mana Na Helu. (2024, June). Bridging the gap CoC homeless point-in-time count.
Btghawaii.org.https://www.btghawaii.org/media/uploads/2024_btg_pit_count_report_final.pdf Morales, M. (2022, June 29). Residents with broken elevator seek help from federal agency.
Khon2.com. https://www.khon2.com/local-news/residents-with-broken-elevator-seek-
help-from-federal-agency/ Office of Public Affairs. (2023, October 20). Justice Department secures agreement with architects and builders of Hawaiʻi apartment complexes to resolve allegations of disability-based discrimination. Justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-
department-secures-agreement-architects-and-builders-hawaii-apartment-complexes Partners in Care Oʻahu’s Continuum of Care. (2024, May 14). Point In Time Count 2024. Adobe.com. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:929e372f-132d-4f02-b0a3-
36c5b4e43eb0?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
Thakarar, Kinna, Jake R. Morgan, Jessie M. Gaeta, Carole Hohl, Mari-Lynn Drainoni. 2017. "Homelessness, HIV, and Incomplete Viral Suppression." J Health Care Poor Underserved 27(1):145–156. Retrieved. January 14, 2025. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4982659/#:~:text=In%20a%202010%20study
%2C%20it,in%20the%20stably%2Dhoused%20population.&text=Homelessness%20has%20been%20identified%20as,particularly%20among%20HIV%2Dinfected%20individuals.)
121
Appendix 6.A
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/accessibility_first_requirements
Requirement 1: An accessible building entrance on an accessible route.
All covered multifamily dwellings must have at least one accessible building entrance on an accessible route unless it is impractical to do so because of the terrain or unusual
characteristics of the site.
An accessible route means a continuous, unobstructed path connecting accessible elements and spaces within a building or site that can be negotiated by a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair, and that is also safe for and usable by people with other
disabilities.
An accessible entrance is a building entrance connected by an accessible route to public transit stops, accessible parking and passenger loading zones, or public streets and
sidewalks.
Requirement 2: Accessible public and common use areas.
Covered housing must have accessible and usable public and common-use areas. Public
and common-use areas cover all parts of the housing outside individual units. They include -- for example -- building-wide fire alarms, parking lots, storage areas, indoor and
outdoor recreational areas, lobbies, mailrooms and mailboxes, and laundry areas.
Requirement 3: Usable doors (usable by a person in a wheelchair).
All doors that allow passage into and within all premises must be wide enough to allow
passage by persons using wheelchairs.
Requirement 4: Accessible route into and through the dwelling unit.
There must be an accessible route into and through each covered unit.
Requirement 5: Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls
in accessible locations.
Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls must be in
accessible locations.
Requirement 6: Reinforced walls in bathrooms for later installation of grab bars.
Reinforcements in bathroom walls must be installed, so that grab bars can be added when needed. The law does not require installation of grab bars in bathrooms.
Requirement 7: Usable kitchens and bathrooms.
Kitchens and bathrooms must be usable - that is, designed and constructed so an
individual in a wheelchair can maneuver in the space provided.
Reasonable Accommodation Challenges and Successes
122
Appendix 6.B
https://hpha.hawaii.gov/housing-assistance-programs#Mainstream
Non-Elderly Disabled (NED) Vouchers
Since 1997, Housing Choice Vouchers have been awarded under different special purpose voucher program types to serve non-elderly persons with disabilities (NED). Category 1
vouchers enable non-elderly persons or families with disabilities to access affordable housing on
the private market. Category 2 vouchers enable non-elderly persons with disabilities currently residing in nursing homes or other healthcare institutions to transition into the community. Certain Developments vouchers enable non-elderly families having a person with disabilities, who do not currently receive housing assistance in certain developments where owners establish
preferences for, or restrict occupancy to, elderly families, to obtain affordable housing. Designated Housing vouchers enable non-elderly disabled families, who would have been eligible for a public housing unit if occupancy of the unit or entire project had not been restricted to elderly families only through an approved Designated Housing Plan, to receive rental assistance.
Only income eligible families whose head of household, spouse or co-head is non-elderly (under age 62) and disabled may receive a NED voucher. Families with only a minor child with a disability are not eligible. Applicants will be selected from the PHA's HCV waiting list. When an eligible NED family comes to the top of the PHA’s HCV waiting list and a voucher becomes available, the PHA issues a voucher to the family. The voucher may be a specific NED voucher
or a regular voucher.
Mainstream vouchers
Mainstream vouchers assist non-elderly persons with disabilities. Aside from serving a special population, Mainstream vouchers are administered using the same rules as other housing choice vouchers. Funding and financial reporting for Mainstream vouchers is separate from the regular
tenant-based voucher program. NED vouchers serve non-elderly disabled families, defined as
families with a head, co-head, or spouse under age 62. While Mainstream Vouchers serve non-elderly persons with disabilities, they are not NED vouchers. The funding, monitoring, and eligibility requirements are different for NED vouchers and Mainstream Vouchers.
Households that include a non-elderly person with a disability are eligible to receive Mainstream
Vouchers. Non-elderly is defined as someone between 18 and 62 years of age. A household receiving Mainstream Voucher assistance does not lose its eligibility once the disabled person
exceeds 62 years of age; the household does not “age out” of the program.
123
Appendix 6.C
https://www.btghawaii.org/media/uploads/2024_btg_pit_count_report_final.pdf
Bridging the Gap 2024: Disability and Homelessness in Hawaiʻi, Kauaʻi and Maui Counties
In 2024, Bridging the Gap enumerated 1,895 individuals experiencing homelessness on Hawaiʻi island, Kauaʻi and Maui. The categories below reflect those related to people with disabilities per the PIT definitions and as defined by the key stakeholders interviewed for this report. Key terms used in these reports are used for PIT reporting purposes, and their definitions may
differ in some ways from the those found in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act and in HUD regulations. The key terms and definitions
below are relevant to people with disabilities:
Chronically Homeless (CH) Individual refers to an individual with a disability who has been continuously homeless for one year or more or has experienced at least four
episodes of homelessness in the last three years where the combined length of time
homeless in those occasions is at least 12 months.
Chronically Homeless (CH) People in Families refers to people in families in which the head of household or other adult member has a disability and has either been continuously homeless for one year or more or has experienced at least four episodes of
homelessness in the last three years where the combined length of time homeless in those occasions is at least 12 months. (Ka Mana O Na Helu, 2024)
BTG 2024 Homeless Subpopulations: Total by Subpopulation
● Chronic Individuals: 674
● Chronic Families: 14
o Chronic Family Individuals: 39 ● Serious Mental Illness: 637 ● Chronic Substance Use: 537 ● HIV/AIDS: 6
Hawaiʻi Island Homeless Subpopulations 2024 ● Chronic Individuals: 336 ● Chronic Families: 5 o Chronic Family individuals: 13
● Serious mental illness: 304 ● Chronic Substance Use: 267 ● HIV/AIDS: 3
Hawaiʻi Island Additional Unsheltered Questions
Disability-related data below reflects responses to the survey question, “What led to your current living situation?” in which respondents selected the primary reason as “Disability (mental/addiction/physical).” This question allowed for only
124
one selection, intended to be the primary reason that each household was living unsheltered. Of the 492 households surveyed, all households responded.
Primary Reason: Disability (mental/addiction/physical) ● Family Household: 0 ● Individual Household: 64
● Total: 64
● Percentage of Total: 13% Disability-related data below reflects responses to the survey question, “What can we do to help you end your homelessness?” in which respondents selected the primary reason as “Need medical care.” This question allowed for multiple
response selections intended to convey data on what services can be provided to assist in resolving the household’s unsheltered homelessness. All households picked at least one response from the options provided.
Homeless Service: Need medical care
● Family Household: 1 ● Individual Household: 51 ● Total: 38 ● Percentage of Total: 7.7%
Homeless Service: Medical Insurance ● Family Household: 1 ● Individual Household: 51 ● Total: 52
● Percentage of Total: 10.6%
Kauaʻi Homeless Subpopulations 2024 ● Chronic Individuals: 156 ● Chronic Families: 4 o Chronic Family Individuals: 12
● Serious Mental Illness: 123 ● Chronic Substance Use: 105 ● HIV/AIDS: 2
Maui Homeless Subpopulations 2024
● Chronic Individuals: 182 ● Chronic Families: 5 o Chronic Family Individuals: 14 ● Serious Mental Illness: 210 ● Chronic Substance Use: 165
● HIV/AIDS: 1
125
Appendix 6.D
Point In Time Count 2024: Disability and Homelessness in Honolulu County
The disability-related data below reflects (self-reported) characteristics of 1,308 unsheltered individuals and 1,728 sheltered individuals who were surveyed. It excludes the 1,458 unsheltered observations because these individuals were not asked about these conditions. Analyzed data
includes 3,036 individuals in 2,030 households, including 2,422 adults, 11 unaccompanied minors (UM), and 603 keiki (excluding UM). ● 26% (636) of adults and UMs (2,433) reported a Substance Use Disorder
● 33% (797) of adults and UMs (2,433) reported a Mental Illness
● 55% (1,329) of adults and UMs (2,433) reported One or More Disabling Conditions ● 36% (876) of adults and UMs (2,433) reported a Physical, Developmental, or Other
Disability ● 2% (37) of adults and UMs (2,433) reported living with HIV/AIDS
The disability-related data below reflects characteristics of the 1,728 individuals in 1,018
households counted in the sheltered 2024 PIT Count, including 1,196 adults and 532 keiki, 10 of
whom were unaccompanied minors. ● 22% (269) of sheltered adults and UMs (1,206) reported a Substance Use Disorder
● 47% (567) of sheltered adults and UMs (1,206) reported One or More Disabling Conditions ● 29% (352) of sheltered adults and UMs (1,206) reported a Mental Illness
● 35% (426) of sheltered adults and UMs (1,206) reported a Physical, Developmental, or
Other Disability The disability-related data below reflects data collected on 1,308 unsheltered people in 1,016 households, including 1,226 adults, 1 unaccompanied minor, and 81 keiki that completed
surveys. This data is not available for the 1,458 individuals who were observed. ● 30% (367) of unsheltered adults and UMs (1,227) reported a Substance Use Disorder ● 62% (762) of unsheltered adults and UMs (1,227) reported One or More Disabling
Conditions
● 36% (445) of unsheltered adults and UMs (1,227) reported a Mental Illness
● 37% (450) of unsheltered adults and UMs (1,227) reported a Physical, Developmental, or Other Disability
126
Appendix 6.E
https://health.hawaii.gov/dcab/guidance-on-web-site-accessibility/
Hawaiʻi Department of Health Disability Communication Access Board states the following policy on the accessibility of programming and services (State of Hawaiʻi 2024):
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires, in part, that state and local
government entities ensure that all programs, services, or activities be accessible to persons with disabilities. Web sites are considered to be a program or service of government utilized to disseminate information to the public. Therefore, the State must ensure that these web sites are accessible to persons with disabilities.
It is intended that all Departments of the Executive Branch meet the standards as set forth
by Department of Accounting and General Services, Information and Communication
Services Division (ICSD) in order to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for accessibility to persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not contain any specific standards for web site accessibility, therefore ICSD has established standards as set forth in the following technical
guidelines.
Each agency’s home page should include contact information in order to allow the public an alternative means to ask questions or request additional information. At a minimum, contact information should include a phone number, fax number and general e-mail address. E-mails received by a state agency should be responded to within two (2)
business days.
127
Appendix 6.F
https://labor.hawaii.gov/hcrc/files/2019/12/HCRC-flyer-assistance-animal-FINAL-
10.15.2015.pdf
According to the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (2015), housing providers may establish reasonable restrictions on the use of an assistance animal. Examples of some reasonable restrictions are: 1. Observing applicable laws, including leash laws and pick-up laws;
2. Assuming responsibility for any damage caused by the animal; 3. Having the dwelling cleaned upon vacating, by fumigation, deodorizing, professional carpet 4. cleaning, or other appropriate methods, at resident’s expense.
5. Cleaning up of the animal’s waste;
6. Having the animal licensed with the county, if required; 7. Having the animal vaccinated, with documentation of vaccinations; 8. Having the animal under the control of its handler, by use of a harness, leash, tether, cage or 9. other physical control. If the nature of the person’s disability makes physical control
impracticable, or if physical control would interfere with the assistance that the animal provides, the housing provider may require that the animal be otherwise under the control of its handler, by voice control, signals or other effective means. 10. Having the animal meet minimum sanitary standards.
128
Appendix 6.G
https://health.hawaii.gov/dcab/guidance-on-web-site-accessibility/
Hawaiʻi Department of Health Disability Communication Access Board provides guidance from Department of Accounting and General Services, Information and Communication Services
Division (ICSD) on web site accessibility (State of Hawaiʻi 2024), stating that all web-based
intranet and internet information and applications should be designed following standards set forth in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). (a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via “alt”, “longdesc”, or in element content).
(b) Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation shall be synchronized with
the presentation.
(c) Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.
(d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an associated
style sheet.
(e) Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-side image
map.
(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape.
(g) Row and column headers shall be identified for data tables.
(h) Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers.
(i) Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identification and navigation.
(j) Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a frequency greater
than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
(k) A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated
whenever the primary page changes.
(l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be identified with functional text that can be read by assistive technology.
129
7.0 VOUCHER PROGRAMS AND SOURCE OF INCOME PROTECTIONS
Source of income discrimination is the unequal treatment of applicants for rental housing
based on the income stream by which they intend to pay their rent. In the vast majority of cases,
this discrimination occurs when landlords refuse to rent to families with housing vouchers. This
type of discrimination is not a violation of the Fair Housing Act, but was outlawed by the State
of Hawaiʻi in 2023. Below we report on findings from interviews with stakeholders including
program administrators at Public Housing Administrations (PHAs) who are charged with
administering federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and other rental subsidy programs.
Affordable housing advocates as well as housing providers have identified multiple
challenges facing households attempting to use rental subsidies such as HCV, Emergency
Housing Vouchers, and other forms of rental subsidies (e.g. those for the homeless or veterans)
on the private rental market. Difficulties in securing rental agreements or leases can be
pronounced in tight rental markets such as Hawaiʻi. Nationally, these concerns are well-known
and have motivated the widespread legislation of source of income protections. As of 2024, 18
states, Washington, D.C. and thousands of municipalities have source of income protections, and
new state-level protections have been proposed in Arizona and New Mexico (Harrold 2024).
Indeed, the last analysis of impediments to fair housing for the state of Hawaiʻi identified
specific barriers facing voucher holders in the Honolulu context (Engel et al 2022). Voucher
holders reported facing numerous rejections on the rental market. The analysis identified an
apparently widespread practice of landlords and management companies refusing to rent to “
Section 8” or assisted households, including widespread verbal categorical refusals of assisted
tenants, including in rental advertising platforms (such as Zillow, Facebook, Craigslist, etc.). In
130
light of such concerns, after several years of advocacy on the part of fair housing stakeholders,
Hawaiʻi lawmakers successfully passed a new law in May 2023, Act 310, institutionalizing
source of income protections. Source of income protections are important in their own right but
also in terms of their potential to affirmatively further fair housing for other protected classes,
given that the preponderance of households eligible for assistance (based on income) and other
criteria also form part of other protected classes. This includes women, women with children,
and racialized minorities that have historically faced blocked access to housing. While housing
and civil rights experts as well as agency staff in Hawaiʻi laud the passage of this new law,
describing it as an important milestone toward the inclusion of assisted households, interviews
clearly noted the need for: more education and access to legal interpretation of the statute for
managers and landlords, agency staff, non-profit housing partners including navigators, tenants
and assisted households, and members of the public; educational resources including
infographics and more web-based resources to spread awareness and understanding of the law;
statutory clarity to improve enforcement; and increased funding for enforcement the law so that
it serves as a deterrent to discrimination.
Finally, staff from PHAs and others also described programmatic efforts that have been
effective in encouraging private landlords to accept HCV tenants, pointing to practices and
approaches that should be developed and continued in order to mitigate barriers to assisted
tenants’ housing choice.
7.1 Background on Hawaiʻi’s Act 310
In light of apparently rampant direct and indirect discrimination against voucher holders,
Act 310 represented a major accomplishment to support fair housing access to Hawaiʻi’s diverse
131
populations. Housing advocates and legislators had proposed other bills aimed to prevent source
of income discrimination, which failed to be enacted in previous legislative sessions. As just one
example, House Bill 130, introduced but deferred in 2021, would have explicitly prohibited
discrimination in advertisements (Hawaiʻi State Legislature 2022a).
It is worth noting that companion legislation also has been established to encourage
landlord participation in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, another important means
to affirmatively further housing access for assisted households. House Bill 1752, which passed
on May 5, 2022 and was enacted into law as Act 287, established the HCV landlord incentive
program, requiring Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority (HPHA), one of Oahu’s PHAs, to
establish incentives for landlords participating in the Section 8 tenant-based assistance HCV
program. It further required HPHA to amend or adopt rules to establish a reasonable time of 15-
days maximum after receipt of an owner's or landlord's inspection request within which to
inspect a dwelling unit for lease under the Section 8 HCV (Hawaiʻi State Legislature 2022b).
Act 310 was passed into law in late 2022 by the Hawaiʻi State legislature and became
enforceable as of May 1, 2023 in order to give the public a chance to understand and prepare for
the law’s implementation. This law prohibits discrimination “against prospective or current
tenants based on participation in a Permanent Supportive Housing program or any Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher program,” including discrimination in advertisements for available
“real property.” Act 310 applies primarily to landlords owning more than four rental properties,
with some exemptions allowed. The law stipulates a fine of up to $2,000 for initial violations and
$2,500 for subsequent violations (County of Hawaiʻi 2023).
132
Hawaiʻi housing stakeholders have lauded the act. For example, as quoted in a Hawaiʻi
County News update, Michael Yee, the Office of Housing and Community Development
Existing Housing Division Manager stated, “This law is a needed step in the right direction and
will help provide individuals and families greater access to affordable housing” (County of
Hawaiʻi 2023). As also reported in a Hawaiʻi County news update, Nicholas Severson, Legal Aid
Society of Hawaiʻi’s Housing Managing Attorney stated, “This law is important because it
prohibits landlords from turning away prospective tenants because they rely on housing
subsidies. Ideally, it should make it easier for low-income individuals to secure housing. It also
provides an enforcement mechanism that punishes landlords for advertising that they do not rent
to folks with housing subsidies, hopefully curtailing that very common practice” (County of
Hawaiʻi 2023).
Reporting on the bill and records of legislative testimony indicate that the bill included
several key compromises with advocates for landlords, property owners, and management
companies. Notably, the law has major exceptions, including exempting property owners who
own less than four rental properties. Stakeholders interviewed for this project as well as other
sources reviewed for this report thus identify potential weaknesses in the law that could be
remedied with future modifications and amendments. Interview respondents including PHA
program administrators also noted the need for more widespread education and public awareness
campaigns to clarify key elements of the law for all members of the public.
7.2 Limitations of Act 310
While fair housing advocates underscore the significance of Act 310, stakeholders also
noted its limits. One key issue is related to limited enforcement mechanisms and authorities.
133
Interview respondents with expertise in fair housing law indicated that, practically speaking, the
law would be very difficult to enforce. This is because the law does not charge any government
entity with enforcing Act 310; unlike other fair housing protections, enforcement is outside of
the scope of the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC). Respondents explained that this has
created potential confusion on the part of the public and other stakeholders. Importantly, as
written, the law also limits opportunities for individuals to hold landlords or their managers
accountable for violations. Unlike other fair housing laws, if an individual has experienced a
potential source of income discrimination, their only legal recourse would be to initiate legal
action on their own, or with private legal representation, and without the formal intervention of
HCRC.
Staff from one PHA reported the perception that landlords will be less likely to take this
law seriously given that the threat of its legal enforcement seems limited. One staff member
asked “where is the poster child [for voucher discrimination]?”, suggesting that, for the law to
have a meaningful effect, there should be publicized examples of landlords or managers having
been cited or penalized for discrimination in accordance with the law. Staff members also
contrasted the standard Fair Housing frameworks and language that apply to other federally
protected classes, accompanying all of their activities at the PHA, including signs which are
ubiquitous that state that discrimination based on other classes will be legally prosecuted. By
contrast, there are very limited materials that are available to housing staff, and those available
do not clearly indicate legal recourse or resources for those suspecting source of income
violations. One staff member is aware of a landlord who is charging an HCV tenant in their
building a higher rent as compared to a similar unit being rented to non-HCV tenant, which, in
this respondent’s view, represents a potential violation. Yet, this staff member is unclear how to
134
advise this tenant. Another tenant suspecting violations was told to contact Legal Aid Society but
reported back to case workers that they could not find any way to address the alleged income-
based discrimination.
A fair housing expert respondent explained that a gap exists between the law’s
enactment, awareness of the law, and how to enforce it. For example, if an individual were to
come to HCRC with a source of income issue, due to the terms of Act 310, HCRC would not be
able to initiate legal action. One challenge pointed out by interview respondents is that it would
be difficult for an individual who is not well versed in the law to represent themselves in court.
Another limit to the law is that its prescribed penalties are relatively modest. The law
outlines a fine of up to $2,000 for initial violations, with a fine of $2,500 to be issued for each
subsequent violation (County of Hawaiʻi 2023). In practical terms, these fees are relatively
modest, especially in light of the potential legal fees an individual might accrue in seeking
private representation to address alleged discrimination. Moreover, tenants might have trouble
securing private legal representation, due to relatively limited fees that a representing attorney
might be able to collect.
Several respondents noted that there is limited information that has been made available
to the broad public. A lack of information is noteworthy given that the law itself has distinctive
ambiguities and is different from other fair housing protections. One respondent noted that a
basic internet search is unlikely to result in clear information about Hawaiʻi’s law. This
respondent pointed to examples of existing public notifications that could potentially result in
more confusion by noting that protections are only offered to tenants in “some situations”
without providing further detail. One of the public websites in which information about the law
135
is posted includes an invitation “For More info” which leads to a “Page Not Found” on the State
Office of Housing and Homeless Services website.
Despite its strengths, Act 310 as written is limited in scope, as it does not apply to all
landlords nor all rental assistance programs. Indeed, respondents note that details of the law offer
“many” exceptions, and “many” types of housing providers are exempt. Notably, landlords with
a smaller number of rental units (less than four) may be exempt from the law, and lower-income
individuals utilizing other forms of rental assistance may not be protected against discrimination
in the housing market. In this way, Act 310 only partially addresses housing discrimination based
on source of income.
7.3 Limited public awareness of law
Interview respondents as well as news sources pointed out the need for more public
information and outreach about the law, and they identified specific points of confusion in the
current law that future efforts should remedy. Specifically, the law indicated that HCRC and
another public agency were required to post information about the law on their websites, where
basic information can be found. However, expert respondents noted that there was limited
reaction from the public, aside from a few inquiries from attorneys and other housing
organizations who had questions about interpretation. At the same time, respondents pointed out
that if their agency gets inquiries, it is difficult to know how to respond to tenants with potential
concerns. Respondents suggested that for members of the lay public, without a legal background,
the statute is difficult to interpret without the assistance of private legal representation—which
for many tenants would be costly, time consuming, and difficult to access. Moreover, while the
136
law allows for HCRC to provide information about the law, the protection is unique from other
protections in that HCRC does not have jurisdiction over enforcement.
7.4 Legal efforts to strengthen the tenant protections in Act 310
In light of the limited scope of Act 310, as identified above, there have been recent legal
attempts to offer more tools to prevent discrimination against subsidized tenants. HCRC for
example has supported bills to allow for counties to create their own enforcement mechanisms
and has publicly stated willingness to continue supporting such bills. For example, SB327, as
proposed, allows counties to prohibit discrimination against renters based on their source of
income. Though the 2022 Legislature passed Act 310, Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (2023)
recommended support of SB327 due to Act 310’s limitations. SB327 would have allowed the
counties to pass a stronger ordinance. However, according to the Hawaiʻi State Legislature
(2023), the status of SB327 is “Engrossed – Dead” as of December 12, 2023 and was carried
over to 2024 Regular Session.
According to the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (2020), an income
discrimination law can maximize its strength and efficacy by creating strong campaigns at the
state and local levels; providing explicit protections for families with vouchers; limiting
exemptions to the law (especially those for small property owners); and ensuring a strong
enforcement mechanism though a private right of action, available damages that are not capped,
and attorneys' fees paid by the losing defendant. Detailed guidance for “crafting a strong and
effective source of income discrimination law” can be found in Appendix A (Poverty and Race
Research Action Council, 2020).
137
7.5 Education and Clarification about the law is needed
Respondents from PHAs all voiced support for more education, information, and public
awareness about the law. In particular, respondents identified the following areas of confusion
among the public: 1) Which landlords are included and exempt from the law? ; 2) How does the
law apply to management companies that have been given authority over multiple properties?;
and 3) Where do tenants, housing counselors, and agency staff members go for legal
interpretation of the law?
There is a critical need for more information online and more public facing materials
such as infographics or handouts that can be shared with clients. For example, one agency’s staff
has indicated that, unlike rules for other potential forms of discrimination where the protocols
and processes for dealing with them are clear, staff do not know exactly how to explain the law
nor do they understand tenant options. Agency staff specifically mentioned that even web
searches provide limited information upon which they can interpret Hawaiʻi’s source of income
law.
For example, one administrator noted that while they were not aware of specific attempts
to “skirt the law”, the responsibility and liability of management companies was unclear. In the
case that large landlords give responsibility to management companies, would the landlord or
management company (if they managed less than four properties) be exempt? Or, in reverse,
would management companies with many properties, including those of landowners with less
than four properties, be exempt?
Overall, administrators mentioned the importance of using multiple venues and forms of
information dissemination to spread awareness of the law and to specifically educate landlords
138
and tenants: meetings (in-person and online); presentations; social media, etc. Others emphasized
the importance of having public-facing staff of PHAs available to answer questions by phone or
email.
7.6 Voucher programs, stigma, and other protected classes
PHA administrators noted that while they have observed changes in terms of rental
advertising, prospective tenants still report to case managers that when they inquire about
properties, they sometimes receive verbal rejections due to their voucher status. In general,
administrators also noted that they do see continued risk of stigma against voucher holders and
that some landlords and property managers reportedly hold negative stereotypes of voucher
holders.
In addition to barriers facing voucher holders as a class in general, subgroups among
them (including those protected by other fair housing laws) may face additional barriers. Several
respondents noted concerns about distinct challenges facing Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
voucher households. One PHA, Kauaʻi County, noted that Limited English speaking families,
including those of Micronesian backgrounds, are a newly served community in their jurisdiction
who might face difficulty engaging with landlords or might even face discrimination based on
their ancestry or national origin as well. Members from other PHAs also noted potential risks
especially for Micronesian households and have noted that the state as whole, across sectors and
different public housing programs, needs to do a better job ameliorating and combating
discrimination against Micronesian families while also being aware and accepting of specific
cultural norms. One respondent noted that across Hawaiʻi’s housing programs, there are
widespread misunderstandings about cultural norms of Pacific Islander and Micronesian
139
communities. One such cultural practice is the holding of relatively large gatherings and
generally “living in community” that are more typical of Pacific Islander households. Our
respondent suggested that such a practice is often seen negatively by local landlords. This
respondent encouraged building awareness and acceptance of such practices. Another suggestion
includes bringing services, including job training programs and other supports into specific
communities where housing programs serve relatively large numbers of Micronesian families
(respondents identified examples of such communities in Hawaiʻi County, Honolulu County, and
elsewhere).
Respondents from another PHA noted concerns about LGBTQ households, especially
transgender youth who are facing rejection from their families and are thus at higher risks of
homelessness. This respondent noted instances of discrimination by landlords against would-be
tenants including voucher holders who are LGBTQ identified and using rental subsidies, and
described efforts by non-profit partners to support the LBGTQ community of renters by
arranging “master leases” and thus staving off risk of discrimination.
One respondent noted that Micronesian families may be penalized by housing programs
and leases (including as supported by vouchers) that prohibit long absences. This administrator
noted that given the high costs of travel, they have seen that householders with roots in different
Pacific Island nations, including nations in the Micronesia region, may leave for long periods of
time with unclear return dates due to the high cost of travel. Such households may be at greater
risk of losing housing benefits due to factors related to their familial and cultural ties and
practices, as well as financial vulnerability.
140
Finally, among HCV assisted households, those experiencing mental illness or
individuals with disabilities may also face unique barriers. One staff member noted this is a
distinctive concern with Emergency Housing Vouchers designed to re-house homeless
individuals, especially those who have been chronically homeless (defined as those with a
concurrent mental illness, disability or addiction). As reported by one respondent, those with
mental health concerns need more support and are often at risk of not being accepted as a tenant
or being evicted, or even “falling out” of the program. Thus, more partnership with HCV
programs and other permanent supportive services targeted for those with disabilities or illness
was recommended.
7.7 Encouraging landlords to accept voucher holders as tenants
Act 310 was designed to address key barriers to accessing housing, including landlord
stereotypes of voucher holders and other misconceptions of or negative perceptions of HCV
programs. To further ameliorate such barriers, both respondents and existing literature have
identified ways that the stock of available rental housing can be made practically more accessible
to assisted tenants.
First, respondents from PHA staff noted they have encountered landlords and property
managers that have misconceptions about the rental subsidies including beliefs that they must be
registered with HUD or somehow be participants in a “program”. To address these
misconceptions, agency staff have made themselves available to answer questions and engage in
a range of education efforts to reach landlords and explain the benefits of renting to a voucher
holder. Some respondents noted the value of having dedicated landlord liaisons which most of
the PHAs, but not all, have staffed at the time of this report. These PHAs noted that it can go a
141
long way to having a dedicated staff member be available to answer questions, attend events
such as real-estate conventions where property owners and managers may be. This is one
important recommendation for all PHAs to establish staff to serve in the landlord liaison role.
Some landlord engagement positions and efforts have also been funded and supported by private
philanthropy.
Research shows that a range of other incentives may be important to encourage landlords
to welcome tenants who may be seeking tenancy with the support of voucher income. Although a
major randomized control trial sponsored by HUD is still underway to identify those incentives
that are most promising, PHAs in Hawaiʻi reported engaging in the following efforts to “recruit”
landlords and encourage them to welcome voucher applicants; respondents reported specific
successes with these efforts:
● Active efforts by PHA staff to respond to landlord reports of tenant concerns, including
PHA staff contacting tenants to encourage tenants to meet their obligations (in terms of
timely rent payments as well as unit upkeep)
● Providing compensation to landlords for unit damages or insurance against the risk of
unit damage.
● Cash incentive programs for landlords who rent to assisted households.
● A general “customer service” approach by agency staff.
● Staff positions to educate landlords and property managers about the benefits of having
HCV tenants, including dedicated landlord liaisons.
● Outreach and education efforts of all kinds including personal networking, word of
mouth, in-person summits, web training, and informal outreach (though one respondent
noted that landlords are “too busy” to attend in-person landlord summits).
142
Given the positive results reported by interview respondents of such measures, one
recommendation is to continue to allocate resources to such positions and efforts. As
experimental studies, such as those currently being fielded, yield results, those identified as most
promising should receive focused attention and investment, perhaps including non-profit and
philanthropic partners.
7.8 Summary of Recommendations
Recommendations in this section focus on several subtopics related to housing vouchers.
First, in relation to Act 310, several of our respondents identified the necessity of enforcement
regulations. Respondents suggested the dissemination of clear and concise informational material
relating to the function and protections of Act 310, including an exemplary “poster child” case,
direction for enforcement, and public-facing materials for clients seeking amelioration in relation
to that law. Several respondents additionally recommended educational programs for landlords
and property managers on Act 310 to ensure the law is followed, be that through programs,
social media, Zoom meetings, or simply online materials. Respondents additionally identified the
need for straightforward enforcement policies. Bill SB327 represents a means of ensuring
effective enforcement for Act 310 and similar laws. Our respondents repeatedly stressed the need
for HCRC to begin enforcement of Act 310, using state funds to conduct an audit of rental
listings and pursue litigation against scofflaws.
Second, in response to secondary status discrimination for voucher holders, our
respondents recommended further educational outreach to landlords and property managers on
the topic of cultural practices and legal protections of racial minority and LEP communities,
primarily Micronesian and Pacific Islander households. Alongside this recommendation is
143
another to bring job training, tenant regulation guidance, and educational programs to areas and
voucher-participant properties with high densities of Micronesian tenants, which was suggested
to help ease tenant-landlord relations and help these secondary status voucher communities to
understand their rights and expectations in Hawaiʻi’s housing market.
Our respondents identified a few other secondary status discrimination areas. For
LGBTQ households and tenant seekers, our respondents suggest operating housing navigation
programs or de-identified master leases to ensure that gender identity is hidden, hopefully
creating a barrier to discrimination. For populations with required, financially enforced, or
otherwise long periods of absence, our respondents suggested implementing a program with
some form of exception policy to those who require long-term travel to ensure their benefits are
retained. For populations with disabilities and mental illnesses, our respondents recommended
building stronger partnerships between nonprofit housing organizations and government bodies
such as HPHA and HCV to ensure this protected class can be housed and navigate the housing
market with effective support.
Third and finally, in response to landlord comprehension and engagement with voucher
programs, several of our respondents recommended strong and established educational and
facilitatory programs aimed at landlords. In terms of education, our respondents suggested
holding outreach initiatives, as simple as Zoom conferences, to answer questions and eliminate
misconceptions of voucher rules and regulations amongst landlords and property managers.
Some of our respondents additionally recommended having established and permanent landlord
liaisons within housing agencies and PHAs to answer any questions that may prop up in the
voucher tenant process. In terms of improving landlord engagement, a great deal of preliminary
research and experimental programs of incentivizing landlords to accept voucher holders as
144
tenants has proved promising, and several of our respondents suggested accepting and expanding
these initiatives. Our respondents additionally suggested clarifying, in revised legislation, how
the property exemption applies to property management and real estate agents, and to remove the
exemption for landlords with small portfolios, except in the case of landlords who live on the
property.
145
Works Cited
County of Hawaiʻi. (2023, May 8). New Law Prohibits Discrimination Against Tenants With Housing Vouchers. County of Hawaiʻi News. https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/Home/Components/News/News/3321/720
Engel, R., P. Garboden, J. Darrah, N. Rita, K. Polster, M. Harangody. (2022, June). State of
Hawaiʻi Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing: Phase 2 Report.
Harrold, B. (2024, January 23). Source of income laws on the rise. Naahq.org. https://www.naahq.org/source-income-laws-rise
Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission. (2023, January 23). MINUTES. Hawaiʻi.gov. https://labor.hawaii.gov/hcrc/files/2023/02/HCRC-Minutes-1-23-23-1-30-23-1.pdf
Hawaiʻi State Legislature. (2023, December 11). Hawaiʻi SB327. LegiScan.
https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB327/id/2886157
Hawaiʻi State Legislature. (2022a). HB1390. Hawaiʻi State Legislature 2022 Archives. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=
HB&billnumber=1390&year=2022
Hawaiʻi State Legislature. (2022b). HB1752 HD3 SD1 CD1. Hawaiʻi State Legislature 2022 Archives. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1752&year=2022
Poverty and Race Research Action Council. (2020, March). Crafting a strong and effective
source of income discrimination law. Prrac.org. https://www.prrac.org/pdf/crafting-a-
strong-and-effective-source-of-income-discrimination-law.pdf
Sequeira, R. (2023, July 21). Some states protect Section 8 renters, but enforcement is elusive. Stateline. https://stateline.org/2023/07/21/some-states-protect-section-8-renters-but-
enforcement-is-elusive/
[1] “Discrimination” prohibited under the law includes advertising a rental property as not accepting vouchers;
refusing to engage in a rental transaction with someone based on their participation in a housing assistance program;
and requiring rental conditions that are different from those required for a person not participating in a housing
assistance program (County of Hawaiʻi 2023).
146
147
8.0 TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITAL TOOLS
While Hawaiʻi saw remarkable growth in its digital housing infrastructure, our
respondents, especially in the nonprofit sector, identified several access barriers relating to the
implementation and use of digital tools in the administrative, maintenance, and outreach
initiatives of housing development and management organizations. These issues were reported
across organizations in all sectors of the housing ecosystem, from homeless services groups to
developers to legal clinics. Variance in ability to engage with digital systems was cited as a
major barrier for some of Hawaiʻi’s populations, notably elderly and LEP communities, who
reportedly had a difficult time understanding the process of digital administrative needs, such as
online form-filling, document access, and online applications. This barrier is compounded by
device accessibility; our respondents noted that some of their clientele base does not have access
to a computer, or otherwise does not have access to reliable broadband or cellular connection.
Language barriers were noted for COFA and racial minority populations. Our respondents
highlighted several recommendations revolving around digital literacy and device accessibility.
For digital literacy, suggestions surrounded the development of training and educational
programs, with the added advice of maintaining in-person services at some level for folks who
do not have access to digital tools. In terms of digital access, our respondents noted their own
success with mobile outreach popups, and recommended the practice be expanded and adopted
by other agencies. Language was noted to be a more structural issue (see the Race, Ethnicity, and
Language section), and suggestions revolved around improving language options and
simplifying English language materials. Additionally, some of our respondents suggested that
standardizations and regulations be placed on Artificial Intelligence (AI) translation software.
148
8.1 Development of Digital Outreach
Starting on a more positive note, several of our respondents reported that, especially in
the face of Covid-19 lockdown procedures during 2019 to 2022, they were pushed to develop
online platforms to continue to effectively provide services to their client groups. Many of our
respondents anecdotally suggested that this push actually increased their new client outreach and
improved their ability to quickly service their existing clients. For example, our respondents told
us that while they initially faced some expected start-up challenges in digitizing their outreach
systems, they have retained the full functionality of their platforms post-COVID, reporting
increased client engagement and intake as a result. While these respondents did not share more
mechanically complex details, they noted that the digitization of their forms both helped their
clients to quickly access any documentation they needed (such as rent statements or proof of
residency), and greatly improved internal processing speed thanks to the inherent standardization
that came with digitization. Similarly, it was noted that digitization improved communication
between organizations. Some of our respondents have established communicative partnerships
centered around placing families in homes through the Housing First model, and with digitized
systems are able to clearly request, fill, and administrate documentation for their clients. One
respondent noted that their landlord engagement program benefited greatly from an increased
online presence. Through platform services such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, they are able to
educate and incentivize landlords on issues in the Homeless Services sector, and hopefully
encourage them to engage with housing-first programs. Other respondents echoed this sentiment,
noting the increased efficacy of this program through digitization of systems.
On a less administrative level, several of our respondents noted that educational
initiatives for tenants and landlords benefit from some level of digitization. Importantly, very
149
few of these educational initiatives were moved entirely into the digital space; rather, educational
programs were often supplemented with stable, updatable online platforms and materials. One
respondent reported that their materials on Fair Market Rent were made permanently available
online with the goal of helping their clients understand rent pricing in their counties or local
areas. Similarly, others noted that their financial education programs, which seek to assist clients
in understanding their own finances, lending, and the realities of the housing market, were
moved to online platforms and have benefited from the increased speed and convenience of
forms that can be digitally submitted.
One respondent offered a good summary of most of our respondents’ opinions on
educational outreach: they stressed the importance of having easy to access and clearly
understandable educational materials made available online for any client group to access at any
time. Putting the information in the hands of the client helps them make informed decisions that
they are in control of, securing their agency while allowing them to interact with the affordable
housing system.
In summation of our respondents’ reported digitization initiatives, we saw a slow but
steady adaptation to digital tools during the COVID-19 lockdown, with many services being
either transitioned to or, more commonly, duplicated within digital platforms. The majority of
digitization occurs with the administrative and documentary needs of our respondent
organizations. This includes but is not limited to: client-side forms, inter-organization
communications, and internal efficiency.
For clients, this trend can be understood as adapting them to a form of digital citizenship,
wherein their profiles and documents are easily accessible and recorded (Grimes and Porter
2024). To an extent, these programs help to close the digital divide, however the process is not
150
always smooth, as we will shortly discuss. Additionally, clients may benefit from the availability
of educational materials. Some of the examples of such materials our respondents offered
included informational sheets on their rights as tenants, fair market practices, and changes of law
in the housing market.
The standout digitization initiative concerned landlord education and outreach. Many of
our respondent organizations reported that building a relationship with landlords and property
managers was important for “getting their foot in the door” and hopefully expanding programs
such as Housing First or low-income housing into new properties once landlords understood the
nature of the programs and hypothetical tenants. Digitization was reported to notably increase the
capacity of these landlord outreach programs, and provide improved flexibility in scheduling and
administering any kind of educational or community-building session.
It is difficult to say with certainty if digitization has a direct correlation with outreach and
client capacity. While quantitative research that accesses our respondent organizations’ private
data could shed some light on the more empirical efficacy of digitization in these fields, our
qualitative responses strongly indicate that digitization, especially duplication (rather than
replacement), of services does have a notable impact. Often, our respondents would bring up
their perceptions of increased capacity due to technology adaptation without any specific
prompting. COVID-19 forced Hawaiʻi and our largely lagging digital sector (in comparison to
other American states) to quickly adapt to new models of client-provider interaction (Omnitrak
2024). The housing market is clearly no exception, and we can see that our organizations’
adaptation to that new model has generated, and continues to generate, gains in administrative,
outreach, and educational capacity.
151
8.2 Elderly Populations and Digital Literacy
Despite the gains reported from digitization efforts, no growth is without growing pains.
One such issue frequently reported, especially in the Native Hawaiian Services sector, was the
lack of digital literacy amongst our elderly and kūpuna populations. Digital literacy is a catch-all
term describing an individual’s ability to understand computer terminology, interact effectively
with online platforms, and operate digital devices. A relevant respondent reported that many of
the kūpuna they work with have notable difficulty with understanding digitized systems, even the
ones they pioneered.
It’s difficult to say exactly why elderly and kupuna populations may be lacking in their
ability to operate in a digitized environment. Commonsensically, previous research has indicated
that for aging adults, especially those who did not adapt to digital systems during the early days
of computing, the barrier to entry can feel insurmountable due to the perceived novelty and
complexity of computers and digital spaces (Gleason and Suen 2022). Gleason and Suen
described this barrier as being similar to learning a new language or culture, something difficult
for most people, let alone the elderly. Aging adults often do not understand digital systems the
way more recent generations, those who grew up alongside digital technology, do. This
phenomenon is one facet of the “digital divide” that has severe impacts on the ability of people
to effectively interact in society (Fourcade 2021). Some of this digital divide can be attributed to
structural issues - “about 30% of all households in the United States lack broadband access, and
59% of homes with household income less than $20,000 lack access” (Duggan 2015). However,
our research indicates that for many of the communities our respondents serve, it is largely an
issue of comfort and relationship-building.
152
One respondent reported that after some initial struggles with kūpuna operating digital
tools, their service providers began to
“provide assistance to the communities by the [sic] online, you know, through us, helping them walk through the applications, they could come in. I know in the
beginning it was COVID, so it was hard for us to have no sit down
(appointments). Since 2022, we started to open up the doors and have everyone, you know, make an appointment and come down… [we did this] to help out those who have never received assistance.” This method of providing in-person appointments to, essentially, offer a “walkthrough”
of how to use the digital tools they provided was reported to be successful in helping new and
existing clients apply for financial assistance and otherwise operate effectively within their
systems.
Another respondent, which also primarily services Native Hawaiian clients, reported that
the overwhelming majority of their services, including both of their homebuyer’s assistance
programs, are digitally distributed. This respondent works to provide financial assistance to
elderly and kupuna populations with the goal of helping them age in place. Despite their strong
digital presence, they offer and maintain in-person services and appointments that, reportedly,
help their elderly and kupuna clients understand and navigate digital finance platforms. In this
case, the organization
“needed to get out, you know, into the community and take those intake forms with them. And you need to, you know, create safe spaces for them (kupuna) to gather. They (kupuna) do love to spend time with each other in groups, and so if
you create opportunities for them to do that, they will show up, especially if you
provide them food. And so, you know, it took a lot of on the ground work for us to do that, and earn their trust.” It is worth noting that respondent organizations servicing Native Hawaiians were the
grand majority of respondents who noted the lack of digital literacy and assistance programs for
aging adults. While it is difficult to say if there are digital equity issues disproportionately
153
impacting Native Hawaiian elderly populations without further research, this is a strong
indication that some educational or training resources should be diverted towards these at-risk
populations to improve their ability to find and live in affordable housing. If nothing else, our
respondents indicated that retaining some level of in-person appointments and support is a best-
practice option, as without it, a significant portion of Hawaiʻi’s population is unable to
effectively operate within the housing market and modern society at large. Additionally, hosting
a group setting for elderly and kupuna populations appears to be more successful in reaching
these communities.
8.3 Infrastructural and Language Barriers within Digital Tools
Our respondents noted similar digital equity concerns for racial minority populations,
specifically those who are LEP and those living in technologically underserved areas. Unlike the
relationship between technology and elderly populations, this relationship tended to be identified
by our respondents as an issue of digital access rather than an issue of digital literacy and
ongoing support (although digital literacy does wrap around into a larger access issue). Digital
access is a catch-all term representing an individual or community’s ability to connect with the
digital world, and includes variables such as device and broadband availability, skill knowledge,
and language barriers. Previous research by the Department of Business, Economic
Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) suggests that digital access in Hawaiʻi is not uniform, be
that due to inconsistent broadband coverage, differing computer access in households, or digital
infrastructure presence across the counties of Hawaiʻi (DBEDT 2016; Omnitrak 2024; Ternus,
Lum, and Kanaiaupuni 2022). Our respondents tended to unintentionally align with DBEDT’s
findings, reporting several geographic and linguistic barriers to entry of the affordable housing
system and housing market at large.
154
One respondent identified several racial and linguistic minority populations located in
rural areas of Hawaiʻi that struggled with digital tools related to accessing affordable housing,
including Waianae, Waimanalo, and across Maui. In this case, our respondent reported that they
noticed a low level of interaction with their CARES Act funded rent relief program in these
communities. This group “did a lot of analysis on that data to look at who was receiving it (rent
relief)” and “started doing special outreaches [...] early on in the program” to identify
underserved areas. They found that because of the comparatively low level of digital
infrastructure present in these communities, they “found [..] pukas; we would go in and cover
them, meaning if we were lower than what we thought statistically should have been with certain
populations we went out and worked with them.”
While this respondent did not share the mechanical specifics of their method of analysis,
they did share their best-practice solution. The organization prioritized hiring or working with
local community leaders or organizations within the underserved areas to facilitate access to their
rent relief services; in Waimānalo, for example, they worked with the Castle Foundation to
develop to do a lot of direct outreach to communities and integrate rent relief application support
with existing programs. It was reported that working with the communities in this sense not only
helped to strengthen place-based reputation, but to fully understand the needs of the communities
and the on-the-ground realities of their situation, which in turn allowed them to customize
services and outreach which purportedly improved their aid capacity.
Our respondents also identified linguistic barriers to accessing housing assistance. Here,
folks from or within minority communities that had a relatively incomplete understanding of the
English language struggled to comprehend and submit the required forms for rent relief. This
was especially problematic for minority groups that spoke less common languages, such as
155
Micronesian languages (e.g. Chuukese). As the grand majority of administrative systems of not
only our respondents, but the housing system at large, have become firmly entrenched in digital
platforms, the ability to read or effectively translate English has become critical in one’s
interaction with the affordable housing system, if not society itself (Joppke 2019).
Our respondents identified language access as being “the first step before going to
everything [else].” They reported that while well-resourced languages in Hawaiʻi, such as
Chinese and Filipino, often have established organizations or translation services, marginalized
languages have few options for translation. In discussion of the Section 8 housing program, our
respondents noted that Section 8 changes, updates, and resources are all posted online in the
English language. It was reported that, in this case, “if they (people) do not understand, what is
there, what is available, how to access, how to apply, or how to fill the form, they cannot get to
the need that they are looking for.” Not only is this a language barrier, but a technological
language barrier. They reported that the complexity of electronic submittal systems were
“limiting how [many] people can access to [sic] the application” due to these online services
being not only in English, but a specific and complex form of English found on digital platforms.
Our respondents repeatedly stressed the importance of language access as a first-step priority in
limiting barriers to accessing affordable housing, and the importance of limiting the complexity
of digital platform language to improve translation as a secondary measure.
Our respondents reported similar language concerns and identified “technological
underservice” for impoverished or marginalized populations. They emphasized that while their
rent relief program was generally successful, particularly in its collaborative approach with non-
profits, there were notable shortcomings in the program's reach, especially in terms of language
services. The majority of the assistance was provided in English, which disadvantaged non-
156
English speakers, particularly Korean, Vietnamese, and Micronesian language groups. Some of
our respondents hypothesized that this language barrier was compounded by the fact that the
most computer-savvy individuals were able to secure the most funding, highlighting a need for
greater technological accessibility, such as providing laptops and internet access. The necessity
of internet access and form scanning created additional hurdles for already disadvantaged non-
English speakers.
Geographic and linguistic barriers represent a much more structural barrier to access than
digital literacy. While digital literacy can be taught with relative efficacy, it is extremely difficult
to provide the same level of service for disadvantaged languages (Grimes and Porter 2024;
Krippner 2017). Nonetheless, our respondents identified several best-practice measures towards
limiting the digital divide we see here.
All of our respondents that worked with geographically “undigitized” communities
reported that working directly with community members who were either bilingual or
technologically savvy (or ideally both) to assist other community members with translation
digital access was the best way to counter geographic and linguistic barriers overall. This method
was reported to at once strengthen the ties between the community and the organization, and to
improve the self-determination of the community itself. The overall goal was to identify local
leaders who could assist in administering program services with a high degree of trust and
outreach. As the efficacy of online translation services are sometimes substandard, this method
was reported to additionally improve the level of comprehension of the rights, forms, and
practices associated with programs for client groups.
Our respondents identified two other best-practice measures for improving linguistic
digital equity. First, to limit the complexity of English-language forms and informational
157
resources so that when translated, they are easy to comprehend for non-English speakers. While
it was reported that this is somewhat a stopgap measure to indirectly improve online translation,
it is also a general best practice as the complexity and specificity of English legal terminology is
often not interculturally shared. Second, it was suggested that providing any housing-related
resources be done in multiple languages and alongside resources for translation into less
common languages in Hawaiʻi.
Respondents highlighted the benefits of reducing geographic and linguistic barriers
through in-person documentation verification and having a user-friendly backend system, as
exemplified by the collaboration between relevant organizations. One respondent additionally
runs the 211 helpline, a short-form telephone line used to connect its clients with internal
resources, including translation services. This respondent praised the 211 translation helpline,
citing its efficacy, but noted that not all of its client groups were aware of its existence.
Nevertheless, it was reported that offering a nearly 24/7 assistance line was valuable for their
ability to assist and direct their clients towards whatever resources or programs they were
seeking. Thus, as with elderly and kupuna digital barriers, retaining some level of in-person
services for both translation and digital documentation/form filling assistance would be a
valuable measure towards limiting the digital divide surrounding the affordable housing system.
8.4 Summary of Recommendations
Our respondents highlighted digital literacy and device accessibility as major barriers for
clients dealing with fair housing, further complicated by language access. For digital literacy,
suggestions surrounded the development of training and educational programs, with the added
advice of maintaining in-person services at some level for folks who do not have access to digital
tools. Educational programs were suggested to be performed both online and offline, with large-
158
scale Zoom meetings for those able and smaller, in person one-on-one or limited group settings
for those needing a more detailed guide through computer operation. While this recommendation
was most often centered around individual nonprofits and government organizations treating
such as a best practice, for each entity to run on their own, several of our respondents
recommended linking a short guided walkthrough to outreach and informational materials. Our
respondents suggested that having a walkthrough readily available when disseminating things
like new forms or HUD documentation guidelines would help less digitally literate individuals
access those services. Additionally, some of our respondents recommended holding training
programs or similar events specifically in areas that notably suffered from low digital literacy - a
kind of place-based, community-focused local training. These respondents believed that
involving and working hands-on with these communities to better understand what their specific
barriers to digital literacy were would lead to more effective training, and thus outreach.
In terms of digital access, our respondents noted their own success with mobile outreach
popups, and recommended the practice be expanded and adopted by other agencies. This ties in
with the above community-based educational programs suggestion. Our respondents noted that
running local pop-up centers, often in partnership with local nonprofits, both raises awareness of
housing programs and helps to provide temporary computer devices for those who may not have
them. These pop-ups are then able to provide the guidance on computer use and required
application materials that some prospective clients might need. Language was noted to be a more
structural issue, and suggestions revolved around improving language options and simplifying
English language materials. Korean, Vietnamese, and Micronesian languages were earmarked as
those needing the most support in translating digital forms, as these languages either were not
commonly offered in digital materials and/or did not translate well considering the specific
159
vocabulary of English used in housing application, education, or legal materials. While the
majority of language-centered recommendations can be found in the Race, Ethnicity, and
Language chapter, two specific recommendations related to technology were identified here.
First, the use of simple English or the creation of simple English versions of documents relating
to housing would assist existing translation tools to more accurately and legibly translate
documents for LEP clients. Second, the operation of translation helplines to assist LEP device
users in navigating Hawaiʻi’s digital infrastructure. Additionally, some of our respondents
suggested that standardizations and regulations be placed on Artificial Intelligence (AI)
translation software, although no specific recommendations were made.
160
Works Cited
DBEDT, Burt. 2016. “Digital Equity Declaration.Pdf.”
Duggan, John B. Horrigan and Maeve. 2015. “Home Broadband 2015.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 28, 2024 (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/12/21/home-broadband-2015/).
Fourcade, Marion. 2021. “Ordinal Citizenship.” The British Journal of Sociology 72(2):154–
73. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12839.
Gelles-Watnick, Risa. 2024. “Americans’ Use of Mobile Technology and Home Broadband.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 16, 2024 (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband/).
Gleason, Kelly, and Jonathan J. Suen. 2022. “Going beyond Affordability for Digital Equity: Closing the ‘Digital Divide’ through Outreach and Training Programs for Older Adults.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 70(1):75–77. doi: 10.1111/jgs.17511.
Grimes, Neil D., and William Porter. 2024. “Closing the Digital Divide Through Digital
Equity: The Role of Libraries and Librarians.” Public Library Quarterly 43(3):307–38.
doi: 10.1080/01616846.2023.2251348.
Joppke, Christian. 2019. “The Instrumental Turn of Citizenship.” Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies 45(6):858–78. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1440484.
Krippner, Greta R. 2017. “Democracy of Credit: Ownership and the Politics of Credit
Access in Late Twentieth-Century America.” American Journal of Sociology 123(1):1–
47. doi: 10.1086/692274.
Omnitrak. 2024. Statewide Assessment of Hawai‘i’s Digital Economy. State of Hawaii: Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism Hawai‘i Broadband and Digital Equity Office (HBDEO).
Ternus, Amber, Burt Lum, and Marceline Kanaiaupuni. 2022. Digital Equity Ecosystem
Map (Ahupua’a).
161
9.0 RACE/ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND LANGUAGE
Respondents working at the intersection of race/ethnicity and ancestry or national origin
(including language), identified multiple challenges to accessing housing and housing-related
services for the communities they serve. Administrative, cultural and linguistic barriers were
reported across organizations interviewed regardless of the national origin or primary language
of their clients and beneficiaries.
Several of our respondents noted severe entry-level access issues primarily surrounding
Compact of Free Association (COFA) citizens or other Micronesian communities, linguistic
minority populations, and other Limited English Proficiency (LEP) households. These entry-
level barriers concern, at an abstracted level, English-language hegemony, and at a concrete
level, lack of awareness and understanding of forms, programs, and outreach materials.
Inadequate translation tools or programs were often cited as a major barrier. Our respondents
who focused on COFA migrants and immigrants in general also cited landlord-tenant
relationship concerns, noting scams and the breaking of tenant rights laws perpetrated by some
landlords. These same populations were also reported to struggle with eligibility issues stemming
from their lack of necessary documentation (formal payment documents, citizenship documents,
etc.) that adversely impact their ability to enter affordable housing programs and find housing in
general. Finally, our respondents noted that some COFA migrants and immigrants who, for the
above reasons, are unable to enter the formal housing market, live “under the radar” in
conditions that are purportedly substandard.
Our respondents had several suggestions for combating these barriers. First and foremost,
the grand majority of our respondents suggested building up the state’s translation and language
162
infrastructure. Improved language selections for in-person translation, better hotline
infrastructure, and more language options in digitally or otherwise distributed outreach materials
were all recommendations proposed by our respondents. The simplification of language used in
outreach materials was suggested as an addition to the above changes proposed by a few
respondents. For COFA migrants specifically, our respondents reported that these populations
are generally unaware of their rights, and suggest improving outreach to these populations. A
proactive, rather than reactive, approach to language infrastructure building and client right
knowledge was emphasized.
9.1 Language barriers to applying for and accessing housing related services
Advocates for immigrants and language minorities with whom we spoke stressed that
English speakers are at an advantage in the housing space, in comparison to LEP households.
Housing advocates raised concerns about the roll out of rental assistance during the COVID
emergency (e.g. the Emergency Rental Assistance programs of the State and Counties) for
people with Limited English Proficiency, explaining that LEP populations were largely unaware
of the rental assistance program. One expert opined that, even if some families might have
known about the availability of rental relief during COVID-19, the complexity of the
applications combined with the issue of limited English proficiency prevented them from
pursuing the rental relief to which they were entitled.
This same expert also reported similar issues in the aftermath of the Maui wildfires in
August 2023. He observed: “if people don't know what there is, if they cannot read or understand
their eligibility, they don't know how to fill the forms right, they don't know where to go, so they
don't know what type of housing [is] available. They don't understand what the basic criteria….
163
[Language] is just a human right…” He emphasized that although 70% of state agencies have a
language plan in place, in his view, more efforts and resources are needed to actualize existing
language plans: “because are they implementing that plan? To have one is the first step, but you
have to actualize that plan.” He also mentioned problems that have arisen from artificial
intelligence (AI) translation, which they see on a daily basis. He would like to build capacity,
regulation and guidance around the use of AI. While respondents who focused on LEP minorities
often suggested building up Hawaiʻi’s language services, there were few concrete
recommendations, likely due to the inter-agency nature of language services. Nevertheless,
increasing the availability of translation staff through hiring initiatives and/or programs that
involve community multi-language speakers, known as participatory translation, were often
noted. This type of participatory translation has been used to great effect by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) operating at an international scale, and is a common practice in
community health and healthcare research (Blumenthal et al. 2013; Chasukwa and Crack 2024).
Researchers noted that participatory translation improved cultural understandings of certain
English-specific terminologies, and helped spread knowledge of program availability and client
rights through existing community networks as the translators informed their peers about NGO
programs.
Civil rights experts we spoke with suggested that housing providers, especially those who
manage assisted housing options, should take initiative on language access and make efforts to
affirmatively include LEP households, rather than leaving the burden to clients. They advocate
for more “meaningful language access,” understood as translation and interpretation services that
are readily available and freely and regularly offered by managers and landlords, including large
landlord firms, rather than language assistance provided only by petitioning on the part of tenants
164
or clients. While it might seem a simple change, foregrounding language options was seen as an
affirmative action by our respondents, as it would assuage any concerns an LEP individual might
have knowing that translation was indeed easily available.
One key issue raised by respondents concerns dialects and often unrecognized cultural
and linguistic diversity even within some of the major non-English languages spoken in
Hawaiʻi’s distinctively diverse context. One respondent who serves many different Micronesian
communities reported encountering documents provided by public agencies including Hawaiʻi
Public Housing Authority (HPHA) that used a specific dialect of Chuukese (Mortlockese) in
translated documents, which may not be understandable to speakers of other Chuukese dialects.
This may present a “meaningful language access.” Commonsensically, this respondent suggested
expanding the breadth of translation services to include less common languages. While finding
professional translators in this regard may represent difficulties, encouraging participatory
translation may be an appropriate “fix” to this issue.
During a visit to the office of an organization that serves Hawaiʻi’s Micronesian
community, the staff reviewed one HPHA application that had been translated into Chuukese,
and this form can be found in Appendix 9.A. At first glance, the staff reported that “this is fine.”
However, when asked if the communities they serve would be able to fill out the document
without additional translation assistance, three staff members needed to consult with each other
in order to try to understand the information the form requested. One staff member reported that
this form “sounds like the Bible.” Another staff member, a native Mortlockese speaker who
arrived later in the conversation, stated that it was clear that the form had been translated by a
Mortlockese speaker attempting to translate word by word into the Lagoon dialect. She
confirmed that the form is very difficult to understand and, if she received this form, she would
165
need to ask for the English version in order to know what was being asked of her. She explained
further that, in their experience, this is often the case with both HPHA and Med-QUEST
documents: a client will leave with the Chuukese form, then return for assistance because they do
not understand it. The staff present for this meeting confirmed that most Chuuk speakers
understand the Lagoon dialect when spoken, as this is the language used on the mainland of
Chuuk State, but that Lagoon can be difficult to read. Chuuk State has eight main languages and
many dialects, and all staff present for this conversation requested that HPHA forms be
translated into their respective dialects for optimal clarity and understanding. This reinforces the
need for participatory translation of official documents and applications to best serve the needs
of Micronesian communities in Hawaiʻi.
A leader of an immigrant advocacy organization that began in response to the need for
language services among immigrants in Lāhainā after the August 2023 Maui wildfires indicated
that they serve immigrants of a variety of national origins, while noting that Spanish is the most
prevalent language spoken among their populations. According to this respondent, Latino
immigrants and COFA migrants faced tremendous challenges – particularly in accessing aid,
avoiding scams and navigating misinformation. He described the significant barriers created by
inadequate translation and interpretation services for non-English speakers and illustrated this
issue with a story about Latino immigrants who, despite being documented and able to apply for
assistance, faced difficulties applying for FEMA due to the complexity of the FEMA
applications. This respondent emphasized the importance of interpreting and translating these
documents at a level that the average person will understand: “If that means using slang, use
slang. If that means paraphrasing, paraphrase.” He added that even translated documents can be
challenging to understand for individuals with lower education and literacy levels:
166
“Especially the documents coming out of the federal and the state governments…
even though it's in English, it's very precise, and it's easy to make mistakes. And
then you translate these for people who have up to a third grade education, and it's
just too much. And on top of everything, they're already dealing with [the fire]. So
that was a huge barrier, and something where [Roots Reborn] could step in and
really make sure people were able to get the aid by helping them fill out those
things. And to be clear, the way they did this is they were out there interacting
with FEMA and the state and these other organizations to figure out what was the
right way to fill out these forms. Even though they understood English and they
understood Spanish, they still needed to go to these large organizations and ask
questions and figure it all out.”
Leaders of another immigrant and language minority advocacy organization also highlighted the
unique vulnerabilities of LEP populations in the aftermath of Maui fires. One example of how to
effectively serve such communities is offered by Pacific Gateway Center, which created a
Multilingual Hotline to address the language barriers faced by the diverse population in Lāhainā,
offering assistance in six languages. Additionally, a new Maui office was opened and staffed
with bilingual case managers to further support the community.
One respondent who is a language advocate also stressed that language access affects
communication between tenants and landlords more broadly, outside of the specific
circumstances of pandemic and disaster. Respondents added that many newly arrived individuals
may not be eligible for government housing programs and struggle with complex lease
agreements. This was echoed by other civil rights advocates who have witnessed firsthand the
difficulty of gaining interpretation for complicated written communication. One expert
explained:
“On some level, you know, even when there is ostensibly an effort to provide
language access. I know a lot of times actually making it happen is just really a
challenge for folks: to get to call through to HPHA, to get someone on the line, to
get them to understand that they need to provide an interpreter if a person has a
voucher, then to actually get an interpreter on the phone, and then to actually have
167
a meaningful dialogue... A lot of times, whether it's PHAs or private landlords,
there's a lot of pressure put on LEP tenants to have family members or friends, or
whoever you know, interpret for them.”
One set of respondents described how tenants informally rely on a local non-profit organization
with Chuukese speaking staff who are often asked to translate or interpret important documents
for clients, even though this may be outside of their primary scope of services.
Respondents serving Micronesian communities also described observing a notable sense
of fear among assisted households of losing housing or other benefits among their clients, which
can be exacerbated by language barriers. One service agency described how clients who are part
of assisted or subsidized housing often feel a strong sense of fear–fear of losing their housing or
owing money. This fear is compounded by language barriers and difficulty understanding the
English documentation. Key respondents explained that, as a result of their limited English
proficiency, clients do not “know their rights,” a sentiment echoed by several of the advocates
we interviewed. According to our respondents, some LEP individuals do not know they are
entitled to language rights, and they also do not know that they are entitled to additional rights if
their language rights are violated. They also may not know about basic landlord tenant rights; if
they are asked to leave a unit, for example, they assume they must do so. Sometimes, if they do
not get translation or legal help in time, they will “end up on the street.”
Here, we can see more direct consequences of not only lagging translation services, but
the linguistic complexity of housing-related documents. As previously mentioned, the adoption
of simplified English to ease client-level translation is a popular area of research within the
healthcare sector, and results are thus far promising with potential applications to housing.
Researchers focusing on immigrant LEP populations found that simplifying their hospital intake
168
forms and program notices by an additional two “grade levels”, starting from the assumption that
most clients read at an 8th grade level, showed tangible results in the ability of both their LEP
and general clients to understand directives and instructions (Kim et al. 2020). Researchers
evaluating the viability of AI-powered language simplification, in blind translator trials, found
that for common non-English languages, translation software was more effective at converting
simplified English education pamphlets into other languages than standard English (Ugas et al.
2025). In this case, the research team posited that simplifying the language used could ease the
burden on staff translators and improve autonomy of their clients by allowing healthcare
providers and clients to translate and understand documents themselves.
While it is unclear without further place-based research if such a policy would work for
Hawaiʻi’s diverse languages, reducing the complexity of housing documentation was on the
forefront of suggestions within our respondent groups, and taking a page from healthcare policy
may have solid returns for our LEP populations.
9.2 Fear and cultural reluctance to seek help for public benefits and housing assistance
Some advocates also note cultural differences, including a reluctance to self-advocate
when interacting with managers, landlords, or housing authorities, that can also compound
language access barriers. One service provider described how her Micronesian (including
Marshallese and Chuukese origin clients from the Federated States of Micronesia) clients would
regularly resist advocating for themselves or confronting landlords given their reluctance to
“rock the boat” or cause trouble which, according to this respondent dissuades some clients from
seeking legal help. Another advocate also described the broader fear within immigrant
communities regarding seeking public benefits like housing assistance. One possible fear might
169
relate to lingering concerns of being labeled a “public charge,” in alignment with rules promoted
by the first 45th Presidential Administration. Respondents described what they understand as a
cultural reluctance to ask for help, as another apparent barrier to housing and language
assistance, as visible among clients on Maui. While recommendations in this sense somewhat
rely on the direction taken by the 2025 US Government, our respondents suggested that
improving clients’ understanding of their rights and the codified legal protections they hold
would likely assist in boosting the confidence of reluctant individuals. While this ties into the
above LEP concerns, our respondents reported that they would like to see improvements in
outreach, be that information dissemination in the form of webpages and pamphlets, translation
of existing materials, or simply improved funding that would help more people be aware of more
of the housing process.
9.3 Legal documentation as a barrier for migrants, immigrants and refugees
Respondents also pointed to the challenges of mixed [documentation] status households,
particularly those in which children are citizens but adults are undocumented. This situation
often led to complications in accessing aid in the aftermath of the August 2023 wildfires on
Maui, as some programs required excluding undocumented individuals from calculations. One
community leader noted the lack of discussion around mixed status households in the context of
immigration, despite their prevalence among the groups served by relevant organizations.
Another advocate also emphasized the devastating effects of the Maui wildfires on immigrants,
particularly in terms of lost documentation and employment among migrants, immigrants and
refugees in Lāhainā. According to respondents, FEMA centers have been instrumental in helping
victims replace documents, but the economic fallout has led to significant job loss, particularly
for those in industries like housekeeping that are heavily reliant on tourism.
170
Delayed work authorization affects immigrants’ ability to secure housing: without proper
documentation, many immigrants must work under the table, which leads to complications in
proving income for housing applications. One advocate described how informal employment,
like coffee picking, lacks the paystubs or W-2s needed for income verification. Landlords may
hesitate to rent to those without clear documentation, perpetuating informal and often unstable
living arrangements. Accessing housing becomes slightly easier after immigrants receive work
authorization and Social Security cards, but the initial period remains a major hurdle. This kind
of concern was observed for recent Ukrainians refugees on Oʻahu, in addition to other groups.
The recent shift in Hawaiʻi’s refugee resettlement policy allows individuals without a US tie to
be accepted, and this lack of relationship impacts their housing situation; as opposed to moving
in with a US tie, they must now find housing on their own upon arrival. The need for immigrants
to be employed in order to secure housing remains a significant hurdle. This is often exacerbated
by sponsorship issues and the need for stable income in order to secure and maintain housing.
One not-for-profit that serves immigrants addresses these challenges by making
appropriate referrals to their range of community partners, including Affordable Housing for
Farmers, as the majority of their undocumented clients are farmers who find ways to live “under
the radar,” often staying on farms and relying on friends for housing. Advocates raised concerns
about the unpredictable nature of global events leading to migration, stressing the importance of
proactive measures rather than reactive responses; they stressed the need for policymakers to
consider the housing implications for both incoming migrants and existing residents, especially
in light of Hawaiʻi's ongoing affordable housing crisis.
Accordingly, considering the overwhelming complexity of documentation issues, our
respondents had few concrete solutions. The most salient suggestion was to find ways to work
171
with these populations despite documentation hurdles. As such, outreach initiatives were
stressed, citing the need to expand the umbrella of non-profit operations to include as many
COFA and other immigrants as possible, as it is only possible to assist these individuals if they
are aware of, and can access, the various programs our respondents offer. Many of our
respondents run their own outreach initiatives, but suggested that partnership with State and
Federal level resources (such as embedded links to local organizations within government
informational materials) would help to direct folks to assistance programs from the get-go, so to
speak.
9.4 Cultural differences lead to tension between landlords and tenants
Respondents noted how cultural misunderstandings are a major difficulty faced by LEP
tenants and their landlords. They elaborated on the complexities of resettling refugees, including
the importance of educating landlords about the unique circumstances of these individuals:
“We explore almost every avenue... And other times we just scramble and we just
cross our fingers and hopefully find a property manager or a landlord who is
willing to sort of forego the typical eligibility requirements and give them a
chance. So what we're doing is we've developed a flyer for property managers and
landlords that says, [what it] means to rent to a refugee. And we really outline the
benefits they're entitled to, the support they're given by non-profit site Pacific
Gateway Center, and how there are some benefits where we can help supplement
the rent until they become stabilized.”
In their experience, it is easy for landlords and property managers to dismiss people if they know
that English is not their native language. The newly arrived often struggle with complex lease
agreements and may not be eligible for government housing programs, and the lack of
understanding from landlords regarding cultural living habits further complicates their housing
situations. One organization interviewed works with the Civil Rights Commission and
representatives from OLA on the Language Access Advisory Council (LAAC). In recent public-
172
access meetings focusing on cases of possible discrimination, they reported that some property
managers may not have the understanding or patience needed to work with somebody who is
foreign born. Cultural tensions between landlords and tenants are often exacerbated by the
tenants’ unfamiliarity with US legal protections; In response to such concerns, several of the
organizations we interviewed conduct outreach and educational events to educate the community
on their rights.
We heard from respondents examples of alleged language and national origin housing
discrimination. One discussed an example of a Marshallese family on Hawaiʻi Island who was
evicted a few years ago. This family raised the concern that their landlord discriminated against
them, although it was challenging to determine. This respondent reached out to the Hawaiʻi
County Fair Housing Office for support and to educate residents. She shared that housing policy
could better address the need for larger unit space to accommodate large
families/multigenerational households and that this would be culturally appropriate to the needs
of Marshallese families on Hawaiʻi Island. A different respondent also explained that more
awareness of the cultural living situations of COFA and local families should be made known to
housing agencies at state and federal levels. Many COFA and Pacific Islander families live in
multigenerational situations for cultural reasons, and this should be supported in their process of
securing housing.
9.5 Specific impediments for COFA migrants in Hawaiʻi
Discrimination by Hawaiʻi landlords against COFA communities
According to respondents, some COFA families experience discrimination by landlords
who take advantage of the fact that COFA families do not have other resources or pathways to
housing. One reported her view that landlords will abuse their power and not give COFA tenants
173
livable housing situations; this respondent shared that, when they moved to Hawaiʻi in 2018,
they needed to find a place nearby Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children on Oʻahu
because her daughter was very sick with leukemia and needed to be close to the hospital for her
care. They found an apartment on Young Street in Honolulu, however this apartment was
rundown and, according to our respondent, below acceptable living standards: rats in the
apartment unit, which had no electricity or running water either; she and her family had to run an
extension cord into their home from a unit with electricity. Additionally, if the landlord decided
they wanted to cut off the water, she had to purchase five-gallon jugs of water. She and her
family had lived in this apartment for five years. In a recent report published by the Hawaiʻi
Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), similar testimonies were
offered by Micronesian and COFA immigrants. Access to housing was found to be a major
difficulty for COFA migrants, with both “blatant and subtle instances of discrimination”
performed by Hawaiʻi landlords (Hawaiʻi State Advisory Committee 2019). Abuse of LEP
status, sudden and unexplained rent increases, and refusal to rent were all noted in this report. In
terms of housing quality, as discussed above, several testifiers reported themselves and their
neighbors living in subpar or otherwise unsafe housing - some properties lacked electricity or
water, did not have functional lockable entry doors, and were often in states of disrepair (Hawaiʻi
State Advisory Committee 2019).
Our respondent explained that they tried to look for other apartments, but the applications
are expensive. She said they spent $200 on one application alone and ended up not getting that
apartment – she has no idea where the application fee goes. She shared that the house they are
currently living in costs $3,400.00 per month, and all members of her family must work in order
174
to pay this rent. This is especially difficult as at least two of her family members have critical
health issues but still must find ways to work.
Another community leader shared that experiences like this are common among COFA
tenants who are often exploited by landlords who know these tenants do not have a rental history
and therefore have limited options when it comes to housing. Though COFA tenants are on time
with their rent, this community leader reported that many are still scared that current landlords
will evict them, give them a negative reference, or even retaliate against them. This fear prevents
COFA families from seeking other housing options. According to this respondent, the option of
“just moving out” of hostile housing is not realistic for COFA families, as they need money for
security deposits and first month's rent, which is a large percentage of their income. Many COFA
families will end up living in cars and using beach restrooms and showers. Taking a legal route
to fight landlords is also challenging as legal providers often lack capacity to take on these cases.
One organization that is not a service provider has stepped in with connecting families
like those from COFA nations to find housing or other needed resources. Hawaiʻi Workers
Center is primarily focused on organizing and educating workers on their rights (such as sick
leave, PTO and working conditions), but housing for workers still remains a key issue for many
– especially COFA workers. He further reported that COFA workers are not aware of their rights
as tenants.
Difficulties with quality of housing for COFA migrants is a wide-spanning issue. While
our respondents noted that some oversight measures should be taken to ensure COFA migrants
are not stuck in subpar housing, they did not have many concrete and immediate suggestions for
how that oversight might work. Many pinged the need for some kind of committee or service to
175
assist this population, but were not in the position to have a fully-fledged plan of action.
However, some of our nonprofit respondents cited expanding education services (and their
accessibility) for COFA migrants. These respondents noted that learning and understanding the
rights that COFA migrants hold, especially their legal protections in the housing market, would
improve their ability to resist adverse or discriminatory landlord actions, and hopefully help them
to feel more supported should they have to “rock the boat,” so to speak. Similarly, some of our
private sector respondents noted that education on American tenancy rules, regulations, and
cultural practices would be helpful in smoothing over landlord-tenant interactions with COFA
and other immigrants. While our private sector respondents are not experts, they cited a
perceived lack of understanding on the part of immigrant tenants on things like trash pickup
practices, property noise and cleanliness rules, and tenant occupancy limits. For that last item,
our property management respondents explained that immigrant tenants that, in their home
countries, are used to living alongside their entire family, would often inadvertently break their
contractual agreement (in regards to maximum occupancy) when inviting their families to live
with them. These respondents noted that teaching and making clear American housing, and
especially rental, laws and regulations would likely prevent such problems from happening.
9.6 Summary of Recommendations
The majority of recommendations in this section relate to language, language access, and
translation. Several of our respondents suggested that sweeping improvements be made to
Hawaiʻi’s language translation and support services. Major takeaways include the expansion of
translator staff and language translation scope, participatory translation, and awareness-building.
For that last item, several respondents expressed concern that various protected classes, most
176
often COFA and Micronesian migrants, are unaware of the full scope of translation services
offered in Hawaiʻi. Several recommendations were made that may alleviate this issue.
First, a focus on multi-language informational materials. Several of our respondents
expressed the need for Hawaiʻi’s information outreach to be offered in several languages,
including less common ones such as Chuukese and Ukrainian. While Hawaiʻi’s state and
nonprofit services do offer a variety of language options, expanding and fortifying those options
in dissemination was seen as a worthy goal.
Second, the expansion of education initiatives. Both our nonprofit and private sector
respondents recommended expanding educational outreach programs to reach a greater portion
of LEP populations, and to simplify the wording of both educational and informational materials
to assist in comprehension and client-side translation.
Third, and related, is the push to raise awareness of tenant rights among LEP and racial
minorities. Several of our respondents noted that minority tenants have issues navigating the
housing market and landlord relations, and improving their understanding of the rights,
protections, and support they have would help these populations to do so.
Fourth and finally, our respondents who specifically worked with COFA migrants
suggested that a committee or advisory council be formed to generate long-lasting and effective
solutions to language and racial discrimination in the housing market, and to hopefully guide
COFA clients towards programs that could assist them in finding safe and secure housing.
177
APPENDIX 9.A: HPHA form in Chuukese
178
Works Cited
Blumenthal, Daniel S., Ralph J. DiClemente, Ronald Braithwaite, and Selina Smith. 2013.
Community-Based Participatory Health Research: Issues, Methods, and Translation to
Practice. New York, UNITED STATES: Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.
Chasukwa, Michael, and Angela Crack. 2024. “Participatory Translation and Anti-Racism in
NGO Development Work: A Method of Co-Producing Translations with Community
Members.” Development Policy Review 42(4):e12787. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12787.
Hawaii State Advisory Committee. 2019. Micronesians in Hawaii: Migrant Group Faces
Barriers to Equal Opportunity. Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights.
Kim, Wooksoo, Isok Kim, Krisztina Baltimore, Ahmed Salman Imtiaz, Biplab Sudhin
Bhattacharya, and Li Lin. 2020. “Simple Contents and Good Readability: Improving
Health Literacy for LEP Populations.” International Journal of Medical Informatics
141:104230. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104230.
Ugas, Mohamed, Maria Anna Calamia, Jessica Tan, Ben Umakanthan, Christine Hill, Karen
Tse, Angela Cashell, Zaynab Muraj, Meredith Giuliani, and Janet Papadakos. 2025.
“Evaluating the Feasibility and Utility of Machine Translation for Patient Education
Materials Written in Plain Language to Increase Accessibility for Populations with
Limited English Proficiency.” Patient Education and Counseling 131:108560. doi:
10.1016/j.pec.2024.108560.
179
10.0 GENDER AND LGBTQ+
Respondents working at the intersection of housing and gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity and gender expression identified multiple challenges to accessing housing and
housing-related services for the communities they serve – particularly for LGBTQ+ individuals
and women who have survived domestic violence, intimate partner violence and abuse.
A shelter director interviewed explained that domestic violence survivors of all genders
often have impossible choices to make, “like to be homeless and maybe make yourself and your
children homeless, or to… put up with abuse just for… a roof over your head.” Survivors of
sexual assault are often in a similarly impossible predicament, making these assaults difficult to
report “because if you're renting a room from someone, for example, and… sexual favors are
being asked… again, you're being put in a position of: ‘Well, do I want a roof over my head, or
do I want to live on the street?’” According to the respondent: gender-based violence and abuse
are highly intersectional and often relate directly to issues such as substance abuse and mental
health, for which islands like Kauaʻi have limited services for treatment and support. Violence
and abuse can also further “escalate tensions that may already exist. Often, when you speak with
survivors or offenders, they will point to just other stressors in their life, such as financial stress
or financial strain, and a lot of their financial strain in Hawaiʻi, but really on Kaua‘i, is related to
housing.” These difficulties are exacerbated by “extremely limited” housing inventory, long
housing waitlists and high rent prices.
10.1 Impediments for single mothers and survivors of abuse
According to respondents focusing on assisting women once they have left their abusive
situations, single mothers have a harder time finding housing because landlords often assume
180
that they might not be able to afford rent with a single income and multiple children. This
respondent explained, “I had a woman say, ‘No one will even talk to me because I'm a single
parent.’ Despite working three jobs, it took her from December through July to plan housing. In
the meantime, she and her three children were “bouncing all over the place,” staying with family
and friends. Though she eventually found housing, “she felt like no one wants to rent to a single
mother.”
These respondents further explained that some survivors whose abusers find them in their
new housing situation can cause disruptions and, as a result, these women are often attempted to
be evicted by their landlords. Many survivors of domestic violence and abuse do not know their
rights and “many landlords do not read the thick packet of paper that comes with Section 8, so
they do not always know what is legal and what is not.” The respondent shared an example of a
survivor and her family who were living at Luana Gardens, a Section 8 housing project on Maui:
the abuser was released from jail, and he destroyed her apartment and her car. Her landlord
attempted to evict them; but according to the Violence Against Women Act, this is illegal if you
have Section 8 or a HUD voucher. Our respondent wrote a letter citing the Violence Against
Women Act, and the tenant and her family were allowed to stay.
10.2 Barriers to addressing fair housing violations for survivors of abuse
When a client faces illegal discrimination in the housing space, our respondents generally
refer their clients to legal organizations. However, survivors are often scared to pursue that route,
out of fear that it will affect their next housing situation. According to one of our respondents,
“Sometimes the outcome is only a slap on the hand for the landlord for all of your time, and
reputational risk for the tenant.” Respondents explained, “If there was more punitive damages,
then landlords could be more accountable.” However, they reported uncertainty about whether
181
punitive damages currently exist for landlords who violate fair housing law, and who is
responsible for such enforcement.
One respondent reported further confusion about domestic violence preference when
applying for public housing. In her understanding, public housing gives voucher preference to
survivors of domestic violence so that they and their children can be placed in safe housing and
avoid houselessness. She reported that, “the federal level says that’s true, the state level says
that’s true.” However, this organization has had clients who report being “told by the public
housing office on Kaua‘i that they no longer accept DV preference when applying... So that's
something that we're trying to get to the bottom of, where the DV preference stipulation
currently is… We suspect it's because of the huge strain on the housing market here, [they] are
saying that they're no longer doing that.”
10.3 The “waiting game” for survivors in shelters, bridge housing and transitional housing
One respondent referred to HUD vouchers as “a waiting game” during which shelter
residents wonder, “Am I going to get pulled? Am I on the list?” She further explained, “Here in
our shelter… 120 days is nothing when you're waiting. You know, even two years… you're
looking at a year and a half or more of living in your car, maybe, houselessness, or leaving your
family and going to the mainland, and then we lose more people in the workforce here.” To
counter this issue of long waitlists, this respondent currently offers bridge housing for individuals
in their programs, made possible with the assistance of an angel donor who helped them to
purchase a six-unit property. Rather than discharging some families into houselessness which,
she explained, is sometimes the only option, they “discharge them to bridge housing to give them
a little bit more time to heal and find more permanent housing.” She further explained that, for
shelter residents, getting “pulled for HUD… really has just been the lifesaving game changer for
182
them, because there's no way that they would be able to pay for any housing at all if they didn't
have that subsidized HUD voucher as well.” However, she reported that it can be extremely
difficult to find a landlord who is willing to accept the voucher and that survivors are often
competing with large numbers of people for a single spot.
Programs serving both offenders and survivors of domestic violence of all genders offer a
voluntary services approach within their shelters and transitional housing. During their stay,
residents receive sexual assault services, domestic violence services, clinical therapy, guidance,
suggestions and encouragement from staff while they prepare for permanent housing. According
to one respondent, the transitional house prepares residents for their “next step of life, whatever
that may be.”
10.4 “Macho attitude” as an impediment to housing assistance for men
One respondent explained, “We help men. I've had a few male clients as victims.” Men
seek assistance less frequently than women due to cultural barriers and a “macho attitude” that
equates receiving assistance with weakness. This makes men resistant to accepting help,
especially from an organization that may not directly center men: “‘Oh no, you're not supposed
to take care of me. I'm the man. I'm supposed to do all these things… They know my situation.
I'm embarrassed now. I gotta get help from them. I'm more embarrassed because I’m supposed to
be able to do this all by myself.’” It was recommended that case managers be patient with male
clients in particular, with whom it may take multiple meetings to build trust and chart a pathway
forward to appropriate support and assistance.
183
10.5 Homelessness among LGBTQIA+ youth
Many LGBTQIA+ youth face family rejection due to their sexual orientation, gender
identity or gender expression. This can lead to strained or broken family relationships, resulting
in homelessness. LGBTQIA+ youth also frequently experience discrimination in housing
programs and shelters, from which they are often mistreated and turned away; and this
discrimination further extends to their possible employment opportunities. These struggles with
employment make it more challenging for LGBTQIA+ youth to secure stable housing.
Additionally, LGBTQIA+ youth have higher rates of anxiety, depression and other mental health
struggles, which can make it more difficult to navigate housing instability and seek necessary
help.
10.6 Compounded disadvantages for LGBTQIA+ youth
One respondent explained that there are not many studies on drug use among
LGBTQIA+ youth; but through their work with this population, they know that the biggest
reason that homeless youth begin using drugs is to stay awake at night so that no one steals their
belongings. Youth gather in "street families," each person taking their turn to keep watch and
ensure that the family and their belongings are safe – including from police raids. This is "the
biggest reason that we see young people reporting substance use." This respondent further
explained,
"That just kind of spurs into abuse... There is so much trauma associated with
being a [LGBTQIA+] young person on the streets. Higher levels of sex exploitation, higher levels of criminal involvement. Youth are also . . . more likely to go to jail than their cisgender heterosexual counterparts when they're on the streets. The trauma that people experience on the streets is really what causes
them to continue that use."
184
Our respondents also noted an upward trend in mental health issues for their LGBTQIA+
youth, and they are self-medicating to handle this as well. The key takeaway is that these youth
face many risks of compounded disadvantages, especially once homeless. Efforts to support their
access to housing must be intertwined with attention to these risks; interventions must be trauma-
informed, with an awareness of their intersecting needs (e.g. drug treatment).
Several respondents cited the need to reevaluate their homelessness assessments. While
gathering information from older adults to assess their living situation, income, needs, and
potential barriers to stable housing in an effort to identify appropriate support services, some
organizations have seen that disabilities are a priority issue; but for young people, due to the
spike observed in mental health issues and substance use/abuse, mental health and behavioral
issues are now a priority over physical disabilities.
10.7 Impediments to housing for LGBTQI+ kūpuna
Several respondents affirmed that impediments to housing affects LGBTQI+ individuals
throughout their life course. One shared a story about a transgender kupuna who was a client
who had trouble getting into a care home. According to the respondent, some care homes were
resistant to accept her because they did not know whether to house her in male or female
housing. Eventually, several staff members assisted the client by calling multiple care homes
until they found one that would accept her.
"Now we know this... care home exists that will take our transgender clients so...
We have the number on the wall for the next time we need it... We can call because that's another thing... when we think about our LGBT or mobile community is that we also know where... people will have a positive experience when it comes to referrals and resources, that that's where we're going to send
people for access... We want our people to have a good experience when they go
somewhere."
185
This respondent explained that transgender clients have had issues with getting into a
clean and sober home, though he did not specify why. This interview shed light on the challenges
that transgender people have in accessing housing, regardless of their age.
10.8 Summary of Recommendations
The majority of recommendations in this section relate to holistic initiatives, integrated
care and housing navigation for potential tenants in order to address the contributing factors of
homelessness and housing instability among these populations; educational initiatives for
property managers and landlords to better understand the situations of potential tenants; and best
practices for organizations to support of the communities they serve when engaging with both
clients and landlords. Major takeaways include opportunities to reach potential tenants through
educational initiatives in transitional and temporary housing using a Housing First model; an
annual Landlord Summit to educate landlords about problems in their communities; and a hotline
to address immediate issues that arise for tenants, property managers and landlords.
Addressing the holistic needs of individuals is a strong recommendation from
communities in which substance abuse treatment programs and mental health support are
limited, such as on the island of Kauaʻi. According to respondents, this programming model has
proved to be particularly beneficial for those recovering from addiction and those leaving
situations of domestic violence.
Education for landlords and property managers was also strongly recommended, and one
housing navigation program included meeting with landlords to secure housing units for clientele
– in particular, those who were previously homeless and those who hold housing vouchers. The
program also offers a dedicated hotline to assist tenants and landlords in resolving problems that
186
may arise. According to one respondent, “I have to say, ‘If you rent to our people, I will give you
a dedicated line that you can reach me 24/7, should anything happen. And I will be there, and I
will help you, and I will help them.’... If I get a call at 11 o'clock at night... [I will] say, ‘Hey,
you need to calm down. I'll come in the morning, we can sort it all out.’” This acts as a kind of
pre-mitigation service to address the concerns of both parties before the situation can escalate
further. One organization serving survivors of domestic violence also suggested the
reinstatement of a Landlord Summit, which took place annually on the island of Maui before the
height of the COVID pandemic in 2020: this summit was attended by different housing agencies
and landlords, offering a luncheon, panel discussions and educational sessions to encourage
landlords to “work outside the box,” give potential tenants a chance and view access to housing
as a “community problem.” Initiatives such as these have also assisted organizations serving the
community, helping them in understanding how to best guide their clients to secure permanent
housing. These organizations are also in need of clarification about whether punitive damages
currently exist for landlords who violate fair housing law, especially the protections contained in
VAWA for victims of domestic violence, and who is responsible for such enforcement.
187
11.0 NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING
Subsection Authors:
Kāwika Riley, PhD
Ho'omana'o Consulting
Madeline Walsh, JD
11.1 Executive Summary
This section on impediments to fair housing choice focuses on issues faced by Native
Hawaiians, the Indigenous people of Hawaiʻi, in several parts. After describing major concepts
of law and public policy important to understanding Native Hawaiians, we contextualize their
modern housing impediments through an overview of currently unresolved land and housing
issues. Noting the previous Analysis of Impediments’ findings regarding the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act (HHCA), we then focus attention on funding issues related to the HCCA, and
recent developments within the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) to increase
housing stock and choice for those Native Hawaiians eligible for its benefits. We then return to
housing barriers for the broader Native Hawaiian community, especially those unable to qualify
for the benefits of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Lastly, we conclude with a set of
recommendations, divided between those dealing generally with Native Hawaiian access to safe,
stable housing and those focused on the HHCA.
11.2 Background on Native Hawaiian Status and Housing
The term “Native Hawaiian” describes the Indigenous people of Hawaiʻi, a present day
community whose ancestors exercised sovereignty over the Hawaiian archipelago prior to
188
Sustained Western Contact.16 Despite a unique connection to these islands and the longest-
standing presence of any community in Hawaiʻi, Native Hawaiians struggle to access and
maintain safe, stable housing in their original homelands. Among the most vulnerable, this
manifests in the continued overrepresentation of Native Hawaiians among Hawaiʻi’s homeless,
including the so-called “invisible homeless” not counted in most official means of tracking
residents who lack permanent shelter, and those in overcrowded housing17. It is also evident in
the pattern of Native Hawaiian outmigration, an issue highlighted by the US Census Bureau’s
recent confirmation that Native Hawaiians in the 49 states now outnumber those residing in
Hawaiʻi.
11.2.1 Defining Terms: Native Hawaiians as part of a racial group
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive No. 15
(“Directive 15”) sets the minimum standards for federal classification by race and ethnicity.18
Among the six minimum racial categories, Native Hawaiians are part of the “Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific Islander” group, having been disaggregated from the “Asian or Pacific
Islander” (API) category in the 1997 revisions to Directive 15. Separation of Native Hawaiians
and Other Pacific Islanders from the API category was in large part the result of advocacy by
Native Hawaiian community leaders, especially the late US Senator Daniel Kahikina Akaka,
who argued that separation from the API category was needed in order to “fairly assess” the
16 1778 is considered the beginning of “Sustained Western Contact,” describing the period after which Hawaiʻi’s existence was documented by the Western world, and after which the Western world and the Native Hawaiian community sustained contact. 17 Recent data in all of these areas is provided later in this report as we explore this topic. As we also explain, Native
Hawaiian-led households play a critical role in providing shelter to the highly vulnerable community members who make up the hidden homeless population. This includes, but is not limited to Native Hawaiians who are hidden homeless. 18 Revisions to OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 89 F.R. 22182 (March 29, 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06469/revisions-to-ombs-statistical-policy-directive-no-15-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and
189
needs of Native Hawaiians.19 When issuing the change in policy, OMB acknowledged the need
for data collection in order to monitor discrimination against Native Hawaiians in housing, and
for other purposes.20
While Native Hawaiians share important commonalities with other communities in the
Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders group, it is also sometimes important to
disaggregate this diverse category in order to understand Native Hawaiian (and other groups’)
conditions. For example, while each Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders subgroup is
underrepresented in higher education, the rate of underrepresentation varies across the groups.
Additionally, while Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders are much more likely to be
multiracial than the general US population, this too varies from group-to-group.21 One example
of this can be found when comparing the multi-racial versus single race reporting of three Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander sub groups: Chuukese, Chamorro, and Native Hawaiians:
the Chuukese community is only moderately more likely to be multiracial than single race, while
the Chamorro community is twice as likely to be multiracial as they are to be single-race. Native
19 Senator Akaka was the first and only Native Hawaiian member of the U.S. Senate. Regarding the Senator’s
advocacy for disaggregation of the API category, see Akaka, Daniel K. Stand Up and Sound Off, Statement of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Hearing on Multiracial Identification, (May 22, 1997)., quoted partly in: Papa Ola Lōkahi. (2007). Threads in the Human Tapestry: The Disaggregation of the API Identifier and the Importance of Having the NHOPI (Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander) Category in Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting. Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. https://www.papaolalokahi.org/wp-content/uploads/pol-pdf/The-Disaggregation-of-API-and-the-AAPI-Identifier-2009.pdf 20 Office of Management and Budget, Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity (1997). Federal Register. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards The Native Hawaiians presented compelling arguments that the standards must facilitate the production of data to describe their social and economic situation and to monitor discrimination against Native Hawaiians in housing, education, employment, and other areas. 21 Regarding the rate at which Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders as whole report belonging to two or
more races, see: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File; 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File. Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/redistricting-supplementary-tables/redistricting-supplementary-table-01.pdf These data reflect that, unlike every other minimum racial category except for American Indians and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are more likely to report being multiracial than single-race.
190
Hawaiians, lastly, are close to three-and-a-half-times-more-likely to report being multiracial
versus single race.22
Similarly, with respect to housing, and especially in Hawaiʻi, the needs and concerns of
Native Hawaiians may not be the same as other Pacific Islanders, especially Pacific Islanders
with a strong contingent of first generation immigrants new to Hawaiʻi. For example, while
Native Hawaiians report the highest native-born rate of any ancestry group in Hawaiʻi, the group
with the lowest rate are Marshallese, a fellow Pacific Islander community.23 Along with state and
national efforts to disaggregate Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders from Asians,
Hawaiʻi entities are wise to also disaggregate within the Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific
Islanders category, especially between Native Hawaiians (on one hand) and other Pacific
Islanders (on the other).
Hawaiʻi has taken positive steps in this direction, but in some cases progress has not been
consistent. For example, in 2021, the Hawaiʻi State Legislature passed SCR 5, urging state
agencies to collect and report data on Native Hawaiians, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific
Islanders, and to work collaboratively to improve data collection and use throughout the state. In
22 According to the 2020 US Census, single race versus multiracial reporting for these three groups is as follows: Chuukese: 12,464 multiracial versus 10,500 single race; Chamorro: 143,947 multiracial versus 70,704 single race; Native Hawaiians: 680,442 multiracial versus 199,880. For these data, see: Rico, B., Key Hahn, J., & Jacobs, P. (2023, September 21). Chuukese and Papua New Guinean Populations Fastest Growing Pacific Islander Groups in 2020. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/2020-census-dhc-a-nhpi-population.html#:~:text=Detailed%20NHPI%20Population%20Shifts%20in%20States 23 Fogleman, C. (2018). ii. Demographic, Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics for Selected Race Groups in Hawaiʻi. State of Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism: Research and Economic Analysis Division. Retrieved from https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/SelectedRacesCharacteristics_HawaiʻiReport.pdf. A more recent DBEDT report also finds that Micronesians, as a whole, are among the most likely to be foreign born, even when accounting for the inclusion of Chamorro, who are indigenous to Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (Those individuals born in Guam and CNMI are not foreign born); See Liddell, C. (2024). 7 (Figure 3). Demographic, Social, and Economic Characteristics of Hawaiʻi’s Race Groups: 2017-2021. Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT): Research and Economic Analysis Division (READ). Retrieved from https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/Detailed-race-characteristics_ACS2021.pdf
191
response, in its 2021-22 annual report, the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (“HCRC”) reported
certain data, including housing discrimination complaints, by Native Hawaiian status.24
Unfortunately, the subsequent HCRC annual report did not include this data, and the report
authors did not find information on HCRC’s website indicating whether any future annual
reports would provide the level of NHPI data offered in its 2020-2021 report.25 Since legislative
resolutions like SCR 5 lack the force of law, future legislation may be needed to ensure that
Native Hawaiian data are reported consistently by government entities.26 As it pertains to
housing discrimination and reporting of data, this could include legislation to add Indigenous
status or, more narrowly, Native Hawaiian status, as a protected category.27
11.2.2 Defining Terms: Native Hawaiians as a recognized political entity under federal law
While protected from racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, Native Hawaiians
are not simply a subset of the Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders racial category. US
federal law and policy acknowledges Native Hawaiians as an Indigenous people with “a special
legal and political trust relationship” with the United States.28 Congress explicitly frames its
24 Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission. (2022). 2021-2022 Annual Report. Retrieved from
https://labor.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2021-22-HCRC-Annual-Report-Final-3.pdf 25 Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission. (2023). 2022-2023 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://labor.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/HCRC-FY2022-23.pdf
26 A variety of policy approaches could be used to ensure clear and consistent reporting on Native Hawaiians. These policies could be limited to or go beyond the strict confines of housing issues. 27 While the Fair Housing Act sets the baseline in terms of protected categories, states may add to these protections. Hawaiʻi State law prohibits housing discrimination based on race; sex, including gender identity or expression; sexual orientation; color; religion; marital status; familial status; ancestry; disability; age; or HIV infection. See §515-3(a). In contrast, FHA protections are limited to race; color; religion; sex, including gender identity and sexual orientation); disability; familial status; or national origin. Given that Hawaiʻi state law already protects against ancestry-based discrimination, proponents of adding Indigenous status or Native Hawaiian status as a protected class may want to consider what additional protections and other benefits would or would not result from this change 28 U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI]. (2016). Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government to Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community Final Rule [CFR Title 43 Part 50]. 81. Federal Register. https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/43_cfr_part_50_procedures_for_reestablishing_a_formal_government-to-government_relationship_with_the_native_hawaiian_community_vol_81_no_199_oct_14_2016.pdf
192
relationship with Native Hawaiians within the legal context of its treatment of Indigenous
people, often referred to as US Federal Indian law. US Federal Indian law affirms, for example,
that Indian preference in certain hiring practices are not racial discrimination or racial preference,
and that “as long as the special treatment of Indians can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of
Congress’ unique obligation toward Indians, such legislative judgments will not be disturbed.”29
The federal government’s legal and political acknowledgement of Native Hawaiians is not
limited to those of a specific blood quantum, and is affirmed through various laws and programs
established by the US Congress.30
11.2.3 Hawaiʻi State law on Native Hawaiian Indigeneity and wellbeing
Hawaiʻi state law also acknowledges the Indigeneity of Native Hawaiians.31 In addition
to the more than 180 federal laws regarding Native Hawaiians, Hawaiʻi state law affirms and
prioritizes Native Hawaiians in various respects. Of particular importance to housing choice, the
Hawaiʻi State Planning Act adopts Congress’s commitment to raise Native Hawaiian health to
the highest level, and directs the state to prioritize programs and activities “that address
identified social determinants of health” tied to Native Hawaiian wellbeing.32 Given the
substantial understanding that housing is a key social determinant of health, housing policy and
29 Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974). 30 Later in this report we describe in detail the importance of blood quantum in determining eligibility for the
benefits of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Unlike the majority of Native Hawaiian federal programs established during the Self-Determination Era, such as the Native Hawaiian Health Care Program, Native Hawaiian Education Program, and the Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan Fund. Unlike the aforementioned programs, which do not consider blood quantum, the HHCA distinguishes between those Native Hawaiians with ½ or more blood quantum for the purpose of securing an original homestead lease, and ¼ or more blood quantum to inherit a lease. 31 See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 10H-1 (“[t]he Native Hawaiian people are hereby recognized as the only indigenous,
aboriginal, maoli people of Hawaiʻi”). 32 See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 226-20. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol04_Ch0201-0257/HRS0226/HRS_0226-0020.htm
193
practice in Hawaiʻi should be viewed within the framework of the state’s commitment, along
with the other elements mentioned above.33
11.2.4 Land and Housing Issues Specific to US Indigenous People
The housing rights movement that resulted in the Fair Housing Act often emphasized
housing harms experienced by African Americans, but Indigenous people are also understood to
be the victims of fundamental land and housing discrimination and displacement.34 For
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, modern-day issues with housing
choice and wellbeing stem in part from massive, intentional, legally authorized land and housing
dispossession. These massive dispossessions made way for US expansion and the accumulation
of significant land, wealth, and housing by some private interests at the expense of Indigenous
people. Well-known examples include the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the General
Allotment Act of 1887. By one estimate, between 1887 and 1934 the US government took more
than 90 million acres of land, nearly ⅔ of all reservation lands, from Indian tribes.35 More
recently, in the 1940s and 1950s the federal government passed various laws and actions
33 Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2015). Social Determinants of Health [Fact Sheet]. https://www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/Volume-III-Social-Determinants-of-Health-FINAL.pdf
34 The Kerner Report, often credited for playing a key role in the passage of the Fair Housing Act, explicitly acknowledged its emphasis on African Americans while stating its intention to be inclusive of American Indians and other minority groups. See this excerpt from the Kerner Report: Much of our report is directed to the condition of those Americans who are also Negroes and to the social and economic environment in which they live—many in the black ghettos of our cities. But this Nation is confronted with the issue of justice for all its peoples— white as well as black, rural as well as urban. In particular, we are concerned for those who have continued to keep faith with society in the preservation of public order—the people of Spanish surname, the American Indian and other minority groups to whom this country owes so much. 35 Prepared statement of Honorable Brian Cladoosby, President, National Congress of American Indians, Hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, January 28, 2015, on Indian Country Priorities for the 114th Congress.
194
“terminating” the federal government’s acknowledgement of specific Indian tribes and absorbing
much of their land and, in so doing, their means of shelter.36
By the 1960s, efforts to acquire Indigenous land and assimilate Native people through
“termination” of their acknowledgement gave way to a new policy era. Since the 1960s and
especially the 1970s, US policy towards Indigenous people has been characterized as the “Self-
Determination Era.” While improvements under the Self-Determination Era are gradually
addressing the effects of some of these injustices, Indigenous people continue to suffer various
housing issues far beyond the average American, including lower homeownership rates, higher
rates of overcrowding, and homelessness. Additionally, the historic instances of massive land
dispossession and relocation remain largely unresolved, with most federal policy action on
Indigenous issues structured to make moderate, incremental change rather than comprehensive,
structural redress.
Like American Indians, modern-day housing issues experienced by Native Hawaiians are
connected to the violation of sovereignty and treaty rights, and the exploitation of Indigenous
lands by the United States without consent or just compensation. Perhaps most notably, this
includes the role of the United States in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and its
acceptance of lands held in trust for the Hawaiian people against the vocal protest of the Native
Hawaiian people.37 In 1993, the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow, the United States
acknowledged its wrongdoing in these matters, and promised to pursue reconciliation with the
Native Hawaiian community.38 In subsequent reconciliation hearings led by the US Departments
36 This era of Federal Indian law is often referred to as the “Termination Era,” characterized by the federal
government’s actions to “terminate” its relationship with various Indigenous people. 37 See generally, Silva, N. K. (2007). Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism. Duke
University Press. 38 See United States Congress (1993). "Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi's Overthrow and to Apologize to Native Hawaiians" (Public Law 103-150), 107 Stat. 1510".
195
of Justice and Interior, report authors found that “Native Hawaiians have called upon the United
States to assist them in improving economic opportunities, educational attainment, health status,
and housing.”39 Housing issues were commonly mentioned by hearing participants, with the
Mauka to Makai Reconciliation Report published in 2000 finding that housing and land and
natural resources were two of the top tier issues commented on by participants. Twenty-four-
years after this report, former Hawaiian Kingdom trust lands remain under government control,
Native Hawaiians remain uncompensated and their claims remain unresolved.40
11.2.5 Land and Housing Issues leading to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
After claiming jurisdiction over the former Hawaiian Kingdom and establishing the Territory of
Hawaiʻi through its Organic Act, Congress and the Territory promoted homesteading as a means
to “settle” Hawaiʻi.41 This included promotion of homesteading as established under the 1895
Land Act by the Republic of Hawaiʻi.42 Some Native Hawaiian leaders championed
homesteading as a means to secure housing and livelihood for Hawaiʻi’s Indigenous people, and
changes were made to the Territory’s Organic Act to bolster homesteading opportunities.43
Unfortunately, Native Hawaiians documented numerous instances of discrimination, threats by
39 U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Justice. (October 23, 2000). From Mauka to Makai: The
River of Justice Must Flow Freely, Report on the Reconciliation Process between the Federal Government and Native Hawaiians. https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/ohr/library/upload/Mauka-to-Makai-Report-2.pdf 40 See Public Law 103-150: Whereas the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum; 41 Kauanui, J. K. Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeniety, 82-83. Duke University Press. 42 The Republic of Hawaiʻi was a self-proclaimed government established in large part by the insurgents who illegally overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom with the assistance of the United States. The Republic of Hawaiʻi maintained control over Hawaiʻi while lobbying Congress to annex the islands. Formed in 1894, their effort to control the islands until annexation culminated in the passage of the Newlands Resolution in 1898 and the establishment of the Territory of Hawaiʻi, structured through the Organic Act of 1900 43 This included both of the Territory’s first two Congressional Delegates, Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox, and Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole.
196
employers, and delay and denial as they sought to utilize general homesteading.44 Meanwhile,
others utilized homesteading as a means to attract Americans from the US Continent to settle
Hawaiʻi, displacing its Indigenous people.45 Many Native Hawaiians unable to maintain
traditional livelihoods in rural areas relocated to urban settlements where they were subject to
dangerous conditions and poor public health.46
Native Hawaiians leaders organized Hawaiʻi-wide efforts to address the needs of what
they acknowledged as “a dying race” under then-current conditions. Following various self-help
and mutual assistance efforts, these Native Hawaiian-led organizations eventually determined
that a land base suitable for housing and reconnection to ʻāina was essential to reversing the
downward spiral.47 Noting in part the failures of general homesteading to be inclusive of
Hawaiʻi’s Indigenous people, Native Hawaiian community leaders embarked on a campaign to
set aside a portion of former Hawaiian Kingdom trust lands for the specific purpose of Native
Hawaiian housing and rehabilitation. This resulted in the passage of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act (HHCA), championed by Congressional Delegate Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole
and signed into law in 1921 by President Warren G. Harding. Kūhiō’s view of the need for the
HHCA was stark and in alignment with other Native Hawaiian leaders: he explained to his
Congressional colleagues that without intervention, the Native Hawaiian people would “become
extinct in a short period of time.”
44 Kamae, L. K. (1980). The Empty Throne (p. 143). Topgallant Publishing. 45 See, for example, Wright, K. (2023). Hulihia Nā Kānāwai ʻĀina: The Effects of Post-1893 Land Law Changes On
Native Hawaiians - Population Demographics Supplement or Supplant? (dissertation). Available at https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/016be2c8-1422-4087-8391-46640bc858b8 46 McGregor, D. P. (1990). ʻĀina Hoʻopulapula: Hawaiian Homesteading. Hawaiian Journal of History, 24. 47 McGregor, D. P. (1990). ʻĀina Hoʻopulapula: Hawaiian Homesteading. Hawaiian Journal of History, 24.
197
The next section of the report describes that program and its alignment with the purpose
of the Fair Housing Act. We conclude with an update on state funding for the administration of
the HHCA, which a previous Hawaiʻi Analysis of Impediments identified as an important issue.
11.3 Fair Housing issues and opportunities related to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) reserves over 203,000 acres of former
Hawaiian Kingdom trust lands for the purpose of rehabilitating qualified Native Hawaiians.48
Established by Congress prior to statehood, Hawaiʻi’s Admission Act requires the state to
administer the HHCA as a condition of statehood. Through the efforts of the state Department of
Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) and the Hawaiian Homes Commission (HHC), the HHCA
provides qualified Native Hawaiians with residential, pastoral, or agricultural leases, with a term
of 99 years at the cost of $1 per year. While the original proponents of what became the HHCA
did not advocate for any blood quantum restrictions, Congress chose to limit the HHCA’s
benefits to those Native Hawaiians able to verify that they are of at least ½ blood quantum. (The
Act was later amended to allow Native Hawaiians with at least ¼ blood quantum to inherit a
lease.)
11.3.1 Structural, original HHCA limitations
From its inception, several issues have limited the HHCA’s ability to benefit the broader Native
Hawaiian community. First, those former Kingdom trust lands set aside for the HHCA were
among the least hospitable for residence, farming, and grazing, and largely lacked the
infrastructure needed for housing and other purposes. In addition to resulting in difficulties for
48 Native Hawaiians with sufficient blood quantum to qualify for an HHCA lease are often referred to as “native
Hawaiians,” with an intentionally lowercase “n,” while those with various amounts of blood quantum are referred to as “Native Hawaiian” with an intentionally uppercase “N.” To remain accessible to readers of various backgrounds, we consistently use the term “Native Hawaiian” while adding descriptors such as “qualified” or “with sufficient blood quantum” when distinguishing between Native Hawaiian HHCA beneficiaries and the broader Native Hawaiian community.
198
Native Hawaiian attempting to homestead in harsh, remote conditions, these lands are difficult
and expensive for DHHL to develop in order to provide housing for beneficiaries. Secondly,
historically the state’s efforts to fund the HHCA have been anemic: until thirty years after
statehood (1988), “the State of Hawaiʻi provided no general funding for the administration of
DHHL and left it up to the department to pay its own operating costs, which compelled DHHL to
lease trust lands to raise these funds.”49 The breakthrough in funding in the late 1980s did not
lead to sustained sufficient funding, and required further intervention, which we describe later in
this section.
Lastly, as mentioned in the above paragraph, Congress altered the original proposal to
limit eligibility to Native Hawaiians with ½ or more blood quantum, meaning that the portion of
the Native Hawaiian community who lacked the blood quantum or lacked the paperwork needed
to demonstrate sufficient blood quantum were unable to secure an original lease.50 With the
support of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and
numerous individual homesteaders, the state of Hawaiʻi has passed legislation (Act 80) through
which Congress may amend the successor requirements to allow Native Hawaiians of as little as
1/32 blood quantum to inherit a lease.51 Original lessees would still need to have ½ or more
blood quantum to receive a homestead lease, so this would not result in any direct displacement
49 Lucas, P. N., Murakami, A. T., & Poai, K. (2015). Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. In M. K. MacKenzie, S. K.
Serrano, & K. Sproat (Eds.), Native Hawaiian Law: A Treatise. Kamehameha Press. 50 See the U.S. Department of the Interior’s analysis of Act 80, SLH 2017 here: Amendment to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended – Act 80 (2017) LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HHCA (2017). Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/43-cfr-48.15b1-and-3-docs-for-act-80_0.pdf 51 Ka Nūhou. (2017, August). House Bill 451 Signed by Governor David Ige. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/KaNuhou_Haulelau2017_SLD_v15.pdf
199
with those Native Hawaiians already on the waitlist.52 This amendment requires approval by the
US Congressional in order to take effect.
In testifying in support of Act 80 before the US House Committee on Natural Resources,
former DHHL Director and HHC Chairman William Aila explained that without acceptance,
some of the families whose ancestors were part of the very first group of homesteaders will be
disinherited. He quotes a homesteader and former HHC Commissioner in explaining that “[t]he
preservation of Hawaiian Culture, Social tradition, Cultural Lifestyle and economic stability are
tied to the land. It is important for continued rehabilitation processes to be in place. Lowering
successorship will allow families to pass on their valued inheritance and traditions to future
generations.”53 The most recently available DHHL survey of current HHCA lessees finds that as
much as 10.5 percent of current lessees do not have a successor with sufficient blood quantum,
and that this number has increased compared to the previous survey.54 Given that this survey is
already several years old, these numbers may be even higher to take, and will continue to rise
until Congress acts upon the requests of this coalition of advocates for long-time homestead
families.
11.3.2 The Waitlist
Underfunding of DHHL, combined with the difficulty in converting its lands into safe,
legally compliant residential areas, contributed to a growing wait list of those who met the blood
quantum requirements but waited in limbo as an applicant. Though some had assumed that
52 Critics of Act 80 have argued that while these amendments would not change eligibility for original leases, Native
Hawaiians on the waitlist might have to wait longer under this scenario, because leases that may otherwise be turned over to future lessees may not stay in the family of the previous lessee. 53 Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee for Indigenous People of the United States (H.J. Res.55). William Alia. (2021). 54 DHHL reports that this figure was 8.9 percent in 2014. SMS (2020). DHHL Beneficiaries Study Applicant Report, 2020. 18. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/DHHL-Applicant-Report-FINAL-Revised-210426.pdf
200
eventually the number of Native Hawaiians meeting the HHCA blood quantum threshold would
decline, the number of qualified applicants on the waitlist grew dramatically from 3,328 in 1973
to 26,925 in 2013.55 In 2022, the previous Analysis of Impediments described the applicant
waitlist as notoriously long and the “subject of litigation and decades of criticism,” while
acknowledging DHHL’s challenges in combating the waitlist without sufficient state funding.56
In that review, authors and respondents acknowledged DHHL’s need for funding in order to
fulfill its purpose. Addressing the waitlist requires sufficient funding not just for the development
of housing, but also the provision of infrastructure in what are often unbuilt or minimally built,
rural, remote communities lacking existing or sufficient water or sewage.
11.3.2 Infrastructure
As the previous section begins to explain, infrastructure costs continue to pose a major
barrier to providing housing options through the HHCA, as funding allocated towards
infrastructure cannot be dedicated to housing. As mentioned earlier, the more than 203,000 acres
set aside for the HHCA include some of the most rural, remote, arid or otherwise difficult lands
to develop and provide standard infrastructure. In the previous Analysis of Impediments, DHHL
planning staff explained that, due to the nature of the lands set aside for the HHCA,
infrastructure costs per lot can run as high as $150,000 to $200,000.57 (This does not include the
cost of the home itself.) In addition to visible, above ground infrastructure requirements like
roads, DHHL must also secure suitable water and sewage infrastructure; a greater challenge
when establishing residential areas in remote, rural areas far from existing water and sewage.
55 Lucas, P. N., Murakami, A. T., & Poai, K. (2015). 201. Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. In M. K. MacKenzie, S. K. Serrano, & K. Sproat (Eds.), Native Hawaiian Law: A Treatise. Kamehameha Press. 56 Engel, R., & Garboden,et al P. 145. State of Hawaiʻi Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing: Phase 2 Report. 57 Engel, R., & Garboden, et al P. 146. State of Hawaiʻi Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing: Phase 2 Report.
201
When interviewed this year, DHHL staff reiterated the need to overcome traditionally high
infrastructure costs.
11.3.3 Alignment of the HHCA and FHA
Despite these issues and others, the HHCA has made housing, farming or ranching a
reality for nearly 10,000 lease holders, increasing from 2,260 leases in 1973 to 9,981 in 2022.58
Based on the average Native Hawaiian household size (3.6 persons, compared to 3.1 persons for
the general state population), tens of thousands of Native Hawaiians may in fact benefit directly
from the nearly 10,000 leases, the vast majority of which are residential. Given the high barriers
to homeownership or stable rental units described here and elsewhere in this Analysis of
Impediments, the HHCA is an important tool for those seeking to increase access to housing
choice for Native Hawaiians. This is especially true when accounting for the historical and
modern ways in which mainstream policies and practices continue to fail to produce equitable
housing outcomes for Native Hawaiians.
11.3.4 FHA Anti-Discrimination provisions and HHCA
While HHCA leases are limited to Native Hawaiians with ½ or more blood quantum or
successors with at least ¼ blood quantum, provision of the HHCA in this manner is not in
conflict with the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act. As the US Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has explained, “There is no evidence that Congress,
in enacting Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, intended to amend or repeal the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act, 1920.”59 In contrast, following the passage of the Fair Housing Act,
58 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. (2022). 2022 Annual Report of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/DHHL-FY22-Annual-Report.pdf 59 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Memorandum, Applicability of the Fair Housing Act to
Hawaiian Homelands, by Charles Farbstein (Washington, D.C., 1999), https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Addendum-1.pdf
202
Congress continued to review, amend and fund the HHCA, which is strong evidence that
Congress has no issue with the HHCA’s restrictions.60 Additionally, in 2000 Congress amended
the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act by adding the Native Hawaiian
Housing Block Grant and Loan Guarantee Program.61 While less central to the HHCA itself,
Congress has also passed numerous additional statutes regarding the needs of certain HHCA
beneficiaries. This included, for example, legislation regarding the Native American Direct Loan
program under the Department of Veterans Affairs, which includes Native Hawaiian veterans
residing on HHCA land.62
11.3.5 The HHCA’s key role in Furthering Fair Housing in Hawaiʻi
In addition to being in harmony with the anti-discrimination requirements of the FHA,
the HHCA is perhaps the state’s most substantial and targeted tool to affirmatively further fair
housing for those Native Hawaiians who qualify for its benefits. When describing the duty to
affirmatively further fair housing in its 2021 interim final rule, HUD explains that it and its
funding recipients possess discretion and flexibility in determining how best to fulfill their
duties, “because the precise actions needed depend on local context.”63 In the case of Hawaiʻi,
this local context includes the unresolved land and resource dispossession experienced by Native
60 For example, the HHCA was amended in 1986 to expand successor requirements. See: Designating Successors Q&A. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/lessee-information/designating-successors-qa/; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Memorandum, Applicability of the Fair Housing Act to Hawaiian Homelands, by Charles Farbstein (Washington, D.C., 1999), https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/Addendum-1.pdf 61 For a description of the Native Hawaiian Housing provisions of NAHASDA, including its establishment via Act
of Congress in 2000, see: Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. (n.d.). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/nahasda/ 62 For a description of the Native American Veterans Direct Home Loan program, including inclusion of Native Hawaiian veterans residing on HHCA lands, see: U.S. Government Accountability Office. (April 2022). 2. Native American Veterans, Improvements to VA Management Could Help Increase Mortgage Loan Program Participation. https://www.gao.gov/assets/d22104627.pdf 63 Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications. F.R. Interim Final Rule, Request for Comments. Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-12114.pdf
203
Hawaiians, and until recently, Hawaiʻi’s failure to appropriately fund DHHL, which has resulted
in an eightfold increase in the waitlist while Native Hawaiians remain overrepresented among
the state’s homeless, underrepresented among homeowners, and cite cost of living and housing
affordability as major factors in outmigration.64
Members of the Native Hawaiian community and long-term Hawaiʻi residents of various
backgrounds are personally familiar with stories of qualified Native Hawaiians spending decades
on the HHCA waitlist, some dying before realizing their goals of relocating to a homestead.
While this is tragic on its own, as a matter of public policy it is of even greater concern that
Native Hawaiians on the waitlist tend to have a lower household income than the state average.
This is reflected in the 2020 DHHL Applicant Survey Report, which finds that waitlisted HHCA
eligible Native Hawaiian household income is nearly 10 percent lower than the state average,
despite the fact that Native Hawaiian households tend to be larger than non-Hawaiian
households.65 The same report finds that 21 percent, or more than one-in-five waitlisted HHCA
eligible Native Hawaiian households qualifies for one of the following: Section 8, Rental
Assistance, Public Assistance (TANF), SNAP/Food Stamps, or Women, Infant, Child Program
(WIC).66
While the HHCA’s most obvious and immediate benefits are provided to those Native
Hawaiians eligible for its benefits, other communities may also benefit from its provision of safe,
stable housing and communities for Native Hawaiians and their families. Perhaps most notably,
each time DHHL expands its housing stock with a new dwelling that is occupied by a qualified
64 We provide data and a more detailed assessment of outmigration issues later. 65 SMS (2020). DHHL Beneficiaries Study Applicant Report, 2020. 24. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/DHHL-Applicant-Report-FINAL-Revised-210426.pdf 66 Ibid at 28. Please note that the actual figure or figure for those actually eligible may be higher, as 12 percent of respondents were either unsure or refused to answer this question.
204
Native Hawaiian, that Native Hawaiian’s previous, off-corpus dwelling is made available. Since
the vast majority of applicants on the HHCA waitlist reside in Hawaiʻi, their movement from the
waitlist to an HHCA dwelling has a positive impact on the availability of general housing for the
state.67 As the state strives to expand general housing stock and reduce pressure on housing cost,
it should keep in mind that expansion of HHCA housing stock accomplishes this goal directly for
its beneficiaries and, through relocation, the non-Hawaiian population as well. However, the
effect of this benefit to non-Hawaiians may decrease if cost-of-living and housing affordability
continue to drive up the number of waitlisted Native Hawaiians who relocate to the US
Continent in order to secure more affordable housing.68
11.3.6 Background on the State’s Constitutional obligation to fund the HHCA
Among the several contemporary issues with the implementation of the HHCA, funding
is arguably the most important and pressing factor in reducing the waitlist and improving access
to fair housing. To produce a lot for an HHCA beneficiary, the Department needs an extensive
amount of money, as it is responsible for planning and environmental compliance, engineering
design, infrastructure construction, as well as home construction. (Several of these costs are
described in our earlier discussion on infrastructure.)
The recent fight to fund the Department traces back to the 1978 Hawaiʻi Constitutional
Convention, in which several delegates responded to the state’s failure to provide the Department
with adequate funding since its inception. Hawaiʻi held two constitutional conventions before
67 Ibid at 4. According to its most recent applicant survey, 87 percent of waitlisted HHCA eligible Native Hawaiians
reside in-state. 68 Ibid. Data reflect this growing trend: from 1995 to 2020, the percentage of waitlisted Native Hawaiians residing out of state has nearly doubled, from 7 percent to 13 percent.
205
1978 – one in 1950, in which delegates drafted a constitution that would later be adopted after
statehood in 1959, and another in 1968.69
By the ‘78 Constitutional Convention, Native Hawaiian rights were the primary focus of
many of the amendments. For example, Article XII of the Constitution – the “Hawaiian Affairs”
section – was amended to create the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, as well as protect traditional and
customary Native Hawaiian rights. The late Frenchy DeSoto, a ‘78 convention delegate who led
the Hawaiian Affairs committee wrote a letter to the editor in the Honolulu Star Bulletin that
described the purpose of the ‘78 amendments as curbing “the extinction of a dying native
Hawaiian race.”70
At this point in time, there were over 5,000 applicants on the Department’s waitlist.71 The
Hawaiian Affairs committee expressed concern that the Department was being forced to lease
out its own lands just to generate income for its operative and administrative expenses.72 This
was noted as a hindrance to making land available to waitlisted beneficiaries. The committee
opined that “DHHL cannot afford to lease more acreage to the general public for the purpose of
generating income…”
Finding that “through legislative funding this dilemma would be resolved,”73 the
committee proposed an amendment that would mandate the state legislature to adequately fund
the Department. Thus, included in the Hawaiian Affairs package at the ‘78 Hawaiʻi
69 Kosaki, R. H. (1978). Constitutions and Constitutional Conventions of Hawaiʻi. Hawaiian Journal of History, 12. http://hdl.handle.net/10524/196 70 Hofschneider, A. (September 13, 2018). Fragile Aloha: Why Hawaiʻi’s Last Constitutional Convention Was Important. Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved from https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/09/fragile-aloha-why-hawaiis-last-constitutional-convention-was-important/
71 (1980). Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaiʻi of 1978, 1, 631. https://doi.org/https://files.hawaii.gov/dags/archives/PDFs/1978%20Con%20Con%20Journal%20Vol-1%20Journal.pdf 72 Ibid at 632.
73 Ibid.
206
Constitutional Convention was an amendment to Article XII Section 1, codifying the state
legislature’s responsibility to fund DHHL. The amended Article XII, Section 1 of the Hawaiʻi
State Constitution now reads:
“The legislature shall make sufficient sums available for the following purposes:
(1) development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots; (2) home, agriculture,
aquaculture, farm and ranch loans; (3) rehabilitation projects to include, but not
limited to, educational, economic, political, social and cultural processes by which
the general welfare and conditions of native Hawaiians are thereby improved; (4)
the administration and operating budget of the department of Hawaiian home lands;
in furtherance of (1), (2), (3) and (4) herein, by appropriating the same in the manner
provided by law.”74
This amendment – namely the “sufficient sums” language – mandated the legislature to provide
sufficient funding for the Department in order to relieve it from the task of leasing out its own
land to make ends meet. More specifically, delegate DeSoto estimated that the Department’s
administrative and operating expenses amounted to approximately $1.3 to $1.6 million at the
time, adjusted for inflation.75 However, despite this historic win at the Constitutional
Convention, funding for the Department remained scarce for decades.76
11.3.6.1 Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission (I & II)
These changes to the state constitution did not result in the funding hoped for by its
proponents. As time went on and DHHL remained severely underfunded, it became increasingly
difficult for the Department to house beneficiaries. In October of 2007, six HHCA beneficiaries
sued the Hawaiian Homes Commission, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, and the State
Director of Finance for violating Article XII Section 1 of the state constitution by failing to
74 Tuteur, M. (2018). A Matter of Belated Justice: A Summary of Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission II, 141
Hawaiʻi 411, 412, 412 P.3d 917 (2018). Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law. https://manoa.hawaii.edu/kahuliao/ka-moae/fall-2018/new-case-developments/ 75 Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission, 412 P.3d 917, 918 (Haw. 2018) (“Nelson II”). 76 Andrade, T. J. H. (2022). Belated Justice: The Failures and Promise of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. American Indian Law Review, 46(1), 44, 46. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol46/iss1/2
207
provide sufficient funding for HHCA beneficiaries.77 Of the six beneficiaries, Richard Nelson III
was the named plaintiff in the litigation, and thus the two cases that ensued became known as
Nelson I and Nelson II. Both cases ask the primary question: “what are ‘sufficient sums’ as per
Article XII Section I?”
The trial court in Nelson I declined to rule on the plaintiff’s claims, finding that
determining ‘sufficient sums’ was a political question, thus not one for the courts to answer.78
The beneficiary plaintiffs appealed, and in 2012, the case found itself in front of the Hawaiʻi
Supreme Court. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held the opposite of the circuit court, and opined
that ‘sufficient sums’ for DHHL’s administrative and operating expenses were judicially
discoverable (able to be ascertained by a court), and not barred by the political question
doctrine.79 The unanimous court pointed to the legislative history of the 1978 Constitutional
Convention as containing clear standards to follow when determining ‘sufficient sums’ –
namely, Delegate De Soto’s arrival at the $1.3-1.6 million figure.80 The court sent the case back
down to the circuit court, and tasked the circuit court with defining ‘sufficient sums’ for the
Department’s administrative and operative costs.81 The circuit court then heard the case again as
Nelson II.
77 See Nelson II, 412 P.3d. 78 The term “political question” conveys the idea that “some issues are either entrusted solely to another branch of government or beyond the competence of the judiciary to review.” Here, the court claimed that ascertaining the specific amount of funding necessary for DHHL to operate was a task for the legislative branch and not the judicial branch. Lampe, Joanna R. 2022. The Political Question Doctrine: An Introduction (Part 1). (CRS Report No. LSB10756). https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10756; Nelson II, 412 P.3d at 412.
79 Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm’n, 127 Hawaiʻi 185, 277 P.3d 279 (2012) (“Nelson I”). 80 Nelson II; Andrade, T. J. H. (2022). Belated Justice: The Failures and Promise of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act. American Indian Law Review, 46(1), 49. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol46/iss1/2 81 Nelson II; Andrade, T. J. H. (2022). Belated Justice: The Failures and Promise of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. American Indian Law Review, 46(1), 50. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol46/iss1/2
208
During the bench trial upon remand, the Department, relying on Hawaiian Homes
Commission Chair Jobie Masagatani and DHHL Administrative Services officer Rodney Lau,82
argued that ‘sufficient sums’ amounted to a little over $28 million for the Department’s
administrative and operating budget for the 2015-2016 fiscal year.83 The circuit court agreed
with the Department and found that ‘sufficient sums’ equaled the approximate $28 million.84
However, the State appealed and in 2018, the case again found itself in front of the
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that, while the circuit court did have
the power to determine what ‘sufficient sums’ are for the Department, it should have only
considered the criteria of the ‘78 Constitutional Convention to arrive at this number. Justice
McKenna wrote for the majority, “Under Nelson I, the only judicially discoverable and
manageable standard for determining ‘sufficient sums’ for DHHL’s administrative and operating
budget was established by the delegates of the 1978 Constitutional Convention as $1.3 to 1.6
million, adjusted for inflation.”85 In other words, the court found that $1.3 to 1.6 million was the
only appropriate amount in this case, despite contemporary calculations to the contrary. The
court thus remanded the case back to the circuit court again, with clearer confines of the amount
the court could find were ‘sufficient sums’ for the Department.
While Nelson I made progress by affirming DHHL’s right to sufficient sums as well as
the court’s ability to determine such, the decision in Nelson II was harmful for the Department
and HHCA’s waitlisted beneficiaries, as it severely underestimated the Department’s needs. The
$1.3-6 million figure was established three decades prior to the court’s decision and did not
82 Nelson II, 412 P.3d at 416-17. 83 Nelson II, 412 P.3d at 416-17.
84 Andrade, T. J. H. (2022). Belated Justice: The Failures and Promise of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. American Indian Law Review, 46(1), 50. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol46/iss1/2 85 Nelson II, 412 P.3d at 412.
209
account for the actual costs that DHHL would incur. This number did not include future
expenses, the anticipated growth of the waitlist, nor any additional staffing or manpower. These
‘sufficient sums’ covered only about one-fourth of administrative and operating expenses for the
Department.86
11.3.7 Settlement
Despite the issues with Nelson II, both cases in the Nelson litigation elucidated the
glaring issue of sparse DHHL funding. News stories about the Nelson cases and the
Department’s fight for adequate funding erupted on multiple media platforms.87 Additionally,
after the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued its decision in Nelson I, the Department met with
beneficiary leaders all over the state to discuss the ruling.88 The Department encouraged them
and other beneficiaries to urge their legislators to appropriate more funding for DHHL. In the
years to follow, the legislature would appropriate historic amounts to cover the Department’s
costs and help it fulfill its trust responsibilities.89
The largest appropriation in recent history was through Act 279, a law passed in 2022
that provided DHHL with $600 million in new funding. Act 279 gave the Department wide
discretion to use the $600 million to develop existing lots, purchase new ones, provide
beneficiaries with funding, and provide other services “as necessary to address the waiting
86 Andrade, T. J. H. (2022). Belated Justice: The Failures and Promise of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. American Indian Law Review, 46(1), 52. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol46/iss1/2 87 DHHL STATEMENT ON NELSON CASE RULING. (2018, February 12). Department of Hawaiian
Homelands. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/2018/02/12/hawaii-state-supreme-court-nelson-case-ruling/ 88 Call to Action: Nelson Case & DHHL Budget. (2013, January 24). Department of Hawaiian Homelands.
Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/2013/01/24/call-to-action-nelson-case/ 89 Andrade, T. J. H. (2022). Belated Justice: The Failures and Promise of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. American Indian Law Review, 46(1), 53. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol46/iss1/2
210
list.”90 This hefty appropriation would ease tension brought about by the Nelson cases, and move
the Department further toward its goal of eliminating the HHCA waitlist.
11.4 Updates on efforts by DHHL to lower housing barriers for eligible Native Hawaiians
Alongside the passage of Act 279 and its historic funding for DHHL, the Department
promulgated several rulemakings which may, in the view of the Department and the State,
provide greater housing choice for Native Hawaiians. While not their focus, in very limited
instances, they may also benefit the larger Native Hawaiian community as well as non-Hawaiian
residents of the state.91 This part describes recent actions, including DHHL’s strategic spending
plan, its recently adopted rules, and its efforts to shelter unhoused Native Hawaiians while they
are on the Department’s waitlist.
11.4.1 DHHL’s Act 279 Strategic Spending Plan
In addition to providing $600 million in funds to DHHL to fulfill the purpose of the
HHCA, Act 279 required the Department to submit a strategic spending plan to the Legislature
by December 10, 2022, roughly five months after the Governor signed the Act into law.92 DHHL
published a preliminary strategic approach document in August of that year, and followed up
with its strategic spending plan on December 6, 2022. Considering both homeownership and
rental opportunities for eligible Native Hawaiians, DHHL’s spending plan prioritized
homeownership.93 Further, it emphasized new homestead lot development as the primary means
90 H.B. 2511 HD2 SD2 CD1, 2022 Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2022). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2022/bills/HB2511_CD1_.pdf 91 For example, a new rental unit made possible by the rental SDU rule may be leased to a Native Hawaiian
beneficiary of the HHCA who is married to a non-beneficiary, including a non-Hawaiian. However, we explain in this section why the majority of impact would be within the Native Hawaiian community. 92 Act 279 (2022). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Act-279.pdf 93 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Strategic Plan to Implement Act 279 of 2022 (2022). Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Exh-A-Act-279-Strategic-Plan-Nov.-2022.pdf
211
of increasing homeownership for its beneficiaries. Lastly, the plan prioritized development
projects based on:
● Timing and position in the Department’s pipeline for production
● Areas prioritized for development in the Department’s Island Plans; and
● Island-by-island waitlist demand
While focusing primarily on these priorities, DHHL’s strategic spending plan also sets aside
resources for innovative individual assistance programs, and to support waitlisted Native
Hawaiians maintain rental housing. When explaining its focus on single family homes with long-
term leases, the Department referenced a survey on applicant preference for dwelling options.
The Department explains that in the survey, 76 percent of applicants expressed a preference for
“a single-family home or a vacant lot for a house” while only 16 percent “preferred to rent or
rent with the option to buy in the future a single-family home, duplex, apartment, or
townhouse.”94
Looking more closely at the referenced survey, reproduced in Table 11.1, it is clear that
higher density options such as condos, townhomes, duplexes and four-plexes, while not
undesirable, are far, far less desirable than a single family home. Interestingly, an affordable
rental unit available while the beneficiary stays on the waitlist, with no path towards renting-to-
own, was significantly more desirable than a condo or townhouse rental with option to buy, a
townhouse in a duplex or four-plex, or a condominium apartment. This appears to reflect that
many beneficiaries are willing to wait longer to secure a homestead, even forgoing options for
long-term homeownership in a higher-density dwelling, if it means eventually securing land and
a single family lot.
94 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Strategic Plan to Implement Act 279 of 2022 (2022). 9. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Exh-A-Act-279-Strategic-Plan-Nov.-2022.pdf
212
Strong preference for single family lots places the Department in a difficult position
given two conflicting issues: the overall scarcity of HHCA land suitable for residential
development and the mismatch between demand to reside on Oʻahu and the supply of available
lands on that island. On the first issue, DHHL reports that of its more than 203,000 acres
statewide, a mere 4.67 percent is residential, meaning that slightly over 95 percent of its lands
are meant for other purposes. In terms of total acreage, the island with the highest level of
demand, Oʻahu, has the lowest amount of HHCA lands available of any island with corpus lands,
just 4 percent of the total land inventory. (Only Lānaʻi, Niʻihau, and Kahoʻolawe, all of which
have no HHCA lands, have less lands available.)95 Beneficiaries thus demonstrate preferences
that are in tension - a desire to live on the island (Oʻahu) with the least land available, but a
seemingly similarly strong desire for the type of lease that uses the most land (single family).96
11.4.2 Administrative Rule Changes
Years before the 2022 legislative session that resulted in the appropriation of $600
million in new funds, DHHL was in the process of using its rulemaking authority to expand
housing options for eligible Native Hawaiians, including uses that may benefit Native Hawaiians
ineligible for HHCA leases and the general public. We describe these promulgated rules here,
and their potential to lower barriers to housing choice.
95 See Department of Hawaiian Homelands. (2021). 2021 Legislative Fact Sheet [Fact Sheet]. https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-DHHL-Legislative-Handout-8.5x11-FINAL.pdf 96 While in tension, this is not to say that these desires are inconsistent. Given that the majority of Native Hawaiians currently reside on Oʻahu, there are numerous reasons why a beneficiary would strongly prefer that island. It is also completely understandable why most applicants would prefer a single family lot, for reasons that include the association with ʻāina and literal, physical connection to land possible through a single family lot with a yard, when compared to a high-rise condo or apartment. However, it does present some fundamental challenges for the Department. The authors are not aware of whether the Department has examined which of these preferences is stronger.
213
11.4.2.1 Supplemental Dwelling Units
In December of 2017, the Hawaiian Homes Commission first approved the Department’s
request to move forward with a proposed change to its administrative rules – a change to allow
beneficiaries with residential homestead leases to build supplemental dwelling units (“SDU”) on
their lots.97 This rule change was approved by Governor Ige in December of 2021 as an added
subchapter (3.1) to the Native Hawaiian Rehabilitation Program.98 The Department defines
SDUs as units that are smaller than the primary dwelling and that contain a separate entry,
kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom.99 This definition includes the “ohana dwelling unit” and
“additional dwelling unit” language used by other counties in the state. According to the
Department, the Native Hawaiian housing issues to be alleviated by this rule change are need,
overcrowding, and financial strain.100
The qualifying residential lessee may apply for one of two SDU options: 1) a rental SDU,
and 2) an ‘ohana SDU.101 The rental SDU option allows the homestead lessee to rent the newly
constructed unit to an HHCA-eligible Native Hawaiian.102 Because the original lessee will be
collecting rent from the SDU tenant, this type of SDU option aims to “supplement income for the
97 Lindsey, H., Beneficiary Consultation Report on Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Proposed Amendments to Title 10, Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules for DCCRs; Multi-Family, Rentals, and Kupuna Housing; and Supplemental Dwelling Units (2018). Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Sept-2018_ITem-C-2_For-Info_BC-Report-DCCR-Multi-SDU.pdf 98 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-3 (2021). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HAR-10-3.-Eff-12.23.21.pdf 99 Department of Hawaiian Homelands. (2021, May). DHHL Administrative Rules - Supplemental Dwelling Units -
May 2021. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSzeJJJPDs4 100 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-3-40.01 (2021).
https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HAR-10-3.-Eff-12.23.21.pdf 101 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-3-40 (2021).
https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HAR-10-3.-Eff-12.23.21.pdf 102 Section 209(a) of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (1921) defines a qualified successor to the lease as
either (1) a spouse, children, grandchildren, brother or sister provided the person or persons designated have at least 25 percent Hawaiian blood, or (2) a father or mother, the widows or widowers of the children, widows or widowers of the brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews, provided that person or persons designated have at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood. Designating Successors Q&A. Department of Hawaiian Homelands. https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/lessee-information/designating-successors-qa/
214
lessee and potentially help to provide housing for native Hawaiians.”103 The other option is the
‘ohana SDU, which is explicitly for non-rental purposes. The person living in the ʻohana SDU
must be a qualified relative of the lessee, as defined by §209(a) of the HHCA, and the original
lessee shall not charge any rent.104 The Department aims to alleviate the overcrowding of
homestead lots by allowing the construction of this type of SDU. Both types of SDUs (rental and
ʻohana) must be long term rentals and must last a minimum of six months.105
A residential lessee may take advantage of this program by first applying to the
Department to build the SDU on their lot. The Department will make a lease compliance review
to determine whether the application process may move forward. Once the Department approves
the application, the lessee must seek out approval and the necessary permits from the county.
The Hawaiian Homes Commission must then approve, and finally construction may begin.106
To make it through this approval process, there are several requirements for the lessee as
well as the lot itself. For example, the SDU construction and any related improvements must
comply with building codes and county regulations.107 Further, the lot cannot be landlocked,
must comply with the island and area plans, and the SDU cannot conflict with any existing
covenants, easements, or conditions on the land. Additionally, the lessee must comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local housing laws, including the Fair Housing Act. The lessee must
also complete construction within a year of HHCA approval, and must reside on the lot at all
times.
103 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-3-40.07 (2021). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HAR-10-3.-Eff-12.23.21.pdf 104 Ibid. 105 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, FAQs: Supplemental Dwelling Units (SDUs) - Proposed Administrative
Rules. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SDU-FAQs.pdf 106 Department of Hawaiian Homelands. (2021, June 30). DHHL Administrative Rules - Supplemental Dwelling
Units Public Hearing - June 30, 2021. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfhOey1cHCo. 107 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-3-40.05 (2021). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HAR-10-3.-Eff-12.23.21.pdf
215
Financially, the lessee is responsible for constructing the SDU, as well as “all costs
associated with the County’s permitting process and any upgrades to infrastructure, such as water
or wastewater, or other code or regulatory compliance items that the County may require.”108
The subchapter explicitly states that “the department shall not be required to finance construction
of the SDU nor shall the department be liable for any cost or expense incurred in the processing
and obtaining of the necessary county permits and approvals.”109
This pilot program will last five years with the possibility of becoming permanent if a
three-year evaluation results favorably.110 The evaluation is expected to start in early 2025 with
results to come to the Hawaiian Homes Commission sometime in the Spring.111 As of December
2024, members at DHHL have expressed their satisfaction with the new administrative rule, and
intend to make the pilot program permanent. The Department has already received multiple
applications from homestead lessees to build SDUs on their property. The evaluation that is
currently being contemplated will most likely evaluate logistics and brainstorm ways to make the
application, approval, and construction processes more efficient for the Department and county,
as well as the lessee and tenant.
As the Department intended, this rule change – namely the rental SDUs – will likely
benefit lessees by providing them with an extra passive income via rent payments. Further, the
ʻohana units may alleviate overcrowding issues on DHHL land by spreading families out and
minimizing doubling up, while still providing for the benefits of multigenerational living.112
108 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, FAQs: Supplemental Dwelling Units (SDUs) - Proposed Administrative
Rules. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SDU-FAQs.pdf 109 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-3-40.04 (2021). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HAR-10-3.-Eff-12.23.21.pdf
110 Ibid. 111 Riley, K., Walsh, M., & Choy, A. (2024a, December 12). HHCA Follow Up Interview. Personal.
112 See Doubling Up in Part IV.
216
However, more comprehensive change may be needed to combat the issue of hidden
homelessness on homestead land, as this program excludes the homeless Native Hawaiians
living on corpus who do not qualify to live in SDUs by blood quantum or relation under the
HHCA.113 Additionally, the option for lessees to build an SDU is also only available to those
who can financially afford to build the additional unit on their property. The Department should
consider securing financial assistance for qualifying lessees in order to expand the initiative’s
reach.
There also exists some ambiguity in the rules regarding the use of housing vouchers to
rent out SDUs from homestead lessees. It is unclear whether tenants are permitted to use housing
vouchers to rent SDUs from homestead lessees as the administrative rules do not explicitly
contemplate the use of housing assistance. We recommend that the administrative rules lay out
guidelines for renting an SDU through a housing voucher, or at the very least, state that SDU
tenants are permitted to use housing vouchers to rent. Alternatively, the Department may
consider guidance - an option less administratively cumbersome than revising its rule - if it
determines that the rules do allow for this practice. Clarification on this issue is especially
important because Native Hawaiian individuals and families – having a lower median household
and family income than the general population in the state114 – are positioned to be more likely
to use housing vouchers and financial assistance to rent.
While this rule change is not likely to directly reduce the waitlist (as HHCA-eligible SDU
occupants will remain on the waitlist until awarded a lot by DHHL), it may indirectly reduce the
113 See Hidden Homeless in Part IV. 114 Liddell, C. (2024). Demographic, Social, and Economic Characteristics of Hawaiʻi’s Race Groups: 2017-2021. Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT): Research and Economic Analysis Division (READ). Retrieved from https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/Detailed-race-characteristics_ACS2021.pdf
217
waitlist through the development of ʻohana or rental SDUs. Consider the following scenario:
since ʻohana SDU tenants are not required to pay rent, any ʻohana tenants who are also waitlisted
beneficiaries will have the opportunity to live in the unit and save money in order to eventually
purchase a home from DHHL once they reach the top of the waitlist.115 It is also conceivable that
there will be cases in which even the ʻohana SDU financially benefits the lessee, since certain
pooling of resources is allowed by the rules.116 Whether these measures achieve a meaningful
impact on financial self-sufficiency or housing stability remain to be seen, and require
monitoring and further research to be fully understood.
11.4.2.2 Multi-Family Rental Housing
Another change to DHHL’s administrative rules includes housing waitlisted beneficiaries
in affordable multi-family housing units. The new rule took effect in August of 2019, and added
a new chapter to Hawaiʻi’s administrative rules to “expand residential lease offerings to include
multi-family housing.”117 According to the Department, multi-family housing may consist of
apartment or condominium units, low-rise or high-rise buildings, or townhouses.118 The
Department is permitted to contract with developers to construct the multi-family housing, then
work together with property management companies to offer the rental housing to waitlisted
beneficiaries.119 While the rule defines these projects as rental housing, it also states that the
115 As mentioned elsewhere, lack of savings for a down payment is one of the most common reasons that a Native Hawaiian on the HHCA waitlist may decline a lease offer. 116 “The ‘ohana occupant may contribute to household expenses such as utilities and mortgage payments, if applicable, but rent shall not be charged.” See Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-7-41 (2019). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/HAR-Ch-10-7_Eff-Aug-17-2019-1.pdf 117 DHHL Administrative Rules – DCCR’s, Multi-Family, Rentals, Kupuna Housing and Supplemental Dwelling
Units. Department of Hawaiian Homelands. https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/po/beneficiary-consultation/dhhl-administrative-rules-dccrs-multi-family-rentals-kupuna-housing-and-supplemental-dwelling-units/ 118 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, FAQs: Multi-Family, Rentals, and Kupuna Housing - Proposed Administrative Rules (2018). Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FAQs-Multi-Family-Rentals-Kupuna-Housing-Rules.pdf 119 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-7-1 (2019). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/HAR-Ch-10-7_Eff-Aug-17-2019-1.pdf
218
rental agreements between the property management company and the tenant “may include an
option to purchase.”120 It is unclear what the criteria is for a beneficiary to obtain a rent-to-own
option in their rental agreement, or if purchasing a multi-family housing unit will remove them
from the DHHL waitlist.
The Department’s first plan to construct multi-family housing units is at the site of the
former Stadium Bowl-O-Drome bowling alley in Mōʻiliʻili.121 The Department acquired this
property from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources in 1995122 and in January of
2020, contracted with Stanford Carr Development to build over 270 units on the less than two-
acre parcel.123 After several delays,124 a more recent update stated that Stanford Carr
Development expects to break ground by the end of 2024, with move-ins expected by 2027.125
The Department recognizes that while HHCA acreage is limited, there remains a great
need to house the tens of thousands of HHCA beneficiaries on the waitlist. With this rule change,
it intends to be space-efficient by providing fair housing choice for more HHCA eligible Native
Hawaiians using far less land than would be necessary for a single family home project. Further,
each HHCA beneficiary who receives rental housing under this chapter will remain on the
waitlist and remain eligible to become a residential lessee, an option that eligible Native
120 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 10-7-41 (2019). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/HAR-Ch-
10-7_Eff-Aug-17-2019-1.pdf 121 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, 820 Isenberg Street Redevelopment, Oʻahu (2021). Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/820-Isenberg-211221.pdf 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid.
124 HNN Staff. (2023, September 8). HFD: Blaze at Abandoned Bowling Alley in McCully Was Intentionally Set. Hawaiʻi News Now. Retrieved from https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/09/08/hfd-blaze-abandoned-bowling-alley-mccully-was-intentionally-set/. 125 Dowd, E. (2024, October 8). Homeless Hotspot Transforming Into $155M High-Rise for Native Hawaiians. Hawaiʻi News Now. Retrieved from https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/10/09/new-155m-apartment-complex-moiliili-meant-solely-native-hawaiians-break-ground-soon/.
219
Hawaiians described as preferable to securing a rent-to-own or condo or apartment style
dwelling but forgoing the option of a single family lot.
The Department sees this housing as an opportunity for waitlisters making far below the
average income to have access to affordable housing until they are awarded homestead leases.
Stanford Carr’s project manager Kaloa Robinson describes the Mōʻiliʻili development as “a
waiting room or as something that provides housing while homestead leases are being
developed.”126 Because the rentals are intended to be affordable, they may also provide
waitlisted Native Hawaiians with the opportunity to save money towards an eventual down
payment on a future homestead lot, positioning them to have the financial means to take on the
mortgage that comes with more desirable, though costly, single family housing.
While not directly reducing the size of the waitlist, multi-family housing developments
are an efficient way to provide beneficiaries with affordable housing. The Mōʻiliʻili project is a
good tool to address the needs of some beneficiaries as it will provide HHCA beneficiaries with
nearly three hundred affordable housing units while still keeping them eligible for single family
homes on homestead land. This project is also intended to be revenue-generating for the
Department.127 The increased revenue generation, if successful, will further enable DHHL to
place more beneficiaries on homestead land and continue to reduce the waitlist. The revenue
from this development and any future developments under this new chapter will also supply the
Department with a much needed form of consistent and reliable funding. DHHL’s 2014 Oʻahu
Island Plan predicts that this development will “meet both housing and revenue generation needs
126 Huff, D. (2023, July 26). Former Site of Stadium Bowl-o-Drome Will Be New Home For DHHL’s First Rental Project. Hawaiʻi News Now. Retrieved from https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/07/27/former-site-stadium-bowl-o-drome-will-be-new-home-dhhls-first-rental-high-rise/ 127 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Oʻahu Island Plan (2014). Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DHHL-OIP-Final-140708.pdf
220
of the department.”128 While we generally caution against generating revenue at the expense of
its beneficiary residents, revenue generation to keep this project at or near revenue-neutral has
the important benefit of not decreasing the amount of DHHL funds available, over the long-term,
for the purpose of expanding HHCA housing stock.
This rule change allowing DHHL to acquire and develop multi-family rentals does raise a
concern about the allocation of the Department’s resources when considering beneficiaries’
preferences of unit and lot characteristics, which the Department should be careful to address. As
mentioned earlier, wait listed Native Hawaiians eligible for HHCA benefits strongly prefer a
single family home to higher density options. Further, over 84 percent of applicants desire three
or more bedrooms in their next home, which is reasonable considering the larger than average
size of Native Hawaiian families and households. The Mōʻiliʻili project and other multi-family
rentals to be developed under this rule do not contain single family homes, and according to the
most recently available plans for the Mōʻiliʻili project, only 30 out of the nearly 300 units will
contain three bedrooms.129 Because multi-family rental complexes do not cater to the majority of
beneficiaries’ preferences, the Department’s primary focus should continue to be developing
single family homes for waitlisted beneficiaries.
Another concern about this rule is that multi-family rentals will not take any HHCA
beneficiaries off the waitlist. However, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in recent funding
for the Department, the waitlist remains at nearly 30,000 applicants. The harsh truth is that many
applicants on the waitlist will remain there for decades to come, especially if they are unable to
afford the mortgage and monthly payments that come with the homestead options available to
128 Ibid. 129 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, 820 Isenberg Street Redevelopment, Oʻahu (2021). Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/820-Isenberg-211221.pdf
221
them. Thus, it is imperative for the Department to develop creative and time-sensitive solutions
to the Native Hawaiian housing crisis, even if it does not directly reduce the waitlist. Developing
multi-family rental complexes can accomplish this – it can move the needle more towards fair
housing choice for HHCA-eligible Hawaiians. Keeping this in mind, the Department should
continue to balance its resources carefully and craft innovative Native Hawaiian housing
solutions, even if only what may be a minority of applicants who prefer or are willing to accept a
higher density dwelling instead of a single family lot. When possible, the Department should
maximize doing so on Oʻahu, the island in highest demand, and for which density construction
presents the least impact on the character of the communities, at least within the urban core.
As the Department considers expansion of housing stock, including higher density
options and the purchase of existing infrastructure, it should carefully consider strategies to
minimize any negative impacts on existing residents. For example, the Department is obligated
under federal policy to take reasonable steps to minimize the displacement of existing persons -
defined broadly to include “households, businesses, nonprofit organizations and farms” - when
implementing its Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant rental assistance efforts.130 Displaced
persons must also be informed of their rights under the Fair Housing Act, and be provided with
relocation assistance, to include reasonable opportunities to relocate to similar dwellings within
their financial means.131
130 The applicable federal rule, Other Federal Requirements: Displacement, Relocation, and Acquisition, 24 C.F.R. § 1006.377 (2024), states: (b) Minimize displacement. Consistent with the other goals and objectives of the Act and this part, the DHHL shall assure that it has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the displacement of persons (households, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and farms) as a result of a project assisted under the Act and this part. 131 See Other Federal Requirements: Displacement, Relocation, and Acquisition, 24 C.F.R. § 1006.377 (2024): c) Relocation assistance for displaced persons. A displaced person (defined in paragraph (f) of this section) must be provided relocation assistance at the levels described in, and in accordance with the URA and the requirements of 49 CFR part 24. A displaced person must be advised of his or her rights under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.). Whenever possible, minority persons shall be given reasonable
222
As mentioned earlier in this section, it also bears mentioning that the expansion of HHCA
housing stock may benefit non-Hawaiians, in addition to its obvious benefits for those Native
Hawaiians who qualify for the benefits of the HHCA. In the case of any future construction of
single-family lots, rent-to-own dwellings or higher-density non-rental dwellings, each new
HHCA beneficiary unit may provide a near-equal number of newly available units for non-
beneficiaries, as the vast majority of waitlisted Native Hawaiians are still located in Hawaiʻi. In
addition to potentially increasing general housing stock and reducing housing price increases, the
housing of HHCA beneficiaries in existing neighborhoods may increase diversity in
neighborhoods where Native Hawaiians have become underrepresented, or allow Native
Hawaiians to remain in communities in which they may otherwise be priced out. Lastly, the
development of affordable housing for HHCA beneficiaries, if it does not supplant existing
affordable housing, increases the overall stock of affordable housing in the state, which may
reduce pressure on the statewide affordable housing supply available to non-Hawaiians and
Native Hawaiians ineligible for the benefits of the HHCA.132
Lastly, the provision of affordable rental units for Native Hawaiians, even if only for
those eligible for the HHCA, is important for another reason: the general housing safety net’s
incompatibility with some of the key characteristics of the Native Hawaiian households. This
includes the tendency for Native Hawaiian families and households to be larger, while dwellings
opportunities to relocate to comparable and suitable decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwellings, not located in an area of minority concentration, that are within their financial means. For a displaced person with a disability, a unit is not a comparable replacement dwelling under the URA unless it is free of any barriers which would preclude reasonable ingress, egress, or use of the dwelling by such a displaced person in accordance with the definition of “Decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling” at 49 CFR 24.2. Furthermore, the unit must also meet the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794) as implemented by HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 8, subpart C. 132 In the event that affordable rentals for HHCA beneficiaries does supplant existing affordable housing, conversion to HHCA housing stock may still have other benefits, such as the provision of long-term means to keep those dwellings as affordable housing, protected from the pressures to convert them into non-affordable housing.
223
available through public assistance tend to be smaller and have fewer bedrooms. Native
Hawaiians on the Section 8 wait list differ in other important ways, being more likely to have
children in the household. Additionally, while the segment of affordable housing set aside for
kūpuna benefits elders of all backgrounds, the fact that far fewer Native Hawaiians live to be
elderly means that, statistically, they are less likely to benefit from kūpuna rentals and other
forms of senior housing. These and other factors may be responsible for the fact that Native
Hawaiians are significantly more likely than non-Hawaiians to spend 3-plus years on the Section
8 wait list, and nearly twice as likely to spend 5-plus years on the list.133
11.4.3 Sheltering Homeless Native Hawaiians on the HHCA Waitlist
Previous research has reflected that many Native Hawaiians on the HHCA waitlist are
financially vulnerable, with many unable to afford a down payment for a single family home,
and others in much more dire circumstances. Tragically, Point in Time Count results indicate that
Native Hawaiians on the HHCA waitlist are documented as being among the state’s homeless.
Based on the 2024 Oʻahu Point in Time Count alone, 256 unsheltered adults described
themselves as eligible for HHCA.134 This was 46 percent of the total unsheltered Native
Hawaiian population on the island.135 To support unsheltered Native Hawaiians who meet the
HCCA’s blood quantum requirements, DHHL is proposing a transitional housing project at
Kalaeloa, Oʻahu. Under its proposal, Native Hawaiians currently on the applicant waitlist would
be eligible for temporary transitional housing in a converted building previously used to house
133 Derrickson, J.P. (2014) Hawaiʻi Renters Study – 2013: Part 1. Differentiating the Housing Needs of Native Hawaiians on the Section 8 Wait List. As presented at the American Indigenous Research Association Annual Meeting, Pablo Montana, October, 2014. 134 Partners in Care, Oʻahu Continuum of Care. (2024). 21. Point in Time Count 2024: Comprehensive Report. Retrieved from https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:929e372f-132d-4f02-b0a3-36c5b4e43eb0?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover 135 Partners in Care, Oʻahu Continuum of Care. (2024). 21. Point in Time Count 2024: Comprehensive Report. Retrieved from https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:929e372f-132d-4f02-b0a3-36c5b4e43eb0?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
224
military personnel.136 Interviews with DHHL staff and DHHL materials confirm that eligible
Native Hawaiians who accept an offer of transitional housing would remain on the waitlist.137
Unlike the promulgated rules mentioned earlier, this initiative is still under consideration.
HCCA beneficiaries are still being consulted, and in the meantime the site remains designated
for light industrial uses, not housing. If developed into transitional housing, the project may
provide needed support for those unsheltered Native Hawaiians included in the above-mentioned
point in time count, as well as others. However, it only supports a fraction of the need estimated
by recent PIC data. While clearly responding to the urgent needs of beneficiaries, DHHL must at
the same time balance its long-term objective of moving individuals off of the waitlist and into
secure, stable homeownership on corpus land.
11.4.4 Traditional Financing Support by DHHL
As mentioned earlier, Native Hawaiians eligible for a residential lease through the HHCA
may be unable to take advantage of the opportunity if they are unable to afford the associated
down payment and monthly mortgage payments. On top of new funding and administrative rule
changes, DHHL continues to make other efforts to decrease the waitlist and expand housing
access. For example, the Department has partnered with Hawaiian Lending & Investments to
create the Down Payment Assistance Program (DAP). The DAP offers grants of up to $5,000 to
waitlisted or lessees beneficiaries looking to buy or build a home on Hawaiian Home Lands.138
HHCA beneficiaries who meet the income restrictions and other requirements may also be
136 Department of Hawaiian Homelands. (2022, August 23). BENEFICIARY INFORMATION MEETING #1: Land
Use Designation Evaluation for Parcel at Yorktown & Enterprise in Kalaeloa [PowerPoint slides]. https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Beneficiary-Information-Meeting-1-August-23-2022.pdf 137 Yorktown Rehabilitation – Kalaeloa. Department of Hawaiian Homelands. (2022). https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/po/oahu/yorktown-rehabilitation-kalaeloa/ 138 DHHL Waitlisters to Benefit from New Down Payment Assistance Program. (2024, March 27). Department of
Hawaiian Homelands. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/2024/03/27/dhhl-waitlisters-to-benefit-from-new-down-payment-assistance-program/
225
eligible for the more generous NAHASDA Down Payment Assistance program, which may
grant awardees up to $25,000 for down payment assistance and, in certain cases, an additional
$20,000 in support.139 Considering that one in four of those waitlisted HHCA beneficiaries
offered a lease reported having to decline due to a lack of savings to pay the associated
mortgage, these direct support programs can bridge the gap between staying on the waitlist and
relocating into secure, long-term housing on corpus lands.140
Additionally, DHHL has introduced legislation to exempt the development of homestead
lots from state general excise and use taxes.141 It is estimated that this exemption could save the
Department millions of dollars142 that could be redirected towards developing more lots, paying
high infrastructure costs, and ultimately reducing the waitlist.143 This bill has been introduced in
the state legislature every year since 2021, and has yet to pass and become law.144
11.4.4 Conclusion
This section identified a number of initiatives underway at DHHL intended to increase
housing choice for Native Hawaiians eligible for the benefits provided by the HHCA. This
includes efforts to increase DHHL’s total housing stock, and rules designed to provide additional
options for lease-holding Native Hawaiians to expand housing supply. The Department has also
139 For more information, see Department of Hawaiian Homelands, DHHL NAHASDA Down Payment Assistance Program: Frequently Asked Questions (2024). Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/NAHASDA-Down-Payment-Assistance-FAQ.pdf 140 SMS (2020). DHHL Beneficiaries Study Applicant Report, 2020. 29. Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/DHHL-Applicant-Report-FINAL-Revised-210426.pdf 141 S.B. 2654 SD1, 2024 Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2024). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2024/bills/SB2654_SD1_.pdf
142 SB 2654, RELATING TO HOUSING, 2024 Reg. Sess. (2024) (testimony of Kali Watson). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2024/Testimony/SB2654_TESTIMONY_HWN-HOU_02-06-24_.PDF 143 S.B. 2654 SD1, 2024 Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2024).
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2024/bills/SB2654_SD1_.pdf 144 Department of Hawaiian Homelands. (2024). Government Relations: Legislative Archives. https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/government-relations/
226
established a process to provide multi-family developments like apartments, and is moving
forward with a project in Honolulu’s urban core that is anticipated to generate revenue while
placing Native Hawaiians in affordable housing that may help them build savings towards a
future mortgage. While prioritizing homeownership, the Department is also setting aside funds
and pursuing or considering initiatives to support qualified Native Hawaiians who are currently
homeless, as well as financing support for beneficiaries who need help to afford the cost of their
down payment.
This progress is noteworthy, but our review is balanced by an acknowledgement that all
of these efforts, combined, do not provide DHHL more than a fraction of the tools and resources
needed to eliminate the waitlist. Under DHHL’s December strategic spending plan, the entirety
of Act 279 funds may produce 2,727 new lots, compared to a waitlist of 28,971 according to the
Department’s 2023 annual report.145 For these reasons, we continue to see DHHL's financial
capacity to fulfill its purpose as an impediment to fair housing. As such additional support in the
form of additional funding remains an urgent need.
11.5 Other Native Hawaiian Housing Issues
For the portion of the Native Hawaiian community ineligible for the benefits of the
HHCA, no program provides a similar range of homeownership options at anything of
comparative price. Numerous socioeconomic factors associated with homeownership and safe,
stable housing - such as education and per capita income - are lower for Native Hawaiians than
the general population. Given these issues, it is in some respects surprising that Native
Hawaiians are only moderately less likely to be homeowners: Native Hawaiian homeownership
145 Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Strategic Plan to Implement Act 279 of 2022 (2022). Retrieved from https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Exh-A-Act-279-Strategic-Plan-Nov.-2022.pdf
227
occurs at a rate of 54.4 percent, compared to the statewide rate of 58.5 percent.146 Previous
research has also noted that the majority of Native Hawaiian renters are cost burdened, at 51.2
percent. (Interestingly, the same report noted that the statewide cost burden rate was slightly
higher, at 55.6 percent of renters statewide.)147
On their own, data indicating only moderately lower homeownership and a slightly lower
cost burden may lead to the assumption that Native Hawaiians face impediments to fair housing
choice similar to the state as a whole. A more comprehensive review reflects unique or
exacerbated impediments and persistent challenges for Native Hawaiians seeking safe, stable
housing in Hawaiʻi. For example, consider that native-born status and length of residence and
homeownership are strongly correlated.148 All things being equal, one would expect that as the
population with the highest rates of being native-born and, by definition, highest rates of
intergenerational residence, Native Hawaiians would have the highest rate of home ownership,
rather than a rate that is below the state average. Additionally, previous research has found that
among households eligible for Housing Choice Vouchers, Native Hawaiians are significantly
146Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (2018). Homeownership Indicator Sheet 2018. Honolulu, HI: Research Division, Special Projects.. Retrieved from https://www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-2018-Homeownership-Indicator-Sheet.pdf 147 Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Research Division, Special Projects. (2015). Lead Researchers: Joda P. Derrickson
and Carla J. Hostetter. An Assessment of Rental Housing Affordability and its Impact in Native Hawaiian Communities. Hoʻokahua Waiwai (Economic Self-Sufficiency) Fact Sheet, Vol. 2015, No. 1. (www.oha.org). Retrieved from https://www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/An-Assessment-of-Rental-Housing-Affordability-and-its-Impact-in-Native-Hawaiian-Communities.-2015.pdf 148 Regarding the association between length of residence and homeownership, see Keene, D., Bader, M., & Ailshire, J. (2013). Length of residence and social integration: the contingent effects of neighborhood poverty. Health & place, 21, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.02.002; Regarding the association between native and foreign born status and homeownership, see Sturtevant, L. (2017). Home in America: Immigrants and Housing Demand. Urban Land Institute. Retrieved from https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/HomeInAmerica.pdf (stating that “[t]he homeownership rate among the foreign-born population was 50.5 percent in 2015, while the homeownership rate for the native-born population was 65.9 percent.”)
228
more likely to state a preference for homeownership than their non-Hawaiian counterparts, at the
rate of 72 percent versus 47 percent.149
We also find coping approaches and mutual assistance - reflected in high rates of
overcrowding, doubling up, and informal support for the hidden homeless - much more common
among Native Hawaiians.150 To be clear, we do not find evidence that Native Hawaiian
households are more likely to want to live in overcrowded housing. Rather, it is a coping
mechanism which makes it possible for income-vulnerable individuals and families to stay
housed and stay in Hawaiʻi, when un-crowded housing is often out of reach. Especially with
respect to the decision of Native Hawaiian-led households to informally shelter the hidden
homeless at twice the rate of the state average, Native Hawaiians housing data reflect not only a
struggle, but also hidden assets supporting the state’s overall housing supply.
11.5.1 Traditional Financing Barriers
Hawaiʻi’s 2022 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Report highlighted the barriers
Native Hawaiians often face in accessing traditional financing for their housing. The report
emphasizes the importance of community education, specifically for homestead beneficiaries, in
order to expand housing access. Along with the barriers to fair housing choice, Native Hawaiians
also experience impediments in the financing of their housing and home-buying. For decades,
the Native Hawaiian community has been subject to mortgage loan discrimination – evidenced
149 Derrickson, J.P. (2015). Affordable Rental Housing Needs of Native Hawaiians, 2015 Update. Honolulu, HI: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Research Division, Special Projects. https://www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/Affordable-Rental-Housing-Needs-of-Native-Hawaiians-Final-2.12.15.pdf 150 Native Hawaiians are reported to double up at a rate more than two-and-a-half-times-higher than the state
average: 24.8 percent versus 9.6 percent (page 73). Native Hawaiian households are also more likely to include hidden homeless, at the rate of 38 percent for Native Hawaiians compared to 19 percent for non-Hawaiian households. Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation. (2019). Hawaiʻi Housing Planning Study,
2019. 74. Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. Retrieved from https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/files/2020/01/FINAL-State_Hawaiʻi-Housing-Planning-Study.pdf
229
by practices like redlining,151 higher interest and denial rates,152 and multiple limitations on
second mortgages.153 These discriminatory measures, on top of an already complex real estate
market, can leave many Native Hawaiians without the appropriate resources to be empowered
and informed in their home buying journeys. Several organizations around the islands have
recognized this issue and worked to address it through community-based education programs
that build financial literacy within the Native Hawaiian community. These programs – offered by
non-profits like Hawaiian Community Assets,154 INPEACE,155 and Alu Like156 – provide
culturally relevant financial education, as well as financial assistance for Native Hawaiians
throughout the homebuying process. Through these initiatives, thousands of Native Hawaiian
families have been served with financial education, and millions of dollars have allowed Native
Hawaiians to access affordable housing. Homebuying can often be an isolating experience, and
the success of these programs is likely attributable to their personalized, connection-building
methodology.
Respondents interviewed this year from Hawaiian Community Assets emphasized a need
for face-to-face, personalized community engagement in addressing housing and financial needs
of the Native Hawaiian community. This is consistent with evaluations of HCA’s Kahua Waiwai
program, which provided financial literacy education in a way that is grounded in Native
151 Hawaiʻi Fair Lending Coalition. (2022). Redlining of Hawaiian Home Lands by Hawaiʻi’s Banks: A Hawaiʻi Fair Lending Coalition Preliminary Report. https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/J-11-Hawaiʻi-Banks-Redlining-of-Hawaiian-Home-Lands-draft-1.pdf 152 Jo, Y., & Dobre, A. (2021). Data Point: Asian American and Pacific Islanders in the Mortgage Market. Retrieved from https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_aapi-mortgage-market_report_2021-07.pdf 153 Tapper, M., & Frankel, J. (2020, December 13). How Lending Practices Restrict Hawaiian Homesteaders’ Borrowing Power. Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved from https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/12/how-lending-practices-restrict-hawaiian-homesteaders-borrowing-power/ 154 Home: Hawaiian Community Assets. Hawaiian Community Assets. https://hawaiiancommunity.net/
155 Ho’oulu Waiwai. Institute for Native Pacific Education and Culture (INPEACE). (2024, September 27). https://inpeace.org/economics/hooulu-waiwai/ 156 Financial Literacy. Alu Like. https://www.alulike.org/services/kulia-like/financial-literacy/
230
Hawaiian culture and knowledge, and places a premium on building trust and rapport with
participants.157 Thus, on-the-ground programs like these are crucial to battling the multitude of
financing barriers that Native Hawaiians face in regards to homeownership.
11.5.2 The Criminal Justice System and Native Hawaiian Housing Choice
Incarceration also hinders an individual’s ability to access fair housing choice, as
individuals leaving the criminal justice system face numerous barriers to reintegrating back into
society, and thus often lack the resources to secure affordable and stable housing. The Prison
Policy Initiative estimates that formerly incarcerated individuals in the United States are almost
ten times more likely to be homeless than the general public.158 After their release, formerly
incarcerated individuals face a myriad of challenges in the housing market. For example, private
property owners as well as public housing authorities are less likely to accept applicants with
criminal backgrounds.159 Additionally, people leaving the prison system face more difficulty
obtaining employment that would enable them to pay for their housing, attaining professional
references, and building credit, as employers are less likely to hire those with a criminal
record.160 This is true despite formerly incarcerated individuals being more willing to work than
the average American.161
157 Santos, J., Vo, A., & Lovejoy, M. Foundations for the Future: Empowerment Economics in the Native Hawaiian Context. Brandeis University. https://www.hawaiiancommunity.net/info/171009_FOUNDATIONS_FOR_THE_FUTURE.pdf 158 Couloute, L. (2018b, August). Nowhere to Go: Homelessness Among Formerly Incarcerated People. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html#insecurity 159 Ibid.
160 Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 955-56. https://doi.org/10.1086/374403; Petteruti, A., Takushi, N., Kaʻopua, L. S., & Spencer, J. (2010). The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs. https://www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ir_final_web_rev.pdf 161 Couloute, L. (2018). The Prison Penalty: Unemployment, Homelessness and Educational Exclusion Among
Formerly Incarcerated People. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/factsheets/prisonpenalty_factsheet.pdf
231
This issue is exacerbated for the Native Hawaiian population, as Hawaiians are greatly
overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Research shows that Native Hawaiians make up
around 39-44% of Hawaiʻi’s prison population, while only encompassing slightly more than
20% of Hawaiʻi’s general population.162 Further, data shows that Native Hawaiians are
overrepresented and treated unfairly at every stage of the criminal justice system. According to a
2010 report by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Native Hawaiians are more likely to receive a
prison sentence after a conviction, likely to receive a longer prison sentence or probation term for
similar offenses, and more likely to have their parole revoked compared to most other racial
groups.163 As Figure 11.1 below reflects, this results in outcomes where Natives Hawaiians,
while nearly equally as likely to be arrested as the general population, end up significantly
overrepresented among those incarcerated.
Because of these barriers, formerly incarcerated Native Hawaiians generally face more
difficulty reintegrating themselves back into the community than many other racial groups.
Reentry support programs have often been a solution to many issues that individuals face when
leaving the criminal justice system. However, it has been noted that reentry programs are not a
“one size fits all” solution to the problems these individuals face. Culturally competent reentry
programs are needed; race, ethnicity, culture, gender, religion, etc. must all be factored in to
162 Hawaiʻi Profile. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/HI.html; American Civil
Liberties Union. (2019). Blueprint for Smart Justice: Hawaiʻi. https://50stateblueprint.aclu.org/assets/reports/SJ-Blueprint-HI.pdf; Petteruti, A., Takushi, N., Kaʻopua, L. S., & Spencer, J. (2010). The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs. https://www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ir_final_web_rev.pdf; Kaʻopua, L. S., Petteruti, A., Takushi, N., Spencer, J. H., Park, S. H., Diaz, T. P., Kamakele, S. K., & Kukahiko, K. C. (2012). The Lived Experience of Native Hawaiians Exiting Prison and Reentering the Community: How Do You Really Decriminalize Someone Who’s Consistently Being Called a Criminal? Journal of Forensic Social Work, 2(2–3), 142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1936928x.2012.746766 163 Petteruti, A., Takushi, N., Kaʻopua, L. S., & Spencer, J. (2010). The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs. https://www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ir_final_web_rev.pdf; American Civil Liberties Union. (2019). Blueprint for Smart Justice: Hawaiʻi. https://50stateblueprint.aclu.org/assets/reports/SJ-Blueprint-HI.pdf
232
assess a client’s specific needs and issues when returning to the community from incarceration.
While further research must be done, culturally competent reentry programs have been shown to
be more effective in reducing recidivism and improving life outside of prison – including access
to stable and affordable housing.164
Cultural competence and responsiveness is defined by the National Reentry Resource
Center as the “provision of services with sensitivity and integration of the beliefs, norms, and
values of clients’ cultural backgrounds.”165 For Native Hawaiian individuals, this may include
education about Hawaiian culture (mele/songs, ‘oli/chants, Hawaiian history, ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi,
etc.), an emphasis on their connection to land and place, and the acknowledgment of culturally
specific and generational trauma connected to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Community leaders and organizations in Hawaiʻi argue that many reentry programs fail
to emphasize the special relationship that Hawaiians have to the land and their communities, as
well as cultural and historical trauma and its impact on Native Hawaiians – particularly those
incarcerated within a western system.166 Multiple organizations around the islands have
attempted to combat this issue by focusing on culturally competent prevention initiatives, as well
as classes and programs for incarcerated Hawaiians. For example, the Opportunity for Youth
Action Hawaiʻi (OYAH) at Kawailoa Youth Family and Wellness Center is an initiative on the
east side of Oʻahu that houses at-risk Native Hawaiian youth and provides them with Hawaiian
rehabilitative programs to improve their life skills, cultural healing, and overall well-being.167
164 Sheppard, M., Hassoun Ayoub, L., and Pecos Melton, A. (2021). Assessing and Enhancing Cultural
Responsiveness in Reentry Programs Through Research and Evaluation. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from https://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/culturalResponsiveEvalBrief.pdf 165 Ibid.
166 Our Why. n.d. Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaiʻi at Kawailoa. https://wearekawailoa.org/our-why/ 167 Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (2021, January 4). Kawailoa Youth & Family Wellness Center Is a Puʻuhonua for Our At-Risk Youth. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0zm1ZLCFTk
233
OYAH gives youth opportunities to reconnect with the ʻāina by farming and learning different
agricultural practices, as well as opportunities to engage in local workforce development. Its goal
is to eventually replace youth incarceration with Native Hawaiian restorative systems. Further,
individuals currently incarcerated at Hālawa Correctional Facility have access to Hawaiian
culture and language classes taught by Kumu Hinaleimoana Wong. Similar to the preventative
goals of OYAH, Kumu Hina’s hope for their students is that they will “understand how culture
will not only ground them in what they do now and what they do moving forward, but how it
will help sustain them, once they get out.”168 Additionally, the Pūʻā Foundation is a program that
supports justice-involved Native Hawaiian women, girls, and their communities. Advocates at
the Pūʻā Foundation believe that the overrepresentation of Native Hawaiians in the criminal
justice system is a direct result of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. They also note the
correlation between individual and community trauma and imprisonment rates, thus committing
to supporting justice-involved Native Hawaiians affected by trauma in order to foster collective
healing.169 The Pūʻā Foundation offers transitional courses for women exiting the prison system,
as well as farming projects that foster “ʻāina based healing experiences.”170
State lawmakers have also made attempts to alleviate post-incarceration housing issues in
the past few years. In 2022, multiple state senators introduced a bill proposing the creation of
“project reset.”171 This project would appropriate general funds to create post-release housing
programs to assist formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate back into the community.
168 Hussey, Ikaika. (2019). Inside Hālawa: Healing Through Culture. Retrieved from https://kawaiola.news/cover/inside-halawa-healing-through-culture/. 169 Vision, Mission & Focus. Pūʻā Foundation: Empowering Individuals, Families & Communities. (2014).
https://www.puafoundation.org/vision 170 Women & Children Programs. Pūʻā Foundation: Empowering Individuals, Families & Communities. (2014).
https://www.puafoundation.org/women-and-children 171 S.B. 2373 SD1 HD1, 2022 Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2022). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2022/bills/SB2373_HD1_.pdf
234
Despite support from entities like the Department of Public Safety and the Office of the Public
Defender, the bill did not become law. Lawmakers also introduced a bill in the 2024 legislative
session to assist with prisoner reentry. The proposed legislation included a housing voucher
program, which aimed to provide financial assistance to participants for rent payments or down
payments.172 Unfortunately, this bill did not become law, either.
Overrepresentation and disparate treatment in the criminal justice system actively
prevents Native Hawaiians from accessing fair housing. Hawaiians are suffering not only from
culturally inappropriate support upon leaving prison, but from a discriminatory housing market
that pushes them back to the margins of society, often homeless or back in prison. Shifting from
a western model of criminal justice to a more culturally competent system in the islands may
prevent more Hawaiians from becoming incarcerated, and enable formerly incarcerated Native
Hawaiians to make a smooth transition back into their communities – which often begins with
obtaining fair and affordable housing.
11.5.3 Native Hawaiian Outmigration: Harms to Native Hawaiians and general public
Statewide housing conditions, such as a lack of affordable housing, are a factor for many
households who made the sometimes difficult decision to leave Hawaiʻi. However, this decision
may be uniquely difficult and impactful for Native Hawaiians, for whom separation from
Hawaiʻi means physical alienation from cultural resources like sacred sites and ancestral lands.
Moving away from Hawaiʻi also results in sometimes insurmountable barriers to practicing
aspects of Native Hawaiian tradition, culture, and identity that are intrinsic to a way of life found
nowhere else in the world. While Native Hawaiians should retain the ability to choose to leave
Hawaiʻi, this differs from situations where housing factors outside of an individual family’s
172 H.B. 1176, 2024 Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2024). https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2024/bills/HB1176_.pdf
235
control force them to choose between staying in Hawaiʻi or staying in safe, stable housing
outside of the islands.
Recent research indicates that housing issues are increasingly a factor in decisions by
Native Hawaiians to leave Hawaiʻi for more affordable areas. Research by Kamehameha Schools
finds that “[a]ffordable housing and homeownership increased by nearly 30 percentage points as
a reason to move in the 2010s after little mention prior to the 2000s.”173 The increase in the rate
at which respondents cited affordable housing as a factor in relocation outpaces every other
major factor described in the study, including interrelated reasons like cost of living, job
opportunities, and financial stability. Kamehameha Schools’ study directly quotes interview
subjects who describe their relocation due to housing and other economic factors as forced,
sharing that:
Many participants feel forced to leave the islands because they cannot support themselves and their families. As one participant explains, “I couldn’t support my kids at home...It’s not an option to live [in Hawaiʻi], I can’t afford it… To feed my two kids, I had to move.”
While financial pressures differ from the forced migration and legally sanctioned land theft
Indigenous people faced by Native Hawaiians and other Indigenous people, they produce the
same general outcome: Indigenous alienation from ancestral lands. This sentiment is reflected in
recent scholarship on Native Hawaiian historical trauma, as youth report a sense of being
“forced” out of Hawaiʻi by rising housing costs. This sense is evident among several interview
173 Kamehameha Schools. (2022). Why Residents Leave Hawaiʻi: A Look at Economic Conditions Across the
Decades. Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. Retrieved from https://www.ksbe.edu/assets/pdfs/Migration_Across_Decades_Infographic_final.pdf
236
subjects in the Ke Ala i ka Mauliola: Native Hawaiian Youth Historical Trauma study.174 Its
authors note:
Several participants shared that the high cost of housing in Hawaiʻi has led to extended family and friends moving away. “I kind of resented [ ] the news [ ]
calling uh, Vegas the 9th Island. And at first I thought it was kind of funny, but
I’m thinking Hawaiians are being forced to move there.” It also defies the spirit of certain federal public policies and policy goals regarding Native
Hawaiians, such as well as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which states
that national governments shall provide mechanisms for prevention and redress for actions which
have “the aim or effect of dispossessing” Indigenous people “of their lands, territories or
resources.”175
11.5.4 Out-migration of Native Hawaiians may significantly reduce the availability of housing or
shelter for the hidden homeless
Some may cynically wonder if outmigration promotes housing availability, since a
resident departing Hawaiʻi may be making a housing unit available via their departure. However,
Native Hawaiian outmigration may actually reduce the amount of housing and shelter available
statewide, driving up demands for housing and shelter, and resulting in an increase in
homelessness for Native Hawaiians and the general public. This is because Native Hawaiian-led
households are twice as likely as non-Hawaiian households - 38 percent to 19 percent - to shelter
individuals in their own homes. For this reason, outmigration represents not just the departure of
a Native Hawaiian individual or family, but a reduction of available housing or informal shelter
174 Riley, L., Suʻesuʻe, A., Hulama, K., Neumann, S. K., & Chung-Do, J. (2022). Ke ala i ka Mauliola: Native Hawaiian Youth Experiences with Historical Trauma. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912564 175 United Nations, The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
237
for vulnerable Native Hawaiians and others who may have been otherwise housed.176 Said
differently, by supporting Native Hawaiian-led households in remaining in Hawaiʻi, the state
preserves “hidden” housing and shelter for “hidden” homeless. Thus, the outmigration of Native
Hawaiian led households represents an impediment to fair housing choice, or housing itself, for
Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians among the current and future hidden homeless population.
11.5.5 Conclusion
In this part, we have revisited two of the three major issues previously identified in
Analysis of Impediments reports, updating them with a review of traditional financing barriers
and criminal justice issues.177 Additionally, we have conducted a new review of Native Hawaiian
housing issues generally, leading to a review of outmigration issues and the potential reduction
in housing for highly vulnerable populations if Native Hawaiians continue to leave Hawaiʻi.
11.6 Recommendations
Barriers to safe, stable housing make it difficult for many Native Hawaiians to remain in
their ancestral homeland, and are a major factor in Native Hawaiian outmigration, homelessness,
and coping strategies such as overcrowding and doubling up for financial reasons. After
reviewing barriers, as well as efforts by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to address
impediments through new regulatory, administrative, and financial tools, we offer the following
recommendations. While all of these issues relate to Native Hawaiian housing in some form, we
divide them between those focused on the HHCA and those not limited to the purposes of that
Act, starting with general recommendations.
176 Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation. (2019). Hawaiʻi Housing Planning Study, 2019. 74. Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. Retrieved from https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/files/2020/01/FINAL-State_Hawaiʻi-Housing-Planning-Study.pdf 177 The third issue - funding for the administration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act - was reviewed in detail in the previous two parts.
238
11.6.1 General Native Hawaiian housing recommendations
1. Treat efforts to support and increase Native Hawaiian homeownership as a tool to
maintain housing and shelter generally, especially for the hidden homeless:
Supporting Native Hawaiian-led households overall appears to be an important factor in
maintaining housing and shelter supply for vulnerable populations, given the
exceptionally high rate of Native Hawaiians informally sheltering others. A reduction in
Native Hawaiian-led households, due to outmigration or loss of residence, may result in a
substantial overall loss of housing stock and shelter for highly vulnerable individuals and
families.
2. Provide targeted support for and partnership with Native Hawaiian-led households
informally sheltering hidden homeless and doubling up: Given that nearly 4 in 10
Native Hawaiian households report informally sheltering one or more hidden homeless
persons, general support for Native Hawaiian housing as a strategy to support housing
vulnerable individuals is reasonable. In addition, the state and others should pursue
targeted approaches to those specific households providing informal shelter, treating
them as partners in a statewide strategy to prevent homelessness and transition the hidden
homeless into less vulnerable housing. Such targeted support could include financial
assistance for the head of household, connecting hidden homeless to support services, or
otherwise supporting those helping the hidden homeless as well as the hidden homeless
themselves.
3. Collect and annually report disaggregated data on Native Hawaiians, as well as
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, to understand and monitor issues
related to housing, including housing discrimination, use of housing vouchers, and
239
other areas directly or indirectly connected to impediments to fair housing choice:
As we explain in part one, while better representing that community than the
Asian/Pacific Islander super-group, data that stops at the Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander-level may be insufficient in understanding the issues faced by Native
Hawaiians. This is highlighted in examples of where Hawaiʻi’s highest rates of foreign
born status and lowest rate of foreign born status are both groups in the Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific Islander group.
As we explain earlier in the report, in 2021, the Hawaiʻi State Legislature passed
SCR 5, urging state agencies to collect and report data on Native Hawaiians, Native
Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, and to work collaboratively to improve data
collection and use throughout the state. In response, in its 2021-22 annual report, the
Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission reported certain data, including housing discrimination
complaints, by Native Hawaiian status.178 The Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission should
resume such reporting, and all applicable state and county entities reporting housing-
relevant data should do the same. As part of alignment with best practices described in
SCR 5, agencies should collect and report such data in a way that includes multi-racial
individuals, given Hawaiʻi’s overall high rate of multi-racial identification, which is even
higher among Native Hawaiians. While this does not require additional statute or
regulations if government agencies voluntarily comply, public policy mandates may be
warranted.
4. Explore whether adding a state-level prohibition against discrimination based on
Indigenous status or Native Hawaiian status may encourage more effective
178 Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission. (2022). 2021-2022 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://labor.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2021-22-HCRC-Annual-Report-Final-3.pdf
240
collection and reporting of Native Hawaiian data on housing and related to housing:
In addition to the federal protections that serve as a “floor” for fair housing, states may
provide additional protections. The State of Hawaiʻi has already chosen to exercise this
power in protecting the public against forms of discrimination not included in the federal
Fair Housing Act. While Native Hawaiians are clearly part of a racial minority as the
most prominent sub-group within the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” racial
group, the housing issues faced by Native Hawaiians may differ greatly from those of
other Pacific Islanders, especially those with high rates of recent arrival. To provide for
better understanding of both Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, and to align
with significant state and federal law regarding Native Hawaiians, the State of Hawaiʻi
should study this option within its authority, including whether or how this would provide
benefits beyond the state’s current protections against discrimination on the basis of
ancestry.
5. Continue to support and strengthen culturally-grounded re-entry programs,
address housing and employment discrimination against those with criminal
records, and create post-incarceration housing support initiatives: Research reflects
that Native Hawaiians, while similarly as likely to be arrested as the general population,
are highly overrepresented among the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated. Ample
amounts of research and data show that incarcerated Native Hawaiians benefit from re-
entry programs that are tailored to Native Hawaiian values and that respond appropriately
to Native Hawaiian-specific trauma. Attacking discriminatory practices within the private
and public housing market as well as the employment sector will enable recently released
Native Hawaiians to stabilize themselves in their communities and stay out of the
241
criminal justice system. The alleviation of these issues will also positively impact family
members of recently released Native Hawaiians who plan to house them. Lastly, we
recommend strong consideration of legislation and appropriating funds towards housing
assistance initiatives for recently released individuals.
6. Build upon existing financial literacy programs for Native Hawaiians, and provide
direct financial assistance for Native Hawaiian renters and home buyers:
Discriminatory practices in the housing market have prevented Native Hawaiians from
accessing safe, affordable, and fair housing. In addition to its tangible impact on Native
Hawaiian home ownership, asset building and access to financial tools, discriminatory
practices against Native Hawaiians and other historical injustices foster distrust.
Personalized and community-based education, engagement-heavy approaches that
personalize support and community ties, as well as direct funds, can help overcome these
traditional financing barriers to housing. This may be especially true when direct support
is paired with culturally-grounded financial literacy education and coaching from a
trusted, community-based organization. The Department and the State should consider
increasing financial support for these kinds of combined efforts.179
11.6.2 HHCA Focused Recommendations
1. DHHL should continue to emphasize activities that will ultimately contribute to
home ownership, while also continuing to expend a limited, targeted amount of
resources on rental and transitional housing support for highly vulnerable
waitlisted Native Hawaiians: The multigenerational underfunding of DHHL’s mission
puts the Department in the position of responding to a mix of urgent, immediate needs
179 For example, the Department could expand on its down payment support grant, described earlier in the report, and pair higher grant amounts with the successful completion of a financial literacy program.
242
and long-term responsibilities. On the urgent, immediate end of the spectrum are
homeless individuals on the waitlist, followed by the hidden homeless and other
vulnerable populations. In some cases, the goal of reducing the waitlist and responding to
urgent needs go hand-in-hand: waitlisted Native Hawaiians without the financial means
to pay a homestead mortgage may not be in a position to exit the waitlist even if offered a
lot or other lease. Support for these parts of the community are needed, but should be
targeted so the Department can maximize reduction of the waitlist as it invests funds in
long-term homeownership by adding to its housing stock. Those efforts focused on the
urgent needs of beneficiaries should, whenever feasible, include strategies to assist with
asset building, generate revenue for the department that can mitigate impact on
homestead development, or both.
2. DHHL’s provision of new housing stock should include a limited, strategic mix of
higher-density housing options, especially on Oʻahu: If funding and land availability
were no object, DHHL would be wise to focus all or nearly all of its housing expansion
on single family homes, given this housing option’s popularity among beneficiaries.
However, practical factors that include scarce funding (relative to need), infrastructure
costs for development in rural and/or remote areas leave DHHL with the unideal options
if it is to provide long term housing stability for as many eligible Native Hawaiians as
possible. Although single family homes should continue to be the focus, an appropriate
and limited mix of higher-density options would increase DHHL’s ability to reduce the
waitlist and provide housing options. This is especially true for Oʻahu, the island with the
largest Native Hawaiian population (in real numbers) and the least HHCA land.
243
3. DHHL should provide clarity as to what forms of financial assistance are available
to both homestead lessees interested in building SDUs on their property and HHCA-
eligible Native Hawaiians looking to rent out these SDUs. Because Native Hawaiian
individuals and families have a lower median income than Hawaiʻi’s state average, they
are more likely to need financial assistance to either develop and construct an SDU on
their property, or rent an SDU from a current homestead lessee. The current
administrative rules do not contemplate the ability for lessees and HHCA-eligible Native
Hawaiian renters to obtain financial assistance, and it would be beneficial to educate
interested parties on what their options are in order to maximize the utilization of the
Department’s new SDU program.
4. While secondary to the provision of on-corpus long term housing, DHHL’s off-
corpus rental efforts should carefully consider the rights and well-being of all
impacted communities: The Department’s relatively recent capacity to acquire existing
housing infrastructure and develop property in existing communities may provide
exciting options to fulfill its purpose, but it also comes with responsibilities to all
impacted stakeholders. Use of HHCA funds for rental housing, on or off corpus, can
occur in a manner that is consistent with the FHA, and may contribute to other goals of
the FHA, such as adding to neighborhood diversity or investing in historically under-
resourced areas. At the same time, given the statewide challenges faced by Hawaiʻi
households, and the relative newness of DHHL’s off-corpus efforts, the Department
should ensure that all off-corpus activities are consistent with the law and consider the
rights and wellbeing of non-beneficiaries, such as non-beneficiary residents in
communities in which DHHL purchases housing units.
244
5. To fulfill the vision of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the State of Hawaiʻi
and federal government must provide ongoing, significant additional funding far
beyond what has been provided in recent years: All the new tools and funding now
within the agency of DHHL may help thousands of Native Hawaiians move from the
applicant waitlist and into a home. However, even the most optimistic estimates still
indicate that it will only reduce the applicant waitlist by a fraction of its current size.
Additional funding is needed.180
Providing these funds and expanding HHCA housing stock to the extent necessary to
house Native Hawaiians currently on the wait list should be treated not only as an
obligation in fulfillment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, but as part of a
strategy to increase the availability of housing stock overall, given that the vast majority
of individuals on the HHCA wait list currently reside in Hawaiʻi.
6. Continue to educate decisionmakers about the benefits for Congressional adoption
of Act 80, SLH 2017: Passed by the State of Hawaiʻi with support from various
organizations and HHCA-beneficiaries, Act 80 requires Congressional approval in order
to take effect. If adopted, Act 80 would lower blood quantum requirements for HHCA
lease successors but not original lessees. This change would significantly reduce the
threat of intergenerational housing destabilization without displacing qualified Native
Hawaiians currently on the applicant waitlist. As DHHL has mentioned in its testimony
before Congress, the blood quantum restrictions for successors is a real, present threat to
180 The authors are not aware of a specific dollar amount that would, with certainty, reduce the waitlist to a “functional zero,” nor are we aware of any agreement within the broader native Hawaiian or Native Hawaiian community as to what would be a functional zero. However, none of DHHL’s modeling indicates that Act 279 funds will come anywhere near eliminating the waitlist. Significantly more funding is a necessary, though insufficient requirement to provide reasonable housing options for Native Hawaiians currently on the waitlist.
245
at least one-in-ten families with current leases, and the problem is expected to get worse.
Further, the passage of this Act would expand the reach of DHHL’s existing SDU
program by allowing family members of lessees who currently fall under the required
blood quantum requirements to live in the lessees’ SDUs.
However, to result in an overall increase in the number of Native Hawaiians in
safe, stable housing, passage of Act 80 must be coupled with further increases in DHHL
funding that results in overall increase in HHCA housing stock, as mentioned in the
previous recommendation.
246
11.7 TABLES AND FIGURES
247
Table 11.1: Residential Applicants’ Housing Preferences 2020
248
Figure 11.1
249
12.0 USING LOCAL PREFERENCES TO ALLEVIATE the HOUSING CRISIS
Subsection Authors:
Lorinda M.N.M. Riley, SJD
Assistant Professor, University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa
Native Hawaiian and Indigenous Health, Office of Public Health Studies
Faizah Shyanguya, MPH
Researcher, University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa
Health Policy & Management, Office of Public Health Studies
Dylan Pilger, MPH
Researcher, University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa
Native Hawaiian and Indigenous Health, Office of Public Health Studies
It is the policy of the US “to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing
throughout the United States.” -Fair Housing Act, 2018
12.1: Executive Summary Congress passed the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to ensure that everyone had access to
housing. Fair housing extends beyond prohibiting discrimination and mandates the government
affirmatively address the legacy of housing segregation, discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin (Fair Housing Act, 2018).
Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) has received increased attention as states and local
governments have implemented preferences when distributing housing or access to housing.
While aggrieved parties can bring cases under the FHA, the regulations implementing the AFFH
mandate do not have a right of action, making enforcement challenging.
An individual who believes that their rights under the FHA have been violated can bring
a claim under two main types of legal theories. The first type of claim argues that a protected
individual has suffered disparate treatment. This occurs when a policy explicitly treats a
250
protected party differently than other people. Disparate treatment cases are straightforward. If a
harmed party can show that the policy is discriminatory as written, then the entity may provide a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the policy. The individual harmed, however, has the
final opportunity to show that this reason is a facade. The second type of claim is disparate
impact, which occurs when a policy appears neutral on its face, but nonetheless a protected
group is impacted negatively.
Historically, disparate impact claims provided an avenue to shed light on implicit or
structural discrimination. However, recently the courts have begun to require a “clear, causal
link” between the challenged policy and its alleged discriminatory effects. This means that
individuals harmed by implicit discrimination have to statistically prove that they are disparately
impacted. In addition, the disparate impact had to stem from “racial animus,” which is near
impossible to prove. Finally, two additional avenues for legal actions exist, including claims
under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause, which have been
used to support claims by foreign nationals and lawful permanent residents.
While the FHA explicitly prohibits discrimination based on national origin, it is silent
about discrimination based on citizenship. Although the concepts of national origin and
citizenship are closely related it is important not to conflate these two terms. National origin is
defined under the FHA as the geographic area in which a person was born or from which his or
her ancestors came. Thus, a US citizen that was born in another country could be discriminated
against based on national origin despite being a naturalized US citizen. Moreover, one court
found that if a neutral policy discriminates against non-citizens, but the intent is to
“discriminat[e] on the basis of national origin” the policy may violate the FHA, suggesting that
discriminating based on citizenship is allowable. This aligns with other US laws that prohibit
251
non-US citizens from enjoying certain rights such as federal employment. However, the FHA
lacks clarity as to the distinction between certain categories, including US citizens, lawful
permanent residents (LPR), lawful temporary residents (e.g., visa holders), etc.
While no state has enacted a complete ban on foreign ownership of lands within their
borders, the majority of states have enacted some limits on foreign ownership and investment of
lands within their borders. At the same time all 50 states report some limits to foreign investment
or ownership of lands within their state, indicating that despite the concern these limits are not
prohibitive. Agricultural lands, lands that are near critical infrastructure, and public lands are
most frequently protected from foreign ownership. Although Hawaiʻi does not limit the foreign
ownership of land per se, it does limit the ability of foreign investors to purchase public lands
(Haw. Rev. Stat., 2015). As a modified home rule state, Hawaiʻi counties have the authority to
govern on local matters and thus have the ability to enact their own unique foreign ownership
laws, however, the centralized political structure in Hawaiʻi also creates a desire for uniformity.
Preference policies are already used in Hawaiʻi across the housing continuum to support
the equitable distribution of scarce housing stock. For example, the Hawaiʻi Public Housing
Authority has preferences for individuals or families who have experienced involuntary
displacement, those who are victims of domestic abuse, and people experiencing homelessness.
While a range of barriers prevent access to affordable housing, preference policies can be
implemented alongside other housing policies to improve housing accessibility. Barriers such as
availability of land, availability of affordable housing for local residents, and purchase or rental
of housing by local residents can be mitigated by implementing preference policies that score
additional “points” for residents that already reside within an area for public housing or
252
encourage the rental of units to individuals who have resided in or are employed in a specific
area.
Globally, there are numerous examples of housing preferences. While Hawaiʻi has
existing preference policies, further exploration of domestic and foreign preference frameworks
can inform additional approaches for future enactment in Hawaiʻi. Through an extensive
literature review 33 unique preference policies were identified and analyzed. Of which eight
were presented to housing policy experts, housing advocates, and constitutional law experts in
focus groups and interviews. Expert feedback revealed diverse perspectives on the effectiveness,
feasibility, and legality of the policies in the context of Hawaiʻi. The three policies that gathered
the most interest were a program to encourage current homeowners to add a voluntary deed
restriction, a vacancy or second home tax, and community land trusts.
As a result of this legal and policy analysis, several recommendations are provided,
including: Creating a community advisory board to ensure that state and county entities are
addressing the needs of the community; creating a task force to better implement the
affirmatively furthering fair housing mandate; developing a deed restriction handout for the
interested public; providing funding for housing navigators to support individuals seeking
affordable housing; considering expanding foreign land and home ownership limits; and
implementing a vacancy and second home property tax. Implementing these recommendations
would further the goals of the FHA by ensuring equitable access to housing as well as
dismantling the historical barriers that have limited access to affordable housing to Hawaiʻi’s
most vulnerable populations.
253
12.2 Background
It is the declared policy of the US under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) “to provide, within
constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.” (Fair Housing Act,
2018). The FHA notes that fair housing extends beyond merely prohibiting discrimination and
mandates the federal government affirmatively address the legacy of housing segregation (Fair
Housing Act § 3608(c)–(e), 2018). In recent years the second goal of affirmatively furthering fair
housing (AFFH) has received increased attention. Preferences distributing housing or access to
housing can therefore be understood as a mechanism to AFFH as well as to ensure certain
security and economic policies. This report first provides background on the Fair Housing Act
and related laws, including a summary of the legal standards used in discrimination cases. We
then provide an overview of housing in Hawaiʻi before detailing our methods and findings in a
study of potential housing preferences. We end with an analysis of preferred housing preferences
and recommendations on how to AFFH in Hawaiʻi.
12.2.1 Historical Background
Housing preferences and prohibitions are not a new concept. One of the earliest housing
preferences in the US was the Homestead Act of 1862 (Homestead Act of 1862, 1862), which
allowed white US citizens a preference to purchase up to 160 acres of land. Soon after Congress
passed the Territorial Land Act of 1887, which forbade extensive alien land holdings except by
immigrant farmers (Territorial Land Act, 1988). These early protectionist laws were brought
over from English feudal laws that sought to ensure land owners had allegiance to the crown.
Although the earliest preference applied to white Americans, later preferences attempted to
integrate lower income families and provide housing support for veterans (G.I. Bill, 1944).
254
Later the US Housing Act of 1937 and Federal Housing Administration Loans were
enacted to support the development of livable housing. While both statutes were not necessarily
directed at providing a preference for low-income families, they were structured to be able to do
so. The US Housing Act established subsidies to local agencies for constructing low-cost rental
housing (US Housing Act, 1949). It aimed to replace dilapidated housing with affordable units to
improve living conditions for low-income Americans, primarily targeting the urban poor. The
Federal Housing Administration Loan program served to boost homeownership by insuring
private loans for homebuyers, making mortgages more affordable and accessible by offering
lower down payments and longer loan terms (National Housing Act, 1934).
Unfortunately, racial biases influenced implementation of these problems resulting in
disparately negative impact to racial minorities through a concentration of low-income
communities (Rothstein, 2018). Many public housing projects were constructed in low-income,
urban areas, and tended to concentrate poverty rather than integrate low-income families into
more diverse neighborhoods (Hirsch, 2000). Whereas, FHA-backed loans typically went to those
who could afford single-family homes, thus favoring middle-class families. This legacy of
racially motivated housing preferences cannot be divorced from current attempts to enact
preferences and must be appropriately addressed when developing and framing preferences.
In Hawaiʻi County, public housing and government supported affordable housing
preferences exist that provide access to certain categories of individuals such as workers residing
within a certain distance from key industries and students returning to their prior area of
residence (Hawaiʻi County Code, 2016, Section 11-13). Moreover, in Honolulu County
preferences for public housing for low-income individuals involuntarily displaced due to disaster
or participants in a domestic violence program or homeless participants in specific shelter
255
programs will be placed higher on the waitlist for housing (Federally-Assisted Public Housing
Projects, 2014). Disabled and elderly individuals may also receive preferential placements in
certain instances. Efforts to expand these preferences are ongoing, including a recent bill that
proposes to provide preferences to Oʻahu residents for all City and County of Honolulu housing
programs (Resident Preference in City Housing Programs, 2024).
In the most recent legislative session there have been several bills that have attempted to
address affordable housing at the State level. SB2617 and HB 2542 requires the Legislative
Reference Bureau to conduct a study on other laws that other US states have enacted to limit the
sale of real property to foreign individuals and entities. This report also must include a legal and
economic analysis of the potential impact of such laws. SB2617 passed the Senate, but failed in
the House. SB2624 would have established an Office of Agricultural Intelligence within the
Department of Agriculture to enforce laws prohibiting foreign parties from owning agricultural
lots in Hawaiʻi. SB2626/HB2204 and SB 2999/HB2203, sought to prevent luxury homes from
being built and restricting the sale of homes to current and former Hawaiʻi residents,
respectively, so long as the Governor’s emergency proclamation for housing was in effect. The
fact that only the first bill that proposed a study was heard in committee suggests that the
legislature is still in a fact-finding stage and thus additional research needs to be conducted
before proposals will be heard.
12.3 The Fair Housing Act
As the policy making body, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to provide fair
housing for all. Under the FHA, this goal is accomplished through affirmatively furthering fair
housing and prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status, or national origin (Fair Housing Act, 2018). Because Congress is a generalist body, the
256
FHA provides a framework from which the Department of Housing and Urban Development
uses to issue regulations implementing the FHA. These regulations, developed by this
specialized agency, provide detailed procedures for state, counties, and private parties to follow
to comply with the FHA and to bring forth potential actions. A recent interim rulemaking
mandates that States and counties affirmatively further fair housing (Fair Housing Act §
3608(c)–(e), 2018). Unfortunately, courts have ruled that there is no private right of action for
the AFFH mandate, which means that an individual cannot claim that the government did not
affirmatively further their fair housing as part of a discrimination claim.
In addition to regulations, which are promulgated by the agency, but must be aligned with
the legislation agencies also issue guidance documents. Guidance documents are used to further
detail now an agency will interpret and implement specific elements of the statute and regulation,
which may include official interpretations, memoranda, and handbooks.181 Unlike regulations,
however, a public review process is not necessary, which means that similar to Executive Orders,
which the President issues, Guidance documents can be easily changed from one administration
to another. This section provides background on both the origins and the goals of the FHA and
associated regulations, guidance documents, and Executive Orders with particular emphasis on
the AFFH regulation and gender affirming Executive Orders, which may be altered when the
administration changes in January 2025.
12.3.2 History of the Fair Housing Act
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, otherwise known as the Fair Housing Act
(FHA), is a significant piece of civil rights legislation. The FHA passed in the wake of Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Dr. King had long advocated for housing justice for
181 For example, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on December 31, 2015.
257
African American residents who often were relegated to the nation’s ghettos (Massey, 2016).
African American and Hispanic servicemen returning from Vietnam were unable to purchase or
rent homes in certain neighborhoods due to their race or national origin (US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, n.d.). Organizations such as the NAACP and the National
Committee Against Discrimination in Housing lobbied the Senate arguing that the FHA would
rectify these inequities (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.). Championed
by Dr. King, the FHA, which aimed to prohibit discrimination from landlords, real estate agents,
and banks, was first introduced in 1966 (Pendergrass, 2023). Although the FHA passed in the
House, it died from a Senate filibuster. After Dr. King’s assassination in 1968, President Lyndon
Johnson urged Congress to pass the FHA, which was signed into law on April 11, 1968.
The goal of the FHA is to provide fair housing, which is accomplished through
affirmatively furthering fair housing and prohibiting discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. In 1988, the Fair Housing
Amendments Act was passed, which expanded the protected categories to disability and familial
status (Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 1988). It applies broadly to public and private
housing, including single family homes, apartments, condominiums, mobile homes, and other
types of dwellings. The Act applies to the selling or renting of a dwelling based on the
aforementioned protected classes, which serve to “steer” certain populations away from specific
neighborhoods (Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 1988, §804). The FHA applies to
lenders, brokers, and other professionals involved in home sales to discourage discriminatory
lending practices like “redlining” (Fair Housing Act, 1968, §805), which institutions deny or
limit access to financial services to protected classes of people or individuals in certain
258
neighborhoods. It was expanded to also cover the terms and privileges included in the contracts
of sale or rental as well as the secondary mortgage market.
The HUD’s Federal Housing Authority is authorized to enforce the Act by conducting
investigations and hearings of complaints (Fair Housing Act, 1968, §§808-809). Moreover,
private individuals may also file civil suits in federal court, however, as discussed below these
claims are challenging for the plaintiff (Fair Housing Act, 1968, §810). To support the provisions
of the FHA, HUD is mandated to engage in educational activities to promote fair housing and
encourage voluntary compliance over litigation when a violation comes to light (Fair Housing
Act, 1968, §812).
There are several notable carve outs in the FHA, including in Section 807, which allows
religious organizations or private clubs to give preference to their members so long as their
membership practices do not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin. Another
critical exemption is that it does not apply to single family homes that are rented by a private
owner without the aid of a real estate agent, provided that the owner has no more than three
rental properties (Fair Housing Act, 1968a). Of note, however, HUD regulations state that the
exemptions do not apply to advertising, such that advertising that indicates a discriminatory
preference or limitation is prohibited even if such discrimination is not unlawful (Housing and
Urban Development, 1989).
12.3.2 Regulations, Guidance, and Executive Orders
The FHA regulations provide additional details on each of the provisions within the FHA
(Discriminatory Conduct Under the Fair Housing Act, 1989) and are housed in Part 107 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations were initiated by EO 11063 (Nondiscrimination
and Equal Opportunity in Housing Under Executive Order 11063, 1980) in 1980. Although not
259
part of the Fair Housing Act, the HUD also oversees housing discrimination on the basis of age
under the Age Discrimination Act (Age Discrimination Act, 1986; 24 C.F.R. §146, 1986), which
is a related law. Through the combination of fair housing and non-discrimination administrative
documents, the picture of fair housing becomes clearer.
This section will discuss two administrative documents that push the boundaries of the
fair housing arena. The first is the AFFH mandate that was first promulgated in the Obama
Administration. The second is an Executive Order issued by President Biden, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These two administrative documents remain
controversial and may be targeted by the incoming administration. States and counties may
determine, however, that these policies should be retained at the local level even if they are no
longer implemented at the federal level.
12.3.2.1 AFFH Regulation
The affirmative furthering fair housing mandate is currently enshrined in an interim
rulemaking, which explicitly added this duty to affirmatively further fair housing to each of the
federal fair housing programs (86 F.R. 30779, 2021). The AFFH was first promulgated by the
Obama Administration in 2015. However, the 45th Administration rescinded the rulemaking as
along with a suite of other rulemakings (Gomberg, 2024). The interim final AFFH rulemaking
means that the administration determined it had “good cause” to bypass the public comment
period and publish the rule as final. In practice, the federal agency solicits retroactive comments,
which inform the decision to finalize the rule, amend it, or rescind it. Given this interim status, it
is unclear what the future of this rule will be (Gomberg, 2024). Moreover, prior case law out of
the First Circuit has held that there is no private right of action for the AFFH mandates (Latinos
Unidos de Chelsea En Accion (LUCHA) v. Secretary of Hous. & Urban Dev., 1986; NAACP v.
260
HUD, 1987). This means that while an individual may claim that their right to fair housing has
been violated due to discrimination, there is no right to claim that their right to the government
affirmatively furthering their fair housing right has been violated, severely limiting the
enforcement of this mandate.
12.3.2.2 Executive Orders
Executive Orders are a nimble way to create policy; several EO have been passed on
housing. EO 13988 (Exec. Order No. 13,988, 2021) required HUD to enforce the prohibition of
sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. However, because EOs are easily
overridden, each new Administration has the opportunity to revise or reverse the prior
Administration’s policies.
12.4 Fair Housing Act Claims
There are two main types of legal claims that are brought under the FHA. These fair
housing claims use the same legal framework as several other discrimination lawsuits, including
those brought under the equal employment. The main types of claims are disparate treatment
where the policy explicitly treats a protected party differently and disparate impact where a
policy is neutral on its face, but nonetheless impacts a protected group differently. Disparate
treatment cases are straightforward. If a harmed party can show that the policy is discriminatory
as written, then the entity may provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the policy. The
individual harmed, however, has the final opportunity to show that this reason is a facade.
For years disparate impact provided an avenue for implicit or structural discrimination,
however, they can be more challenging to prevail on. Courts now require a clear, causal link
between the challenged policy and its alleged discriminatory effects. As a result, individuals
harmed by implicit discrimination have to prove statistical impact stemming from “racial
261
animus” in order to be able to bring the lawsuit. Moreover, as mentioned earlier there is no right
of action under the AFFH regulation, which means that individuals who reside in states that are
not actively pursuing efforts to make housing accessible to all lack a mechanism to force states to
comply with this federal mandate. In addition to these main legal claims one can bring a fair
housing claim under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause.
12.4.1 FHA Legal Precedence & Standard of Review
Determining whether a policy action should be undertaken requires a multifaceted analysis.
In addition, to understand the policy problem, potential impact of the proposed policy, and the
difficulty in implementing the potential policy, one must also consider the likelihood that the
potential policy will withstand legal challenge. Understanding the legal doctrines and standard of
review, or the legal principle setting out how much deference on appeal a court should give to a
decision made by an agency or lower court, is part of this legal analysis.
Here we will first review claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact under the
Fair Housing Act. Our review will be buttressed by several Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) claims, which are a related area of law. Finally, particular attention is paid
to the definition of national origin, a protected class, as this is a misunderstood aspect of the
FHA and may be implicated when a municipality or state enacts protectionist housing policies.
Through this discussion, we provide an analysis of claims under 14th Amendment’s Equal
Protection Clause and the Foreign Commerce Clause providing a comprehensive snapshot of
legal claims that may arise from preferences.
12.4.2 Fair Housing Act Claims
There are two types of Fair Housing Act claims. See Figure 12.1. The first is whether a
policy constitutes disparate treatment and the second is whether a policy constitutes disparate
262
impact. Disparate treatment refers to intentional discrimination where individuals or groups are
treated differently based on a protected characteristic, while disparate impact involves policies or
practices that have an unintentional discriminatory effect on a protected group. Disparate
treatment cases are often easily recognized by having explicit statements of unequal treatment or
incorporate a comparative element, which disparate impact cases may be more difficult to
identify. A third line of claims, discussed in a later section, is specific to foreign individuals and
stems from the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendments. See Appendix F for a description of
the Legal Pathways a housing discrimination case may take.
12.4.2.1 Disparate Treatment
Disparate treatment applies when a law or decision explicitly discriminates against a
protected class. While there are three ways for a disparate treatment case to be heard in the
courts, the most common is circumstantial. In a landmark case, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, the US Supreme Court established a framework for assessing discrimination claims
(McDonnell Douglas Corp. V. Green, 1973). While this case dealt with employment
discrimination based on circumstantial evidence under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the framework has been widely applied to other areas, such as housing.
There are three elements that must be met for a disparate treatment case to proceed. First,
the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination, showing they belong to a
protected class, were qualified for the position, were rejected, and that the employer continued to
seek applicants with similar qualifications. Second, once a prima facie case has been established,
the employer must articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the employment
decision. The plaintiff is then provided the last opportunity to prove that this reason is a pretext
263
for discrimination. Thus, when applied to housing so long as the law or action has a legitimate
public purpose, a discriminatory policy may be allowable under the FHA.
When disparate treatment cases are brought before the courts for review, the legal issues
are reviewed de novo, which means that the court re-examines the legal issue from the beginning
without providing any deference to the lower court’s findings. Importantly, while the legal issues
are reviewed de novo the factual issues are reviewed using a softer standard of clear error, which
means that the court will provide deference to the facts of the cases as articulated by the lower
court unless there is a clear error where a fact is plainly wrong.
12.4.2.2 Disparate Impact
Even when a law or decision does not explicitly discriminate, it may still disparately
impact a protected class. In these instances fair housing cases are brought under the legal theory
of disparate impact, which means that a policy or practice disproportionately affects a protected
class regardless of whether there is an intent to discriminate. In Texas Department of Housing
and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the US Supreme Court articulated
a three pronged test: 1) Did the plaintiff show that the challenged policy caused a discriminatory
effect on a protected group?; 2) Can the defendant demonstrate that the policy is necessary to
achieve a substantial, legitimate, and non-discriminatory interest?; and 3) Is there a less
discriminatory way to achieve the same objective (Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2015)? Courts tend to use the substantial evidence
standard when reviewing these cases. The substantial evidence standard states that so long as the
agency's decision can be supported by "substantial evidence" in the record the agency action is
upheld. Thus, it is critical on the part of an agency to ensure that the record includes enough
264
relevant evidence that a reasonable person might agree with their conclusion to enact the stated
policy or practice.
In Inclusive Communities, the court cautioned against using disparate impact claims in
ways that might encourage racial quotas or impose excessive burdens on defendants, harkening
the emergence of a more conservative view of this legal issue. This, coupled with the changing
nature of the courts in the last twenty years, has brought renewed scrutiny on disparate impact
claims. Courts now require plaintiffs to demonstrate a clear, causal link between the challenged
policy and its alleged discriminatory effects. Plaintiffs must now show, often through statistical
evidence, that a specific policy directly causes a disproportionate impact on a protected group
(Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.,
2015). Moreover, courts have scrutinized the quality of statistical evidence by requiring that
plaintiffs prove causation rather than merely correlation. This is a high standard to meet, which
often dooms disparate impact cases (Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v.
Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2015; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes, 2011).
Courts have also focused on evaluating whether the defendant’s policy serves a
substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest (Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2015; Wards Cove Packing Co. V.
Atonio Citation, 1989). For example, a policy may prohibit individuals with felony convictions
from obtaining public housing. Because African-Americans and some other minorities are
disproportionately incarcerated, there could be a disparate impact claim. However, if the housing
authority were to articulate public safety as a reason for this prohibition the courts may likely
allow the policy to stand despite its disparate impact on people of color. In these cases, plaintiffs
must then propose a viable, less discriminatory alternative to show that the policy should be
265
reversed (Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. V. Lincoln Property Co., 2019). Failure to provide
a less discriminatory alternative would result in the agency’s initial policy that has a disparate
impact to stand.
Moreover, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media,
the US Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must be able to show that “but for racial animus,” the
harm would not have occurred (Comcast Corp. V. National Association of African American-
Owned Media, 2020). In other words, the only reason that the plaintiff was impacted negatively
was because of race, which given the multitude of issues that can impact a decision is difficult to
prove. This higher standard of proof reflects a more restrictive approach to civil rights that is
emerging from the Courts.
12.5 Foreign vs. National Origin
Nation-states often limit certain privileges to its citizens, including employment and land
ownership, thereby implicitly discriminating against those that lack this status. While the FHA is
silent about discrimination based on citizenship, it explicitly prohibits discrimination based on
national origin. Under the FHA, national origin is defined as the geographic area in which a
person was born or from which his or her ancestors came. It is important not to conflate national
origin with citizenship status as these are often related, but not necessarily the same. There are
multiple laws that prohibit non-US citizens from enjoying certain rights such as federal
employment further highlighting this distinction. At least one case has found that if the purpose
of discriminating against non-citizens is intended or has the effect of “discriminating on the basis
of national origin,” suggesting that discriminating baked on citizenship is allowable. There is a
lack of clarity in the FHA as to the distinction between certain categories, including US citizens,
lawful permanent residents (LPR), lawful temporary residents (e.g., visa holders), etc.
266
While no state has enacted a complete ban on foreign ownership of lands within their
borders, many states have some limits in place. Agricultural lands, lands that are near critical
infrastructure, and public lands are most frequently protected from foreign ownership. Despite
this all 50 states report some foreign investment or ownership of lands within their state. While
Hawaiʻi does not limit the foreign ownership of land per se, it does limit the ability of foreign
investors to purchase public lands (Haw. Rev. Stat., 2015). Hawaiʻi counties have authority to
govern on local matters, but the strong centralized nature of the state government often takes the
lead on numerous areas such as land use and environmental protections. Thus, while each
Hawaiʻi county has the ability to enact their own unique foreign ownership laws, there is a desire
for uniformity.
12.5.1 “Foreign” Investment
As early as the colonial era, foreign ownership of US lands has always been an area of
concern, (Mason, Jr., 1994; Morrison, 1976; Price, 2000; Sam Rankin, 2004; Shapiro, 1993;
Tirres, 2012) which have been enacted largely though common law prohibitions (Bell & Savage,
1980; Sullivan, 1962). It is common for nation-states to limit certain privileges such as land
ownership and government employment to its citizens. Citizens are not only required to abide by
all laws, but also owe a duty to the nation, including military service, jury duty, and payment of
taxes. For example, the US federal government restricts civil service employment to US citizens
(Exec. Order No. 11,935, 1976). Restricting positions to US citizens does not run afoul of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin.
However, restricting employment to US citizens that were born in the US would not be allowable
as this would be discriminatory based on national origin.
267
Prohibitions on foreign land ownership were relaxed as westward expansion became a
focal point of US policy to encourage settlers in these “new” lands (Sullivan, 1962). Today, as
the finite nature of certain resources are more apparent and the populace perceives future
scarcity, there has been an increased emphasis on maintaining control over these resources. This
has led to instances where ownership prohibitions were enacted for nefarious motivations.
However, given the unique issues that each state faces and the reasons for the prohibition’s initial
passage each policy must be individually analyzed (Eule, 1982; McGreal, 1998; Redish &
Nugent, 1987).
Today, no state has enacted a complete ban on foreign ownership of lands within their
borders. At the federal level, the government restricts foreign investment and ownership in US
agricultural lands under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA)
(Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, 1978, §§3501-3508). The Committee on
Foreign Investment in the US, an interagency group, has authority to review and approve or deny
potential real estate transactions to determine its impact on critical infrastructure such as military
installations, airports, and other commercial transactional ports (US Department of the Treasury,
n.d.). Under the AFIDA, the nexus for foreign status is that their principal place of business be
outside of the US (Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, 1978, §§3501-3508). At the
state level, 25 states have prohibited foreign persons from acquiring agricultural lands (Brown &
Spellman, 2024), 5 have no prohibition, and 20 expressly allow foreign investment. Despite the
fact that a majority of states have some type of prohibitions, all 50 states report some foreign
investment or ownership of lands within their state (Johnson, 2023). Moreover, some states,
including Missouri, are considering a complete ban on foreign ownership (HB 652, 2019; HB
773, 2019; HB 948, 2019).
268
While Hawaiʻi does not limit the foreign ownership of land per se, it does limit the ability
of foreign investors to purchase public lands (Haw. Rev. Stat., 2015). The Hawaiʻi Organic Act
states that no person shall have a right to purchase more than 10 acres under the homestead act
who is an alien, unless they declared their intention to become a citizen of the United States.
Moreover, any individual who declares their intention to become a citizen has five years to
accomplish that or risk losing their interest in the land (Hawaiʻi Organic Act, 2022). While the
public lands chapter of the Hawaiʻi Revised statutes limits the eligibility of purchasing public
lands to Hawaiʻi residents who have resided in Hawaiʻi for at least three years (Haw. Rev. Stat.,
2015).
12.5.2 Definition of national origin
Under the Fair Housing Act, the definition of national origin is unclear. This lack of
clarity along with the numerous status’ of citizenship create significant complexity. See Table 1
for a brief description of one’s legal relationship to a country. The FHA defines national origin to
mean the geographic area in which a person was born or from which his or her ancestors came
(Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 1973; House. Rights Ctr. V. Donald Sterling Corp., 2003).
According to the FHA Guidelines, national origin may refer to an entire country or a region
within a country (Guidelines on Discrimination Because of National Origin, 1980). The lack of
clarity arises from whether one needs to be a US citizen or lawful permanent resident for the
national origin clauses to apply.
At least one case has found that a facial discriminatory policy against citizenship or
immigration status can be a violation of the FHA if the purpose of discriminating against non-
citizens is intended or has the effect of “discriminating on the basis of national origin (Lindsay v.
Yates, 2009). To state conversely, a policy that discriminates against non-citizens may be
269
allowable, but will likely need to be reviewed by the Courts to ensure that it also does not
discriminate based on national origin (Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mut. Asso., 1981). For
example, a company that requires its employees to be citizens, but then requires employees to re-
verify their citizenship by producing a birth certificate without alternative means of re-
verification may be found discriminatory (Immigration and Nationality Act, 1986). Along the
same lines, a company that only requires non-US born individuals to re-verify their citizenship
may be found in violation (US Department of Homeland Security, 2018). In other words, it is not
the limitation on citizenship that is the issue, but whether citizenship is used as a proxy or pretext
for discrimination based on national origin.
To complicate matters, HUD has also issued a guidance memorandum stating that
individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) were a protected class. Courts have validated
that a nexus exists between national origin and LEP (Colindres v. Quietflex Mfg., 2004). Thus,
someone of LEP is more likely to be of a different national origin and therefore, policies that
target LEP may also be targeting national origin. Just as language discrimination is unique, but
linked with national origins discrimination; discrimination against non-citizens is also not per se
national origin discrimination.
Of note in Hawaiʻi the definition of “national origin” under the Chapter 515 of the
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes “includes the national origin of an ancestor,” (HI Rev Stat, 2023, §515-
2) which implies that the individual’s national origin is the primary focus rather than their
citizenship status. Moreover, Hawaiʻi has captured additional protected classes including sex
(inclusive of gender identity or expression), sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry,
disability, age, or HIV infection status in addition to race, biological sex, color, and familial
status (HI Rev Stat, 2023, §515-3). Furthermore, there are certain populations in Hawaiʻi that
270
hold a unique status. The Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, and Republic of the
Marshall Islands have all signed agreements with the United States under the Compact of Free
Association (COFA). Individuals from these countries are not US citizens nor are they granted a
pathway to US citizenship because of their origin. Additionally, they are no lawful permanent
residents or green card holders. In fact, they do not require a visa to enter, reside in, or work in
the US. Moreover, they are frequently treated like domestic citizens as they qualify for certain,
but not all public benefits. It is because of their unique status stemming from the COFA that any
policies that provide preferences for US citizens or LPR must also include these COFA migrants
as a protected group.
In addition to Fair Housing claims, which rest upon the prohibition of housing-related
discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability,
we must also consider the legal analysis related to foreign commerce clause, which grants
Congress the power to regulate commerce with “foreign Nations, and among the several state,
and with the Indian Tribes.” (Commerce Clause, 1898). The argument under the Foreign
Commerce Clause is that it is Congress’ duty rather than states or municipalities to enact laws
that limit the ability of individuals, companies, and foreign nations themselves to pass laws
limiting their ability to purchase or access housing.
Finally, resident aliens are considered a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause
of the 14th Amendment (US Const. amend. 14, §1). Therefore, facially discriminatory policies
such as applying higher taxes to resident aliens would not be allowed (Graham v. Richardson,
1971). However, similar to the FHA analysis, nonresident aliens (i.e., non-immigrant or a foreign
national who does not reside or work in the US) are not a protected class and the Supreme Court
rejected equal protection challenges that limit land ownership restrictions that discriminate
271
against this group (Porterfield v. Webb, 1923; Terrace v. Thompson, 1923). Since nonresident
aliens are not a protected class, a protectionist policy that discriminated against them would only
need to satisfy rational basis review, which requires that the law be rationally related to a
legitimate government purpose. As an example, tax for nonresident aliens may be more difficult
to collect justifying a higher tax rate to compensate for the additional burden that the state fares.
Thus, while the federal government can under the Supremacy Clause create some uniformity,
historically property law “has remained the jealously guarded domain of the states.” (Morrison,
1976). It is, therefore, unlikely that control over alien land ownership will be removed from the
hands of state power and handed to the federal government (Frechter, 1988).
12.5.3 Level of Government
A critical and underappreciated aspect of the legal analysis of whether or not a law that
potentially discriminates against a protected class violates the FHA or the Constitution is
whether the enacting government is a state or a municipality. States and municipalities have
differing sources of authority, which must be considered when analyzing discrimination. States
have broad legislative authority to legislate in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
its citizens. Municipalities, on the other hand, derive their authority from the state and thus must
ensure that their ordinances do not conflict with the state.
There are two legal frameworks by which local governments are able to govern. The first
is home rule, which allows local governments to govern on local matters such as zoning, public
safety, and local taxation (Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, 2020).
The second is Dillon’s rule, which holds that local governments only have the authority
explicitly granted to them (National League of Cities & Local Solutions Support Center, 2020).
Home rule is typically established in either the state constitution or through a state statute. In
272
Dillon’s rule municipal laws will only be valid if there is a state statute that explicitly allows
them to govern in this area (National League of Cities & Local Solutions Support Center, 2020).
States such as Alabama, Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia has strict Dillon’s
rules in place whereas Arkansas (Dillon’s rule applies to counties, but not municipalities),
Florida (only special districts use Dillon’s rule), Kentucky (counties are subject to Dillon’s rule,
but cities use Home rule), and North Carolina (mostly Dillon’s rule with certain limited Home
rule carve outs) have a mixed Dillon’s rule approach (Local Solutions Support Center, 2021;
Russell & Bostrom, 2016). Hawaiʻi can best be described as a modified Home rule state, where
counties have home rule authority, but the centralized state government, in practice, controls
certain areas that traditionally are local such as education, land use, and environmental protection
(Haw. Rev. Stat., 2023, §205-1; Haw. Rev. Stat., 2023, §302A-1101; Haw. Rev. Stat., 2023,
§343-1).
The delegated nature of local ordinances and regulations mean that these laws undergo an
additional analysis of whether or not they conflict with state laws, regulations, and policies.
Moreover, a municipal ordinance may be determined to be preempted by a state law rendering it
moot. In Village of Arlington Heights, the US Supreme Court argued that municipal laws should
be more closely scrutinized because they are more susceptible to local political pressure and
more prone to parochial interests (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing
Development Corp., 1977). Thus, municipal ordinances are often scrutinized closer than state
laws. Given the inherent sovereign authority of states, courts often defer to states’ authority and
interpretation. It is, therefore, fair to argue that states have more leeway to establish policies that
may have a discriminatory impact.
273
12.6 Hawaiʻi’s Housing System
Hawaiʻi’s housing system consists of a wide range of companies, organizations and
agencies. These various entities can be understood to play a role in supporting individuals within
the housing system at different levels of housing security ranging from homelessness to market-
rate homeownership, known as a housing continuum, with the hope of moving individuals
further “up” the housing continuum. Preference policies are one mechanism already in use in
Hawaiʻi for assisting individuals in moving up the housing continuum. For example, the Hawaiʻi
Public Housing Authority provides a housing preference to individuals who have experienced
involuntary displacement, are victims of domestic abuse, and people experiencing homelessness.
There are a range of barriers which prevent access to affordable housing which can be
understood to occur at three stages. These are availability of land, availability of affordable
housing for local residents, and purchase or rental of housing by local residents.
12.6.1 Overview of the Housing System
Beginning with a broad overview, Hawaiʻi's population is approximately 1.46 million
people consisting of approximately 494,000 households (United States Census Bureau, n.d., p.).
Nearly 40% of these households (roughly 196,000) bear a high housing burden, considered to be
housing costs which are 30% or more of household income (Hawaiʻi Health Matters, 2022). The
greatest housing burden is concentrated in Honolulu County (41.4%) followed by Maui (39.2%),
Kauaʻi (36.4%), and Hawaiʻi (33.0%) (Hawaiʻi Health Matters, 2022). Hawaiʻi’s housing stock
consists of approximately 561,000 housing units (United States Census Bureau, 2022).
Approximately 71,000 of these units are vacant with 46.9% of vacant units being located in
Honolulu County. Hawaiʻi’s housing system consists of a broad spectrum of organizations,
companies, and agencies consisting of both private and public interests which all contribute to
274
what can be conceived of as a housing system. This includes federally funded programs and
agencies, state-funded programs, and privately owned homes and rentals.
A helpful model for understanding the housing system is the housing continuum which
imagines a spectrum of available housing ranging from emergency shelters to ownership of
market- rate housing (White, 2020). The model is typically depicted in 6-8 stages including 1)
homelessness, 2) emergency shelters, 3) transitional housing, 4) subsidized rental housing, 5)
subsidized home ownership, 6) market rate rental housing, and 7) market rate home ownership
(see Figure 12.2). Individuals in a society will be at different stages of this spectrum. Ideally, over
time individuals can move up the housing continuum spectrum towards greater housing security.
Each juncture between stages also represents an opportunity for intervention either through policy
or support programs to assist individuals in progressing towards greater housing security.
There are a range of policies, programs and initiatives with both federal, state, and private
funding that create an ecosystem which impacts the ability of individuals to move up the
continuum towards greater housing stability. The following are several examples of different
initiatives which assist individuals in each region of the spectrum. The Punawai Rest Stop provides
hygiene and other services to homeless individuals (The City & County of Honolulu & Mental
Health Kokua, 2019). Meanwhile the Emergency Solutions Grant program provides services to
prevent individuals from becoming homeless or helps with transitions to stable housing after
homelessness occurs (Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program, n.d.). Organizations such as
the Institute for Human Services and Family Promise of Hawaiʻi provide emergency shelter
services for individuals and families facing homelessness (Family Promise of Hawaiʻi, n.d.; The
Institute for Human Services, 2021). Transitional housing, the next region in the spectrum, is
supported by organizations such as ʻOhana Ola O Kahumana and the Honolulu City and County
275
operated Homeless Outreach and Navigation for Unsheltered Persons (HONU) program (Ohana
Ola O Kahumana, n.d.; Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions, n.d.).
Other programs and initiatives intervene in the subsidized rental region. For example the
Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority (HPHA), which has both federally and state funded programs,
provides assistance for rentals either through housing vouchers or directly provides housing at
rents affordable to low-income families (Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority, n.d.-b, n.d.-a).
Meanwhile programs such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program and the Rental
Housing Revolving Fund incentivize developers to build or rehabilitate affordable rental units
(Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation, n.d.-c, n.d.-d). Subsidized home
ownership is the next region in the continuum. The Affordable Homeownership Revolving Fund
(AHRF) and Inclusionary zoning policies incentivize the construction of affordable housing
(Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation, n.d.-a). A unique feature of Hawaiʻi’s
housing system is the Department of Hawaiian Homelands established by the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act which provides “99-year homestead leases at an annual rental of $1” and loans
for home construction to qualifying individuals “having at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood”
(Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), n.d.). Finally, special bank accounts such as First-
Time Home Buyer Saving Accounts at banks can provide assistance in saving money to purchase
a home (American Savings Bank Hawaiʻi, n.d.).
12.6.2 Hawaiʻi Preference Policies
A number of already existing preference policies already exist in Hawaiʻi, as shown in
Table 12.2. One example is preference policies for HPHA programs. The federal housing
through the HPHA has preferences for individuals or families who have experienced involuntary
displacement, those who are victims of domestic abuse, and people experiencing homelessness
276
defined as people living in “transitional shelters, supportive housing programs, and who are
unsheltered, who are participating in and are in compliance or have completed a social service
plan” (Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority, n.d.-b). HPHA’s state housing program has
preferences for individuals older than 62 years of age, people and families displaced by the
government, families in transitional shelters who have completed social service plans, veterans,
and families of deceased veterans (Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority, n.d.-b).
The HPHA also has preferences for its Housing Choice Voucher program which assists
tenants in securing rental housing (Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority, n.d.-a). This program is
also divided into federal and state assistance programs. The federal program housing provides
vouchers for specific populations including veterans, people with disabilities, people
experiencing homelessness, and people fleeing domestic violence. HUD-Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Vouchers offers support to chronically homeless veterans
often who have substance abuse disorders and/or severe mental and physical ailments with
limited social support. Non-Elderly Disabled (NED) Vouchers and Mainstream Vouchers both
offer support to non-elderly persons with disabilities who are between 18-62 years of age. The
Emergency Housing Voucher targets individuals who are “homeless; at risk of homelessness;
fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or
human trafficking; or were recently homeless or have a high risk of housing instability” (Hawaiʻi
Public Housing Authority, n.d.-a).
Programs which assist aspiring homeowners include The Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and
Development Corporation’s (HHFDC) Affordable Resale Program and Dwelling Unit Revolving
Fund Equity Pilot program (Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation, n.d.-b; The
DURF Equity Pilot (DEP) Program, n.d.). The Affordable Resale Program restricts eligibility to
277
first-time homebuyers, who do not already own any units, and are residents of Hawaiʻi.
Meanwhile, the HHFDC Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund Equity Pilot (DEP) Program targets
individuals working in specific professions that require special training for which there is a
shortage.
Hawaiʻi County recently implemented affordable housing preferences for Hawaiʻi Island
residents. In November of 2023, Bill 72 was signed, which broadened the eligibility criteria for
eligible buyers to allow more residents to qualify for affordable housing. In addition, the bill
added three categories of qualified applicants to include qualified resident, qualified returning
student, and qualified worker, which provides the foundation for the residency and employment
preference allowing the housing administrator to set the order of preferences and the selection
process.
Finally, a notable and unique preference that exists in Hawaiʻi is related to the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act, which, among other things, created the Department of Hawaiian
Homelands (DHHL). DHHL administers the distribution of 99-year leases to eligible native
Hawaiians based on a waitlist system. This Congressional program requires applicants to be 50%
or more native Hawaiian, which operates as a preference for the Indigenous people of Hawaiʻi.
Additionally, DHHL is exploring additional preference options such as providing individuals on
the waitlist who reside in a specific area where Hawaiian Homelands exist to be moved ahead of
others. This is most notable in rural communities where families struggle to be able to afford to
remain local such as Hana, Maui. However, it is unclear how this would impact individuals on
the waitlist that reside outside of the state of Hawaiʻi or who are currently unhoused.
278
12.6.3 Barriers and Potential Solutions
There are a variety of barriers to providing affordable housing to local residents,
visualized in Figure 12.3. These barriers can be thought of as occurring at three different levels:
availability of land, availability of affordable housing for local residents, and finally purchase or
rental of units by local residents. The following is a non-comprehensive overview of some of the
barriers and potential solutions.
Limited availability of land in Hawaiʻi results in land prices that can be expensive.
Additionally, in rural areas there may be lack of infrastructure on which housing can be
constructed. With state funding, community land trusts may be able to have the funds to
purchase lands specifically for affordable housing for local residents which may help overcome
some of these barriers. Even if suitable land exists, ensuring that there is affordable housing that
is available for local residents can be a challenge. Zoning policies, out-of-state buyers, use of
land for construction of luxury developments or short-term rentals can all present barriers to the
development and availability of affordable housing. Deed restrictions can put limitations on who
can and cannot buy a housing unit and prioritize local families. Inclusive-zoning policies can
incentivize affordable housing construction.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) can create more affordable housing
for native Hawaiians. Public housing can create more affordable housing for low-income
families. Vacancy taxes can be used to either increase the amount of funding available for
affordable housing programs and/or incentivize homeowners to rent out their vacant units.
Community Land Trusts (CLTs) can construct and maintain affordable housing for local
communities. The Rental Housing Revolving Fund (RHRF) can incentivize rehabilitation of
rental units. Finally, once affordable housing is available there are still barriers to local families
279
purchasing or renting these homes and keeping these homes affordable. Increasing housing costs,
increasing rents (which may be influenced by out-of-state individuals moving to Hawaiʻi and
military basic allowance for housing (BAH)), displacement due to the construction of new
developments (including affordable housing projects), and discrimination are some of the
barriers local residents may face in obtaining affordable housing.
Housing preference policies based on where an individual lives, works, or other criteria
may make obtaining affordable housing more manageable for local families. Rent control and
just-cause eviction policies may allow for greater stability in communities and maintain already
existing affordable housing. Housing vouchers and subsidies can help low-income families
afford housing. Finally, first-time home buyer savings accounts can assist local families in
purchasing their first home.
12.7 Global Housing Preference Policy Review
Resident and citizen housing preference policies are implemented in a number of local,
national, and global regions. While Hawaiʻi has existing preference policies, further exploration
of domestic and foreign preference frameworks can inform additional approaches for future
enactment in Hawaiʻi. We identified various global preference policies through an iterative
literature review. In order to gain a better understanding of these policies and how, if at all, these
policies would be received in Hawaiʻi, we facilitated several qualitative policy research
discussions. After additional research, we selected eight policies for housing policy experts,
housing advocates, and constitutional law experts to consider in focus groups and interviews.
Findings from this expert feedback revealed diverse perspectives on the effectiveness, feasibility,
and legality of the policies in the Hawaiʻi context. Programs that were identified as the strongest
280
candidates for implementation in Hawaiʻi were: deed restriction programs, a vacancy tax, and
community land trusts.
12.7.1 Methods
We conducted a literature review to identify domestic and international housing
preference policies for residents and/or citizens. Google search engine was the primary search
tool used to find journal articles, news articles, and blog posts. Google Scholar was used to
search for journal articles. Broad search terms were used to ensure that we were overly inclusive
in our search (See Table 12.3). Additionally, Chat GPT was used to identify specific examples of
local preference policies. These examples informed targeted search terms that were applied to
Google and Google Scholar to pinpoint websites or articles describing these policies. Skimming
these websites and articles allowed us to further narrow our search. See Table 3 for our list of
enhanced terms used to search for international policies. Finally, we turned to Instagram to
search for preference programs we had prior knowledge about.
12.7.2 Findings
A total of 33 housing preference policies were identified. Tables A1-C3 (see Appendices
12.A-12.C) summarize each policy according to the type of preference, country, focus
population, specifics of the preference, entity that oversees the preference, legal challenges, and
evaluation of the impact of the preference. Tables A1-A3 outlines the international preference
policies we found. During our search, we read extensively about Singapore’s housing model and
its Housing and Development Board’s priority schemes. Tables B1 and B2 focus on Singapore’s
various preferences intended for its citizens and permanent residents, which provide multiple
pathways to home ownership. Resident preference policies and programs enacted in the United
States are highlighted in Tables C1-C3.
281
Our findings feature an array of strategies that countries and US states have implemented
to ensure their citizens and residents have priority access to purchase or rent property. We group
these strategies into 10 categories (see Table 12.4).
12.7.2.1 Guam’s preference policies
After our policy review, we learned of an Indigenous preference that was implemented in
Guam. The CHamoru Land Trust Commission’s (CLTC) primary mission is to lease Chamorro
Homelands to native Chamorros. The CHamoru Land Trust Commission, in turn, is responsible
for the disposition of CHamoru Homelands (public lands) “to advance the social, cultural and
economic development and well-being of the CHamoru people by way of residential, agricultural
and commercial land distribution and economic assistance programs” (Chamorro Land Trust
Commission, 1975). The restriction of leases under the CLTC to “native Chamorros” defined as
“any person who became a US citizen by virtue of the authority and enactment of the Organic
Act of Guam or descendants of such person” (Guam Public Law, 1980) Through a lawsuit
(United States v. Government of Guam, 2020), the US argued that this policy violated the rights
of protected groups under the FHA (Fair Housing Act, 1968b). Although Guam was successful
in Federal District Court, they did agree to enter into a settlement in order to avoid unnecessary
delay and uncertainty.
The agreement set out specific items:
1. The term Chamorro and native Chamorro would be replaced with beneficiary and
eligible beneficiary.
2. Chamorro Land Trust would include all lands, including Chamorro homelands,
under the control of the Chamorro Land Trust Commission.
282
3. Beneficiary was defined as meaning any person, regardless of race, color, or
national origin: whose land was acquired by the US during a specific timeframe
or who occupied specific lands for one year prior to the US acquiring that land.
4. The verification of eligibility requires being able to prove descent from an
individual who either owned or use of covered lands.
These alterations ultimately shifted the focus from Chamorro ethnicity to historical losses. Under
the original complaint, a key provision in the US government’s argument was that Congress had
not recognized Chamorros as a tribe or nation.
Although this lawsuit and its resolution is instructive to Hawaiʻi in regards to a
generalized preference policy, there are some key distinctions. First, although not federally
recognized, Native Hawaiians have been acknowledged as Indigenous with over 240 federal
laws that articulate a special relationship with the US. Second, the Native Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act explicitly allows for the distribution of Hawaiian Homelands to individuals
who are “native Hawaiian.” Ultimately, the key instructive elements of the CHamoru Land
Commission case study are: 1) preference policies outside of the Hawaiian Homelands
environment cannot be purely based on ethnicity; 2) preference policies can be tied to historical
losses; 3) so long as the original loss is not based on ethnicity, tying benefits to descent is
allowable; 4) careful consideration should be given if a preference policy removed an existing
benefit.182
The result of this agreement resulted in the following additional preferences. This
preference policy within the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 titled
182 One of the original complaints was brought by the widow of a Chamoru woman who was found ineligible to continue their existing lease and had to vacate the land. See: https://www.pacificislandtimes.com/post/2019/01/06/judge-its-not-race-based-court-favors-chamorro-land-trust-act
283
“Preference for United States Citizens or Nationals” is one that is unique to Guam. US citizens
or nationals are prioritized over COFA citizens (citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia,
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau) in their applications for
financial assistance. This especially applies to the Section 8 waiting list (Pang, 2016).
12.7.2.2 Vail InDEED program
The Town of Vail (hereafter the “Town”) passed Resolution No. 29 in 2016 to adopt the
Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan (Res. 29, 2016). The Town’s current aim is to acquire 1,000
additional deed restricted units by 2027 to maintain and sustain homes for Vail residents (Town
of Vail, 2016). Thus, the Vail InDEED program provides cash incentives to Vail homeowners to
place a deed restriction on their residential property. This funding does not need to be repaid and
can be used for expenses such as down payment assistance and home repairs.
Resolution No. 34, Series 2016 (Res. 34, 2016) delegates the Vail Local Housing
Authority (VLHA) to acquire deed restrictions in the Town. The VLHA is a five-member
volunteer board that prioritizes affordable housing initiatives by coordinating with the Town staff
(Town of Vail, n.d.). According to their website, the VLHA “works to ensure there is deed
restricted housing for 30% of Vail’s workforce” (Town of Vail, n.d.). Interested homeowners
submit a Vail InDEED application to the VLHA to determine the appropriate value of their deed
restriction and incentive they receive. The deed restriction remains with the property for all of its
future sales. To date, the Town has acquired over 1,040 deed restricted units. These units
contribute to the Town’s overarching goal of increasing housing stock for Vail residents who live
in the Town and work full-time in Eagle County (Vail InDEED, n.d.). Currently in the Hawaiʻi
Legislature, HB739, Relating to Housing, proposes a similar program in Hawaiʻi.
284
12.7.3 Feedback on identified policies
From 33 national and global housing preference policies, we chose eight of them to
gather input on. We decided on whether a policy would be effective and/or feasible to implement
in Hawaiʻi based on our general knowledge about state and federal laws and the state’s previous
or current preference approaches. These eight policies represent six categories: public housing
queue, foreign ownership penalty, vacancy tax, community land trust, deed restriction, and
preference point system. See Figure 12.4 for an image of the policies and their descriptions and
Appendix 12.D for a detailed view of the content.
Initially, we planned to conduct three focus groups of three to five participants. However,
due to conflicting schedules with our designated focus group dates, we accommodated some
participants by interviewing them individually. We utilized convenience sampling to recruit
participants from our own networks. We brainstormed 24 individuals who were housing policy
experts and advocates (including elected officials) and constitutional law experts. We primarily
contacted people through email. For those we personally knew, we reached out to them by text
and social media. Out of 24 potential participants, 14 people responded. From the responses, we
scheduled 12 participants for either a one-hour focus group or interview (see Table 12.5). The
first, and only, in-person focus group we held on August 23 had three participants. The second
focus group we held on October 13 had two participants and was conducted over Zoom. The
individual interviews were also conducted virtually.
For the initial focus group, we invited participants to the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
campus. We created a slide deck and included information about the AI evaluation study,
PollEverywhere icebreaker activity, and summaries of the policies; our agenda (see Appendix
12.D) closely followed the structure of the slide deck. We organized the eight identified policies
285
into a poster (see Figure 12.4) for ease of discussion. Participants were asked to choose the
policies that were the most effective, second most effective, most feasible to implement in
Hawaiʻi, and second most feasible. An “effective” policy would be one that provides increased
housing opportunities for Hawaiʻi residents. A “feasible” policy would be one where
implementation is realistic due to factors such as political will and available resources.
Participants, then, explained their choices. To enrich the discussion, we asked questions
regarding the policies’ legality, adaptability, and feasibility. We loosely followed this agenda
during our subsequent focus group and interviews, omitting the PollEverywhere activity due to
limited numbers. It is important to note that all of our sessions were not recorded. Instead, we
took detailed notes and stored them in our shared Google Drive. See Figure 12.5 for an overview
of the expert feedback we received on each preference policy.
12.7.4 Discussion
The majority of our sessions fostered productive conversations about the effectiveness,
feasibility, and legality of the featured preference policies. The Vail InDEED program, the
Empty Homes Tax and the Lāhainā Community Land Trust (LCLT) generated the most
discussion.
Dialogue about the InDEED program occurred in eight of the nine sessions. The
consensus was that deed restrictions are generally feasible to enact to create an affordable
housing stock. Owners may decide on whether to put a restriction on sale to make their property
affordable for residents who live and work in the area. Public funding for incentives, however,
would require council approval, which may slow implementation. On the other hand, participants
in Interviews 4 and 7 raised concerns about the long-term impact of deed restrictions. These
286
restrictions may limit households’ ability to build equity and wealth, thus inhibiting upward
mobility, due to caps on sale price or profit generation.
Seven sessions generally considered the Empty Homes Tax to be both effective in
increasing housing stock for local residents and feasible in its implementation. Several housing
advocates and experts commented that they were familiar with the Vancouver policy and
pinpointed instances when this policy was either considered, passed, or implemented in
Hawaiʻi’s counties. Although most participants broadly supported this tax, some brought up their
reservations about where the revenue is funneled. They expressed that an empty homes tax
would be most effective if the revenue goes to an affordable housing fund. This would ensure
funding for future affordable housing developments.
The LCLT formed shortly after the Lāhainā wildfire to purchase and hold land for
Lāhainā residents to rebuild. Three interviewees and one focus group deemed this nonprofit’s
work as either the most or second most feasible program to execute as it does not require
legislation or impose administrative burden. The housing advocate from Interview 2 viewed this
program as most effective since it is, in essence, a form of deed restriction. This participant
expanded that the LCLT’s preference for displaced Lāhainā residents not only focuses on
restoring residency but also addresses the harm that these fire survivors endured from loss and
displacement.
The N/NE and Affordable Housing preference policies and the Municipal Housing Queue
were not discussed as extensively as the aforementioned three policies. Participants in Interviews
2, 3, 4, and 6 had differing viewpoints about these programs. The housing advocate from
Interview 2 designated the Portland and Berkeley preference policies as likely feasible due to
their reparative impact of returning displaced residents to an area that was gentrified. Similarly,
287
the financial expert in Interview 3 selected the Berkeley policy as likely feasible. However, this
participant was particularly interested in the N/NE preference policy and how to create a similar
preference program through specialized loan products for Hawaiʻi residents. Interview 4’s
housing policy expert regarded the preference programs as effective. This participant understood
these programs as less restrictive as they give certain groups priority from their scores while
making the application open to all. On the contrary, the housing policy expert from Interview 6
thought that these preference point systems would be neither effective nor feasible in Hawaiʻi
due to their likely administrative burden, including the high cost of administration. Overall, these
three participants compared the Municipal Housing Queue to the US’ Section 8 Program due to
its waitlist component. They all considered Sweden’s system to be both effective and feasible
since Hawaiʻi already has experience with the Section 8 Program.
Foreign ownership penalties were talked about in five sessions, bringing up mixed
reactions. All of the participants in Focus Group 1 and Interviews 1 and 2 recognized the
difficulty of implementing these policies due to issues with constitutionality, citing the
controversial example of SB2617 SD1 that was introduced in the 2024 Legislative Session. On
the other hand, participants in Interview 3 and 5 identified that these policies would be generally
effective in Hawaiʻi. Additionally, participants discussed the impact of increasing conveyance
tax on purchases by international buyers to generate revenue. Despite this perspective, they
stated that the intent of raising the tax is critical to ascertain because the effect of penalizing
foreign investors may differ from the effect of increasing funding for affordable housing
initiatives.
Enacting housing preference policies is a complex and interconnected issue that requires
a multi-pronged approach. The focus group and interview participants represent multiple
288
disciplines and hold varying perspectives on how to prioritize Hawaiʻi residents in affordable
rentals and homeownership. Interview 2’s housing policy advocate underscored that it is easier to
talk about feasibility in terms of domestic policies–we know what would work and what would
not in the context of US laws. This may be a direction that Hawaiʻi could take when crafting
housing preferences.
12.8 Recommendations
Hawaiʻi already implements multiple preferences in the housing policy arena. The first,
which is not the main subject of this paper, but is an important preference is Native Hawaiian
preferences enshrined in the Native Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1921). As a federally acknowledged Indigenous entity, Native Hawaiian have
a special relationship with the US that provides a safe harbor for certain preferences to be
implemented, including a housing preference for eligible Native Hawaiians to reside on
Hawaiian Homelands. Second, multiple preferences exist in the public housing sphere, including
Housing Choice Vouchers or Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority, which provide preferences for
certain individuals such as current homeless and individuals escaping domestic violence, among
others. Within this context, we provide the following recommendations, which are aimed at
identifying effective preferences that further support ensuring that Hawaiʻi residents are able to
obtain and remain in affordable housing units.
12.8.1 Task Force on AFFH
Because these issues are complex and there are multiple perspectives as to the best
mixture of approaches to be taken to address critical housing needs, a task force composed of
experts in housing, including researchers, advocates, financers, builders, and community
members should be convened to address the issue of improving housing access to local residents.
289
The task force should be provided sufficient time to fully gather information including analyzing
policies in other states, counties, and possibly internationally. In addition, the task force should
be charged with developing policy solutions and making recommendations. This type of detailed
work will likely take several years to complete, especially if the task force is not funded.
In particular, the task force should be charged to review and formulate proposals on the
following specific policies to determine their effectiveness in addressing the housing problems
here in Hawaiʻi:
1) implementing a housing preferences for low-income housing based on employment
location;
2) development of a housing preferences point system that provides points for existing
local residents (e.g., having resided in Hawaiʻi continuously for the last 5 years), homeless,
employment location, parental status, having experienced domestic violence, etc.;
3) implementing a government incentivized deed restrictions with specific recommended
template language;
4) creating a down payment support for individuals who can show historic ties to an
ahupuaʻa (similar to the Kalipi ruling (Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd., 1982) providing
gathering rights for individuals who can show historic ties to an ahupuaʻa);
5) implementing a community preference for low-income housing applied to individuals
who currently reside in an area (Vasudevan, 2024);
6) creating a down payment support for individuals who meet certain criteria, including,
but not limited to: employment location, employment in a key sector, historic ties to an ahupuaʻa
or community, prior familial ties to a geographic area, parental status, and income.
290
12.8.2 Deed restriction handout
In our global policy review, deed restrictions emerged as one strategy that domestic and
international locations have utilized to support keeping housing units in local hands. While the
task force should explore the idea of an incentivized deed restriction program, individuals may
on their own choose to add a restriction to their lands. Developing and making publicly available
handouts of what deed restrictions are and how to add one should be done at the state and county
levels. This handout should provide information to the public as there appears to be movement
around this mechanism for maintaining affordable housing. At a minimum the public should be
aware of the benefits, the potential issues, and the process for implementing a deed restriction on
their property.
12.8.3 Community Advisory Board
A Community Advisory Board (CAB) is a group of community members who work with
an institution or organization to share information and provide input on decisions, including
policymaking. CABs differ from task forces as they tend to be more permanent and often, though
not always, provide more generalized guidance. CABs can be key in supporting the development
of holistic policies that consider aspects from a variety of perspectives. While agencies have
mechanisms to be able to solicit input from the community, a CAB is invested in the
policymaking process and are selected from some type of expertise that they have on a topic.
Ideally, a shared CAB could be created where different state and county agencies could bring
questions to them for feedback. The State of Hawaiʻi has some laws and regulations in place that
may make the development of a CAB difficult. In addition, a CAB could not be a workaround
for existing administrative regulatory processes. However, it would be a valuable entity to
291
broaden the perspective of State and Counties in Hawaiʻi as they develop and implement
regulations.
12.8.4 Housing Navigators
Hawaiʻi’s housing market is one of the most expensive in the nation; more expensive
than any other nation. That, coupled with lower purchasing power due to relatively low wages,
makes finding adequate housing a huge priority for individuals. As an individual goes through
the housing continuum, they are faced with complex decisions some of which may result in
prolonged crisis. Housing navigators support individuals experiencing homelessness or other
challenges in becoming adequately housed. Just as a healthcare navigator supports individuals
who are experiencing a health crisis, housing navigators support individuals and families who are
experiencing housing crises. Because many housing policies and programs are complex it can be
difficult for someone in crises to fully understand the best path forward. Housing navigators
could be a paid position, but could also be volunteers or could be nonprofit organizations that
operate in coordination with state and local entities.
12.8.5 Expand Foreign land and home ownerships limits
Hawaiʻi already restricts the sale of public lands to foreigners (Haw. Rev. Stat., 2015),
but should consider expanding these limits. We limit our definition of foreigner to an individual
who is a non-immigrant and does not legally reside in the US. Countries such as Australia,
Singapore, New Zealand (New Zealand Bans Most Foreigners from Buying Homes, 2018; The
Overseas Investment Amendment Act, 2018), Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (McMahon,
2016) have implemented policies that discourage or limit the sale of homes to foreigners. In the
US, some states (Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and North Dakota) have implemented
laws prohibiting foreign ownership of agriculture. Others have limited the ability to own lands
292
near critical infrastructure such as military installations or dams using homeland security as
justification. Mississippi and South Carolina have set acreage limits while Missouri and Illinois
have limited investment in certain critical lands.
While this issue is controversial in the larger US, Hawaiʻi is unique. Protectionist
property taxes may affect interstate commerce opening up the potential for litigation (Hayashi &
Hynes, 2021). As discussed above while the US Constitution does protect against discrimination,
there is a distinction between national origins and foreign entities. Moreover, the land and
housing conditions that exist in Hawaiʻi do not align with those that exist in most of the US. Not
only do we have a very limited amount of land, but as a tropical paradise the land is inflated in
value. It is widely recognized that many Hawaiʻi residents and, especially Native Hawaiians,
have been forced to out-migrate and the failure of AFFH to support our residents and Indigenous
peoples is unsupportable to the second goal of the FHA. Thus, Hawaiʻi’s government should
consider expanding prohibitions on sale of lands to foreign individuals and entities.
Significant leeway exists in how to structure such a restriction to account for the potential
benefit of creating stability. For example, creating a prohibition on nonresident foreign nationals
from owning more than one home in Hawaiʻi or restricting the amount of foreign owned
agricultural lands. Many Southern states have adopted restrictions on foreign ownership,
including acreage limitations in an effort to protect food security. In another more complicated
example, Florida has enacted strict limitations on foreign ownership, largely targeting
agricultural and critical lands near military bases. However, the Florida law specifically targets
Chinese nationals and citizens from other countries considered a threat to the US. However, a
Florida judge held that the plaintiffs had not proved that the Legislature was motivated by an
“unlawful animus” allowing the law to be enacted (Matat, 2024). Thus, given the unique aspects
293
of housing in Hawaiʻi, we should strongly consider expanding the restrictions on foreign land
ownerships so long as this does not restrict the rights of protected classes such as COFA
migrants. Such restrictions may be a full ban, but could also be a restriction on second homes or
restriction on purchases in certain desirable or critical areas. Working with the legislature and
with economists to better understand the implications to local residents should be undertaken by
state and local agencies through research contracts and working groups.
12.8.6 Vacancy and Second home property tax
Vacancy and Second home tax laws can be seen as a type of foreign home ownership
limit law, however, it applies more broadly. Vacancy taxes and second home taxes do not
facially discriminate against non-resident citizens or non-immigrant individuals. Second home
taxes were pioneered in Europe where Switzerland effectively prohibited construction of second
homes in highly touristic regions. This law was analyzed by economists and found to have
reduced prices of primary homes in those areas while increasing the price of secondary homes
(Hilber & Schöni, 2018). In France, where second homes make up almost 10% of the market,
municipalities are able to tax second homes (Hilber & Schöni, 2018). Paris took advantage of
this by charging up to a 60% surcharge on second homes (Hilber & Schöni, 2018). Finally, The
United Kingdom has adopted a 3-15% percent transfer tax on all second home purchases based
on purchase price and an outright ban on second homes in certain areas. Even China has
implemented restrictions on second homes, which are only recently being loosened. In 2013,
Beijing banned single persons from purchasing a second home and instituted a 20% capital gains
tax on second homes (Bloomberg News, 2013).
In the US the number of second homes increased by about 20% from 1995 to 2005 and
represents approximately 6.8 million houses (Belsky et al., 2007). This has led certain cities to
294
implement taxes that target second homes and/or vacant homes. For example, New York City
has implemented a “pied-à-terre” tax (Hudson, 2019), Oakland approved a vacancy tax on
condominiums (Buhl, 2019), and Los Angeles is considering a vacancy tax modeled after
Vancouver’s tax (Buhl, 2019; Talton, 2018). Second home or vacancy taxes are often considered
an indirect tax on foreign purchases, and while some scholars argue that vacant home taxes may
withstand constitutional security under the 14th Amendment and Commerce clause, they are not
prudent because foreign investment stabilizes the housing market (Hayashi & Hynes, 2021).
These arguments are often based on analyses of several markets on the Continental US that bear
little to no resemblance to Hawaiʻi and our unique housing issues. Island communities, like
Hawaiʻi, where the ability to build additional housing or stretch beyond the boundaries of a
municipality is not just a theoretical limit, but a physical limit, cannot sustain units sitting empty
waiting for the owners to visit for weeks at a time. Recent evidence, however, suggests that in
certain highly appealing markets, vacancy and second home taxes could be economically fruitful.
Working with community and researchers to better understand the impacts to local residents
should be undertaken by hosting public meetings and supporting data-driven research.
295
Works Cited
An Act to amend the definition of the term ‘Native Chamorro,’ Pub. L. No. 15–118 (1980).
Age Discrimination Act, 42 USC §§ 6101-6107 (1986).
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter76&edition=prelim
Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, 7 U.S.C. (1978).
American Savings Bank Hawaiʻi. (n.d.). This is HOME Affordable Hawaiʻi Home Loan.
https://www.asbhawaii.com/personal/home-loans/this-is-home-affordable-housing-
program
Bell, R., & Savage, J. (1980). Our Land is Your Land: Ineffective State Restriction of Alien
Land Ownership and the Need for Federal Legislation, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 679
(1980). UIC Law Review, 13(3). https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol13/iss3/6
Belsky, E., Di, Z. X., & McCue, D. (2007). Multiple-home ownership and the income elasticity
of housing demand. In G. K. Ingram & Y.-H. Hong (Eds.), Land Policies and Their
Outcomes. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/conference-papers/multiple-home-ownership-
income-elasticity-housing-demand/
Bloomberg News. (2013, March 30). Beijing curbs second home buying as China cools property
market. Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-30/beijing-
bans-single-person-households-from-buying-second-homes
Brown, M., & Spellman, N. (2024). Statutes Regulating Ownership of Agricultural Land.
National Agricultural Law Center. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-
compilations/aglandownership/
Buhl, L. (2019, July 24). Can Vacancy Taxes Bring Down Housing Prices? The American
Prospect. https://prospect.org/api/content/f69f572c-016b-57c4-911a-4a6ade2ad271/
Chamorro Land Trust Commission, 21 GCA Ch. 75A (1975).
Colindres v. Quietflex Mfg., 427 F. Supp. 2d 737 (2004).
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327
(2020).
Commerce Clause, US Const. § Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (1898).
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1/ALDE_00013403/
296
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). (n.d.). Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.
https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/hhc/laws-and-rules/
Discriminatory Conduct Under the Fair Housing Act, 24 CFR § Part 100 (1989).
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program. (n.d.). Department of Community Services.
https://www8.honolulu.gov/dcs/emergency-solutions-grants-esg/
Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 414 U.S. 86 (1973).
Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mut. Asso., 522 F. Supp. 559 (1981).
Eule, J. (1982). Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Rest. Yale Law Journal.
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/16123
Exec. Order No. 11,935, 41 Fed. Reg. 37,301 (1976).
Exec. Order No. 13,988, 86 CFR 7023 (2021).
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C § 3603 (1968). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3603
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a) (1968).
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100–430, 102 Stat. 1619 (1988).
Family Promise of Hawaiʻi. (n.d.). Emergency Shelter. Family Promise of Hawaiʻi.
https://www.familypromisehawaii.org/shelter
Federally-Assisted Public Housing Projects, Chapter 17-2028 Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules
(2014).
Frechter, J. A. (1988). Alien Landownership in the United States: A Matter of State Control.
Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 147.
Gomberg, W. (2024). Affirmatively furthering fair housing through state law. N.Y.U. J. Legis. &
Pub. Pol’y Quorum. https://nyujlpp.org/quorum/gomberg-affirmatively-furthering-fair-
housing/
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371-72 (1971).
Guidelines on Discrimination Because of National Origin, 45 Fed. Reg. 85632 (1980).
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, §§ 171-68 (2015).
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, §§ 302A-1101 (2023).
297
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, §§ 205-1 (2023).
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, §§ 343-1 (2023).
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, § 515 (2023).
Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation. (n.d.). Affordable Homeownership
Revolving Fund (AHRF). https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/affordable-homeownership-
revolving-fund-ahrf/
Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation. (n.d.). Affordable Resale Program.
https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/affordable-resale-program/
Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation. (n.d.). Low-income Housing Tax Credit
Program. https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/developers/lihtc_html/
Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation. (n.d.). Rental Housing Revolving Fund.
https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/developers/rhtf_html/
Hawaiʻi Organic Act, 73 § § 73(f). Commissioner of public lands (2022).
Hawaiʻi County Code, §§ 11-13 (2016).
Hawaiʻi Health Matters. (2022). High Housing Burden.
https://www.hawaiihealthmatters.org/indicators/index/view?indicatorId=5217&localeId=
14
Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority. (n.d.). What are Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)?
https://hpha.hawaii.gov/what-is-hcv
Hawaiʻi Public Housing Authority. (n.d.). What is Public Housing?
https://hpha.hawaii.gov/what-is-public-housing
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, Pub. L. No. 67–34, 42 Stat 108 (1921).
Hayashi, A. T., & Hynes, R. M. (2021). Protectionist Property Taxes. Iowa Law Review,
106(1091). https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-106-issue-3/protectionist-property-
taxes
HB 652, 652, Missouri House of Representatives 100th General Assembly (2019).
HB 773, 773, Missouri House of Representatives 100th General Assembly (2019).
HB 948, 948, Missouri House of Representatives 100th General Assembly (2019).
298
Hilber, C. A. L., & Schöni, O. (2018). The economic impacts of constraining second home
investments. Discussion Paper No. 1556. Ctr. for Econ. Performance.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/91677/1/Hilber_The-economic-impacts-of-
constraining_Author.pdf
Hirsch, A. R. (2000). Containment on the home front: Race and federal housing policy from the
New Deal to the Cold War. Journal of Urban History, 26(2), 158–189.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009614420002600202
Homestead Act of 1862, Pub. L. No. 12 Stat. 392, U.S. Statutes at Large (1862).
Hous. Rights Ctr. v. Donald Sterling Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1138 (2003).
Housing and Urban Development, 24 CFR § 100.10 (1989).
Hudson, E. (2019, September 11). Pied-à-terre tax to make a return in Albany, lawmakers say.
The Real Deal. https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2019/09/11/pied-a-terre-tax-to-make-a-
return-albany-lawmakers-say/
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(1) (1986).
Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Property Co., 920 F.3d 890 (5th Cir 2019).
Johnson, R. (2023). Foreign Ownership and Holdings of U.S. Agricultural Land [CRS Report].
Congressional Research Service (CRS).
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11977#:~:text=Existing%20State%20Re
quirements&text=An%20overview%20of%20state%20laws,related%20to%20enforceme
nt%20and%20penalties
Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd., 656 P.2d 745 (Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi 1982).
Latinos Unidos de Chelsea En Accion (LUCHA) v. Secretary of Hous. & Urban Dev., 799 F.2d
774, 793 (1st Cir. 1986).
Lindsay v. Yates, 578 F.3d 407, 416 (6th Cir. 2009).
Local Solutions Support Center. (2021, March 22). “Home Rule in the 50 States” Memos
Examine the Nature and Scope of Local Authority. Local Solutions Support Center.
https://www.supportdemocracy.org/the-latest/home-rule-in-the-50-states-memos-
examine-the-nature-and-scope-of-local-authority
Mason, Jr., J. (1994). An Economic and Political Policy Analysis of Federal and State Laws
Governing Foreign Ownership of United States Real Estate. Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law, 27(2), 453.
299
Massey, D. S. (2016). The Legacy of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Sociological Forum, 3(1), 571–
588. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/socf.12178
Matat, S. (2024, April 19). Attorneys argue that Florida law discriminates against Chinese
nationals trying to buy homes. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/florida-chinese-
citizen-court-desantis-land-agriculture-9c977ca05db001224e2017ad7577c467
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (US Supreme Court 1973).
McGreal, P. (1998). The Flawed Economics of the Dormant Commerce Clause. William & Mary
Law Review, 39(4), 1191.
McMahon, T. (2016, July 27). How other countries have tried to deter foreign real estate
investors. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/how-other-countries-have-tried-to-deter-foreign-real-estate-
investors/article31128696/
Morrison, F. (1976). Limitations on Alien Investment in American Real Estate. Minnesota Law
Review, 60, 621.
NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d 149, 153-154 (1987).
National Housing Act, 12 USC § 1701 (1934).
National League of Cities & Local Solutions Support Center. (2020). Principles of Home Rule
for the 21st Century. National League of Cities.
Neil Pang. (2016, October 22). Changes to public housing programs prioritize US citizens. The
Guam Daily Post. https://www.postguam.com/news/local/changes-to-public-housing-
programs-prioritize-us-citizens/article_dbf8cf38-9690-11e6-abef-fbd4fcf64a28.html
New Zealand bans most foreigners from buying homes. (2018, August 16). CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/new-zealand-bans-most-foreigners-from-buying-
homes.html
Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity in Housing Under Executive Order 11063, 24 CFR §
Part 107 (1980).
Ohana Ola O Kahumana. (n.d.). Transitional Housing. Ohana Ola O Kahumana. Retrieved
November 17, 2024, from https://www.kahumana.org/TransitionalHousing
Pendergrass, T. (2023, April 21). Access to Housing is the Civil Rights Issue of our Time
(Again). ACLU.
300
Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U.S. 225 (1923). https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep263225/
Price, P. J. (2000). Alien Land Restrictions in the American Common Law: Exploring the
Relative Autonomy Paradigm. American Journal of Legal History, 43(2).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.233142
Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. (2020, November). Dillon’s Rule,
Home Rule, and Preemption. Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of
Law.
Redish, M., & Nugent, S. (1987). The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Constitutional
Balance of Federalism. Duke Law Journal, 36(4), 569–617.
Resident Preference in City Housing Programs, 19, Honolulu City Council (2024).
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/document-download?id=20428
Rothstein, R. (2018). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company.
Russell, J. D., & Bostrom, A. (2016, January). Federalism, Dillion Rule and Home Rule.
American City County Exchange. https://alec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-
ACCE-White-Paper-Dillon-House-Rule-Final.pdf
Sam Rankin. (2004). Alien Farmers in Minnesota 1851-2004. Minnesota House of
Representatives Research Department.
Shapiro, M. (1993). The Dormant Commerce Clause: A Limit on Alien Land Laws. Brooklyn
Journal of International Law, 20(1), 217.
Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions. (n.d.). HONU – Homeless Outreach
and Navigation for Unsheltered Persons. Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing
Solutions. https://homelessness.hawaii.gov/homeless-outreach-and-navigation-for-
unsheltered-persons-honu/
Sullivan, C. H. (1962). Alien Land Laws: A Re-Evaluation. Temple Law Quarterly, 36(1), 15.
Talton, J. (2018, June 12). Vancouver, B.C., tries again to thwart foreign real-estate speculators.
The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/vancouver-b-c-
tries-again-to-thwart-foreign-real-estate-speculators/
Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923). https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep263197/
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.,
576 U.S. 519 (2015).
301
The City & County of Honolulu & Mental Health Kokua. (2019). Pūnāwai Rest Stop.
https://h4hawaii.org/news/punawai-rest-stop/
The DURF Equity Pilot (DEP) Program. (n.d.). https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc/the-durf-equity-
pilot-dep-program/
The Institute for Human Services. (2021, May 10). Emergency Shelters.
https://ihshawaii.org/services/emergency-shelters/
The Overseas Investment Amendment Act (2018). https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/1e235dcd-
3ddc-4a4d-a900-de5491464ab2?Tab=history
Tirres, A. (2012). Property Outliers: Non-Citizens, Property Rights and State Power.
Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 27.
https://via.library.depaul.edu/lawfacpubs/1480
Town of Vail. (n.d.). Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA). Town of Vail.
https://www.vail.gov/government/boards-commissions-authority-district/vail-local-
housing-authority-vlha
Town of Vail. (2016, September 6). Vail Housing 2027.
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Hawaiʻi—Census Bureau Profile.
https://data.census.gov/profile/Hawaiʻi?g=040XX00US15
United States Census Bureau. (2022). B25004: Vacancy Status—Census Bureau Table.
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y
2022.B25004?q=housing%20vacancy%20in%20Hawaiʻi
United States v. Government of Guam, Civil No. 17-cv-00113 (U.S. District Court of Guam June
4, 2020).
US Department of Homeland Security. (2018). About E-Verify. https://www.e-verify.gov/about-
e-verify
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.). History of Fair Housing.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/history
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (n.d.). The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States (CFIUS). U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-
issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius
US Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1441 (1949).
302
Vail InDEED. (n.d.). Vail InDEED.
Vasudevan, R. (2024, February 27). Can affordable housing for Indigenous communities work?
High Country News. http://www.hcn.org/issues/56-3/can-affordable-housing-for-
indigenous-communities-work
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio Citation, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).
Resolution No. 34, Series 2016 (2016).
https://www.vail.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2864/637890010779288419
303
12.0 TABLES AND FIGURES
304
Table 12.1. Legal Relationship to Country
US citizen COFA Migrant Lawful
Permanent Resident
Non-immigrant
Foreign National
Refugee &
Asylee
Examples -Birthright citizenship
-Naturalized
citizenship
-Derivative citizenship (through parents)
-Federated States of Micronesia
-Republic of
Palau
-Republic of the Marshall Islands
a.k.a. Green card holder -Tourists -Students
-Exchange
Visitors
-Business Visitor -Temporary Worker
-Refugee (apply for status prior to
coming to the
US) -Asylee (apply for status after coming to the US)
Rights & Privileges -Full rights -Can vote in election -Able to work for
the federal
government
-Unique category similar to long-term non-immigrant
-Allowed to live
and work in US indefinitely
-Right to live and work permanently in the US
-Can apply for
citizenship
-Temporary right to be in the US for a specific purpose
-Must return to
home country at the end of the visa term
-Can apply for a green card after one year and then eventually
citizenship
Treatment
for
housing preference
Cannot limit
access to housing
Cannot limit
access to housing
Cannot limit
access to housing
Probably able to
limit ownership
Unclear
305
Table 12.2. Hawaiʻi Housing Preference Policies
Organization Program/Policy Preference population(s)
HPHA Public Housing (Federal) ● Involuntary
displacement
● Victims of domestic
abuse
● People experiencing
homelessness
HPHA Public Housing (State) ● People older than 62
years of age
● People and families
displaced by the
government
● Families in transitional
shelters who have
completed social service
plans
● Veterans
● Families of deceased
veterans
HPHA Housing Choice Voucher (Federal) ● Veterans
● Non-Elderly people
with disabilities
● People experiencing
homelessness
● People fleeing domestic
violence
HHFDC Affordable Resale Program ● First-time homebuyers
● Hawaiʻi Residents
HHFDC Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund
Equity Pilot (DEP) Program
● Employed in
professions with
specialized training
Hawaiʻi County Hawaiʻi County affordable
housing preferences
● Residency
● Employment
306
Table 12.3. Search Terms
Initial Terms
Housing preference policy Housing residency preference policy
Housing preference laws Resident preference housing laws
Indigenous housing preference Community land trusts
Deed restriction affordable housing
Enhanced Terms
United Kingdom local connection criteria Canada vacancy tax
Owning property in the Philippines New Zealand foreign buyer ban
Malaysian international housing policies
307
Table 12.4 Categories of Housing Preference Policies
Category Definition Example policies
Local connection Prioritizes residents who live and/or
work in the area of an
affordable/public housing site
Residency preference (New York)
Local connection (United Kingdom)
Employment Priority (Colorado)
Neighborhood Resident Housing
Preference
(California)
Indigenous
preference
Reserved housing for Indigenous
peoples and/or preference in public
housing applications
Aboriginal housing (Australia)
Little Earth (Minnesota)
Public housing
queue
Prioritizes those who have waited the
longest for subsidized housing
Municipal Housing Queue (Sweden)
Social Housing (Austria)
Foreign ownership
penalty
Restricts foreign nationals from
buying housing reserved for citizens,
penalizes foreign property ownership
through taxation, or bans foreign
property ownership
Minimum purchase value
requirements (Malaysia)
Speculation & vacancy tax (Canada)
Foreign ownership restrictions
(Philippines)
Foreign ownership ban (New
Zealand)
Vacancy tax Penalizes property owners whose
homes sit empty, which
disincentivizes foreign, non-resident
homeownership
Underused housing tax & Empty
Homes Tax
(Canada)
Tenant preference Provides a pathway to
homeownership for public housing
tenants
Home Purchase Loan Scheme
(Hong Kong)
Tenants' Priority Scheme
(Singapore)
Community land
trust
A community-based nonprofit owns
and holds the land; community
members may purchase a 99-year
lease to build or live in an existing
home
Lāhainā Community Land Trust
(Hawaiʻi)
Methow Housing Trust
(Washington)
Deed restriction Homeowners can add a restriction
(e.g., live or work requirement) to
their deed that will run with the land
InDEED (Colorado)
308
upon future sales. These programs are
either voluntary or financially
incentivized to restrict future sale or
rental to local residents
Preference point
system
Awards more points based on
prioritized criteria
N/NE Preference Policy (Oregon)
Affordable Housing Preference
Policy (California)
Lottery system Provides more ballot chances for
applicants in preferred categories
All of Singapore's priority schemes
Table 12.5 Participant Modality, Composition, and Date of session
Participant Modality Composition Date
Focus Group 1 Housing and legal advocates Aug 23
Focus Group 2 Constitutional law experts Oct 13
Interview 1 Housing policy expert Aug 27
Interview 2 Housing policy advocate Sept 6
Interview 3 Financing expert Sept 9
Interview 4 Housing policy expert Sept 13
Interview 5 Housing policy expert Sept 26
Interview 6 Housing policy expert Oct 2
Interview 7 Constitutional law expert Oct 10
309
Figure 12.1. Common Housing Discrimination Claims
310
Figure 12.2. Housing Continuum Model
311
Figure 12.3. Barriers to providing affordable housing to Hawaiʻi residents
312
Figure 12.4 Poster Visual
313
Figure 12.5. Expert feedback on selected housing preference policies and key
314
Appendix 12.A
315
316
317
Appendix 12.B
318
319
Appendix 12.C
320
321
322
Appendix 12.D
Focus Group Materials
AGENDA
Fair Housing Resident Preference Focus Group
1. Introductions
a. 12-12:05pm
2. Poll Everywhere Brainstorming Activity
a. 12:05-12:10pm
b. current state of housing policy in Hawaiʻi
c. Benefits of implementing a housing preference in Hawaiʻi
d. Biggest barriers to implementing housing preference
3. Summary Description of Policies
a. 12:10-12:20pm
b. We each describe the ones we summarized
4. Selection of Policy Activity
a. 12:20-12:30pm
b. Green = Potentially most effective policy c. Orange = Most feasible policy to implement in Hawaiʻi
5. Discuss Most Effective
a. 12:30-12:40pm
b. Letʻs discuss XX since most people selected it as potentially the most effective.
i. Why do you think this would be effective?
ii. Are there barriers to implementing this policy?
iii. Are there specific industries/stakeholders that may oppose this? why?
6. Discuss Least Feasible
a. 12:45-12:55pm
b. Letʻs transition to feasibility. What issues did you think about to decide if
something was feasible or not?
c. Letʻs discuss XX since the least people selected it as the most feasible. What are
the concerns?
i. Is there any way to overcome those concerns?
323
7. Wrap-Up
a. 12:55-1pm
b. Mahalo and will follow up with email providing opportunity for more feedback
c. Makana
Probing Questions
● NE Preference Policy – Portland, OR, USA
○ Do you foresee a legal issue with having a prior resident preference?
○ Could this be construed as disadvantaging new US citizens and therefore creating
an equal treatment concern?
● Minimum purchase value requirements – Malaysia
○ Can we treat foreign citizens differently for housing sale prices?
○ Would US citizens oppose this differential treatment on principle?
● Affordable Housing Preference Policy – Berkeley, CA, USA
○ Could we add a race or NH preference criteria?
○ Can displacement due to private party actions be considered (e.g., remodeling
rental unit, tearing house down to build monster home? If so, how?
● Empty Homes Tax – Vancouver, CAN
○ How can we monitor this? Would people really state that the unit was empty?
○ What if the unit was empty for only part of the year?
○ Mandating rental when a unit is high end may not be useful and many empty units
are still owned by developers. How do we encourage these to be rented?
● Foreign ownership ban – New Zealand
○ The constitution prohibits us from not allowing citizens of other states to purchase
land, but can we implement a ban against non-US foreign citizens?
○ If not an outright ban, can we make the process more challenging?
● Municipal Housing Queue – Sweden
○ Clearly there are cultural mismatch concerns, but do you see any potential
constitutionality issues with having a significant amount of our housing be public
housing?
○ Putting aside the difficulty in implementing the shift to this option, are there any
other legal issues that you can think of?
○ The housing queue model prioritizes certain subpopulations (i.e., local residents,
families, etc.), do you think such a preference would be allowable?
■ If it depends, which do you think would be allowable and why?
■ Which do you think would not be allowable and why?
● Lāhainā Community Land Trust – Lāhainā, HI
○ How do we ensure that the LCLT is adequately funded to add to the corpus and to
build?
324
○ How do we ensure that the LT Board members are qualified and intentional?
○ Compare this option to the Deed restrictions. Which seems more palatable?
● InDEED Deed Restriction - Vail, CO
○ How can we anticipate future desires of homeowners? For example, if there was a
restriction requiring residency, but the owner wanted to sell to a grandchild who
was moving back?
○ How can we create sample language and or think through all the potential
downstream needs?
325
Appendix 12.E
Word Clouds from PollEverywhere Brainstorming Activity
326
327
Appendix 12.F
328
Appendix 12.G: Housing Navigation Case Study
The vignette case study below, authored by Joy Lynn ʻAlohilani Barredo
Alegarbes, shares one example of a housing navigation program that also aims to address
specific barriers to fair housing for Native Hawaiian households, through the use of
housing navigation and intenstive case management, as well as through culturally-
tailored and culturally-concordant programming. While researchers did not study the
housing outcomes of participants, which are yet to be seen, the model offers an
inspiration for both navigation and Native Hawaiian-focused interventions to create fair
housing opportunity. It also demonstrates the potential for synergies across program areas
(for example, by connecting early childhood support to housing navigation services for
families).
Case Study: Housing Navigation at Liliʻuokalani Trust
Joy Lynn ʻAlohilani Barredo Alegarbes
The housing navigator position is very new to Liliʻuokalani Trust because, historically, the organization did not venture into housing. However, in observing the current needs of Hawaiians, it became necessary to embed housing navigation
into Liliʻuokalani Trust’s Hoʻokahua early childhood initiative. In ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
(the Hawaiian language), hoʻokahua means “to lay a foundation.” Hoʻokahua has a two-generation approach, focusing on mākua (parents) who have a child in their care between the ages of zero to five, as well as those who are expecting and are currently after the twenty-week mark in their pregnancy. As early childhood is
critical in the development of keiki (children), especially during the zero to five
year window, Liliʻuokalani Trust wanted to ensure that the ʻohana (families) were
supported with a holistic approach to their wellness – and housing is a large part of their approach. The kuleana (responsibility, privilege) of the Housing Navigator position is to support the ʻohana that are in Hoʻokahua with housing
support. Respondents from Liliʻuokalani Trust made it clear that this is not a
housing program: it is an early childhood program that offers housing support.
329
The respondents from Liliʻuokalani Trust explained that every ʻohana is on their own housing journey – some may already be connected to a housing
provider, either in their shelter or transitional housing, or while receiving rental
assistance from another organization. If this is the case, Liliʻuokalani Trust’s housing navigator assists the ʻohana in following the plans that are already in place, supporting them on the pathway that has been charted for them. However,
if an ʻohana is not connected to any kind of housing support, the housing
navigator steps in to conduct their housing assessment, understand what their
needs are and figure out what their qualifications or eligibility may be for different housing programs. The housing navigator takes the lead on that journey and connects them to the resources necessary to secure appropriate temporary or long-term housing.
At the time of the interview, Hoʻokahua was in the process of reviewing
and signing a lease for approximately 18 units (a mix of studios, one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments) at 1060 Bishop Street in Honolulu on the island of Oʻahu to accommodate families of varying sizes. Liliʻuokalani Trust also offers Lydia House as an alternative housing option for single young adults; the
engagement center occupies the ground floor, and the floors above are supportive
housing. Local partnerships with RYSE and HHHRC facilitate assessments and
connect potential tenants to HMIS. These programs are being piloted on Oʻahu with the hope that they can be expanded into neighboring communities across the
paeʻāina (island chain) for those who are in need of housing support.
Respondents at Liliʻuokalani Trust explained that they have discovered
that housing does not end houselessness; we must understand the multifaceted
reasons why houselessness happened to these ʻohana in the first place. This is the motivation behind Liliʻuokalani Trust’s different approaches to housing support,
from meeting immediate needs through the Lydia House engagement center,
alternative housing options and the development of a culture-based housing
curriculum that connects ‘ohana to their kūpuna (elders).
ʻOhi: a culture-based housing curriculum
ʻOhi is the name that was given to Liliʻuokalani Trust’s housing education
curriculum during the first cohort, which was facilitated by their housing
navigator. In ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi, ʻohi means “to gather, to harvest.” Respondents at
Liliʻuokalani Trust explained that this curriculum was developed to prepare the ʻohana in Hoʻokahua to not only secure housing, but to equip them with some of the skills and knowledge necessary to truly transform that house into a home. The ‘Ohi curriculum is grounded in ‘ike kūpuna (ancestral knowledge), designed to
give ‘ohana a sense of belonging and restore their identity as Hawaiians. This
curriculum will grow with them as they transition into long-term, more permanent
housing. Respondents referred to this as “an opportunity to house Hawaiians in a very Hawaiian way.”
Given the general task of housing the ‘ohana in the Hoʻokahua early
childhood program, Liliʻuokalani Trust’s housing navigator began with a list of
standards to create strong applicants in Hawaiʻi’s competitive housing market.
330
The next step was to consult with landlords and property managers who have participated in rental assistance programs, in the hopes of understanding what
would make it easier for them to be more inclined to continue to participate in
these programs; the ‘ohi housing curriculum was informed by these expectations. In an effort to make sense of this long, continually growing list of information for the ‘ohana in Ho’okahua, Liliʻuokalani Trust’s housing navigator worked with a
colleague to translate and culturally embed this information into a format
grounded in ‘ike kūpuna. This was a crucial step as, according to the
respondents, “it's hard to retain things that you're not connected to.”
331
13.0 IMPEDIMENTS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY MANAGERS AND REALTORS
Our private industry respondents, who were professionals in realty or property
management, qualitatively identified several barriers to housing access and fair housing,
perceived issues with the housing subsidy process, and perspective on the landlord side of
landlord-tenant relationships. Development funding was noted as a major impediment towards
expanding Hawaiʻi’s housing supply, with high initial costs and long construction times reported
as hindering prospective renters and home buyers from finding property, in a down-stream
effect. Several of our respondents recognized financial burden and high cost of living as a major
barrier for prospective tenants. Some of our respondents suggested that housing unit regulations
be relaxed, as some of their non-compliant, illegal units were perceived as perfectly habitable
should regulations be shifted. Such a change was suggested to be a means of improving supply
by increasing housing density.
Our respondents noted complicating factors for voucher-holding tenants that may
compound existing barriers to housing. Despite holding a voucher, tenants often still need to
prove their income is 2.5 to 3 times higher than the established rent of a property. Our
respondents suggested that voucher holders, especially those in poverty, cannot afford this
percentage once the voucher or subsidy program ends, which was reportedly often mid-lease.
Voucher holders with outstanding debt, poor rental history, or a criminal background may have
difficulty finding a property that will accept them regardless of the subsidized rent. Further
complicating housing navigation for voucher-holding tenants is a reported lack of education.
Private-sector landlords expressed concern that these tenants do not understand the importance of
showing up to meetings, keeping their properties clean and orderly, paying rent on time, and the
process of holding and filling out required forms and documents. At the same time, some
332
landlords suggested that landlords themselves need educational initiatives to better understand
the populations they are working with, the protections and regulations applicable to voucher-
holding tenants, and the struggles these tenants face in the housing market.
The most common complaints voiced by landlords surrounded the housing regulations
themselves. Several landlords suggested that eviction moratoriums and rent freezes should be
reversed, as they impart financial burdens on property owners they would like to see recompense
for. The majority of private sector respondents also voiced negative opinions on the HUD
Section 8 documentation process, stating that these documents and forms were overly complex,
unnecessary, and too rigid regarding the condition and regulation of Section 8 compliant
properties. To landlords, relaxing this process might improve engagement with Section 8 and
similar programs.
13.1 Financial and Developmental Barriers
Many realtors and property managers identified affordability as a fundamental barrier to
housing access in Hawaiʻi. These respondents identified barriers on both sides of this issue; on
the one hand households have multiple financial barriers when attempting to qualify for a
mortgage or apply for an apartment. On the other side, the perennial shortage of housing relative
to demand means that prices are often out of reach for many families born and raised in the State.
13.1.1 Down payments and loans as barriers for potential home buyers
Private industry respondents reported that, in their observation, a lack of affordable
housing is the primary barrier to homeownership. One real estate agent and property manager
from Maui discussed the difficulties that local residents – especially young families and singles –
face in affording housing, noting that many have steady jobs and good credit, but struggle with
the substantial down payments. A different respondent from Maui added that the high initial cost
333
of purchasing a home on Maui limits the ability of marginalized communities to grow by
creating wealth and building equity. She discussed the challenges of fixing existing fair housing
issues, suggesting that a generational approach focused on education and dignity is essential.
Another real estate agent from Maui, also stated that economy and high cost of living are the
biggest barriers for “the average person” to purchase a home on Maui. She has seen that people
need two or four incomes in order to afford to buy a home; conversely, many people from
outside of Hawaiʻi are able to purchase homes here because they have higher education and
higher levels of income.
Another real-estate agent, echoing other respondents, cited both high housing prices and
significant recurring expenses – particularly those associated with loans and credit card debt – as
a primary challenge, especially for first-time buyers in Hawaiʻi. One respondent shared a story
about one young couple that continues to stand out among all her experiences as a realtor.
According to this respondent: the couple had approximately $30,000 in savings and met with a
loan officer to discuss the different plans for which they could qualify. The loan officer
explained that they would only be able to qualify for a $100,000 loan and flagged their recurring
expenses of debt service and credit card payments as limiting their borrowing power. He
explained that they needed to pay these off in order to qualify for a better loan, and so the couple
made changes – they took part-time jobs, stopped eating out – and was able to pay off their debts
within a year. Once all the debt had been cleared, they were able to qualify for a $200,000 loan.
Our respondent highlighted this story, because the couple took their loan officer’s advice to heart
and were able to clear their debts in a very short time, even though neither was working a
particularly high-paying job. She admires them for taking the situation seriously. As she put it,
“Otherwise, they’re going to live in, you know, Mākaha.”
334
13.1.2. Development Delays and Lack of Supply
Another respondent who is a real estate agent in Hawaiʻi County described specific
challenges for would-be first-time home buyers in a new subdivision in Hawaiʻi County, a
project that in theory should be accessible to first time homebuyers. This project made use of
“excellent” loan options for first time homebuyers. However, she noted how permitting delays
related to construction added burdens to loan applicants, adding 8-10 months by one measure, to
the loan process. This is one example of how Hawaiʻi’s relatively robust housing regulatory
system can limit or delay programs such as the Lakeland project in Kamuela (Inafuku et al.
2022). Importantly, other respondents and sources point to other factors such as limits in land,
labor, and supply markets as key issues (Kent 2022).
Most homebuyers are, of course, purchasing existing properties, but the Kamuela
program provides some insight into the challenges of increasing the housing supply in ways that
might benefit first time homebuyers. Our respondent described working with the son of a
developer who created the subdivision in Lakeland, an area that was once considered more
affordable but “it’s getting less and less now.” She spent a significant amount of time explaining
to the developer’s son the ways in which entry-level loans worked in this program: residents
were required to get pre-approved for a construction loan for a kit home from HPM Packaged
Homes, which would allow them to build their first home at the Lakeland subdivision. But
before the bank would lend, they needed to ensure that all permits were in place and that
regulatory issues would not restrict development. This requirement is typical as construction
loans are uncollateralized and thus banks need to ensure a clear path to construction for
underwriting purposes.
335
Unfortunately, according to our respondent, it took 8 to 10 months from the time a buyer
made an offer until closing because of delays in the permitting process. She emphasized to us
that asking a seller to take an offer and then wait for 8 to 10 months before closing was a big
request and well outside the timeline for purchasing existing property. This respondent also
stressed that programs like this were a rare opportunity for first-time homebuyers who are very
short on funds, as the down payment to loan ratio was very small. Despite the delays, she worked
hard to keep the seller interested, and 8 or 9 of the twelve properties sold to first time home
buyers. She explained this as “exciting because then you're actually seeing first time families and
homeowners are able to do this. But it takes a lot of education and patience and some unusual
concessions, if you will, from sellers to want to participate.” In her words, “it was a really good
program, just a slow one.”
Such supply issues do not only impact homeowners and renters can be directly impacted
by limitations put on the number of housing units. Sometimes this means restrictions on new
development, but it also represents restriction of accessory dwelling and other types of “illegal”
dwellings that can sometimes serve a critical source of affordable housing. Another real estate
agent from Maui told us they are an advocate for reviewing local rental prices and legalizing
currently illegal rental units to alleviate challenges, while also addressing the risks associated
with increased rents due to legal restrictions. She suggested that creating pathways to legalize
currently illegal rental units (i.e. garages, ʻohana units) could provide affordable housing options
and relieve financial pressure on homeowners. This respondent explained that Maui has a lot of
housing that is divided into multiple units – for example, separating the house or closing the
garage to make it livable – but the majority of these units are illegal. She elaborated, "It's an
affordable unit. But it has to be all hush hush. But you can still pay taxes on it... The county
336
comes and says, okay, that's a new illegal unit, we're going to shut it down. Well, okay, now
we're going to raise the rent [on our legal units], because we only have one unit, and it's now
going to be $3,000.00, instead of $2,000.00... [People] cannot find any place else... the rents are
too high for them to get a one or two bedroom."
13.1.3 Multiple background, credit and high-income requirements as barriers for potential
renters
A property manager reported challenges she has experienced in qualifying tenants for
rentals in the two apartment complexes she manages on Maui. According to this respondent, this
is primarily due to low incomes, unverifiable incomes, and credit issues. First and foremost,
tenants must make two and a half times their monthly rent in order to qualify for a rental at the
properties she manages. This is a common heuristic used by property managers to reduce non-
payment of rent in the event of income fluctuations of unanticipated expenses. In this
respondent’s case, this traditional screening metric was supplemented by a VantageScore1, which
utilizes a proprietary algorithm to summarize credit, collections, past debts to landlords, and
utility debt to predict a potential tenant’s ability to pay a reliable rent.
This respondent reported that she frequently explains to applicants and her co-workers
the “box that people have to fit in” with regard to income and background screening, and that she
consistently does what she can “to push the limits of the box, without breaking the box;” in other
words, while she cannot supersede the requirements dictated by the owner, she wants to make
sure that all income is considered and all tenants are given a fair assessment of their ability to
pay. In her view, it does not matter where a potential renter has come from, so long as they fit the
requirements – it is only their ability to do so that gives them the opportunity to rent in the
apartment complexes she manages.
337
This type of formal screening is endemic in professionally managed properties and some
research has cited concerns regarding third party scoring systems such as VantageScore. While
one’s credit score is not entirely predictive on one’s ability to pay, it is at least somewhat
transparent and proven techniques are available for credit repair. The alternatives, however, can
be opaque to low-income families, and fair housing enforcement agencies have struggled to
identify the degree to which such scoring systems have a disparate impact on historically
marginalized groups.
13.1.4 Barriers for potential tenants renting with subsidies
The above examples stress the challenges associated with housing access for a large
portion of the State’s population. These issues are even more severe in the case of households
with a subsidy – either a Housing Choice Voucher (formerly Section 8) or a voucher from a
specialized homelessness program. These households experience additional barriers as indicated
by our discussions with property managers.
A property manager from Oahu explained the difficulties she encounters when case
workers from Catholic Charities bring tenants to view a property who do not make 2.5 to 3 times
the amount of rent, as they will not qualify for the unit; she believes the case workers do this is
because she has a reputation of wanting to help. This manager suggested that certain case
workers may be more likely to bring potential tenants to a listing with her name on it, mentioning
to them that she can assist them in filling out the application, which might then increase their
chances of qualifying for the property. However, no matter how well the application is
completed, the potential tenant will not qualify unless they make 2.5 to 3 times the amount of
rent. Such rent multipliers are appropriate in the unsubsidized market – it benefits neither
landlords nor tenants to accept someone who cannot afford the rent. For those with HCV,
338
however, the tenant portion of the rent is fixed at roughly 30 percent of the tenant’s income,
making income multipliers unnecessary. For this reason, courts have generally considered
income multipliers to be a violation of so-called Source of Income discrimination legislations,
which makes it illegal for landlords to deny a family simply because of their voucher status. In
our respondent’s case, she is most likely referring to a homelessness voucher program which is
often time-limited. Because these vouchers may expire in the middle of the lease, landlords often
wish to ensure their tenants’ ability to pay in the absence of a voucher, an enormous barrier for
most individuals experiencing homelessness.
Of course, income multipliers are not the only reasons that subsidized households can be
denied a unit. Families who are eligible for subsidies have, almost by definition, limited financial
resources and a history of housing insecurity. This can create blemishes on their background
checks that make it difficult to secure housing. One realtor respondent described how her
previous employer performs background and credit checks and also requires landlord references
for all potential renters. This employer additionally requires that tenants do not have an
outstanding debt larger than $5000.00; however, if a potential renter has debt higher than the
$5,000.00 limit but shows that they have an arrangement to pay that down, the management
company is open to overwriting them to qualify them for the rental.
When asked for potential solutions to identified fair housing concerns, our private
industry interviewees frequently raised the need for financial literacy and education for potential
tenants. Respondents stressed the importance of financial literacy training to help low-income
ʻohana navigate housing applications and improve creditworthiness; they also noted the lack of
financial literacy training for applicants in affordable housing programs, which further
complicates access for underserved groups. One respondent cited the specific need for education
339
about available housing opportunities, such as the self-help homes that will be built in Ouli on
Hawaiʻi Island, on land donated to the Hawaiʻi Island Community Development Corporation
(HIDC). This respondent suggested financial literacy training for people already on the list and
education to help get others onto the list:
“When we talk with HICC, they do no [...] financial literacy training. So they have a ton of applicants, and most of them don't qualify. And so when we were looking at how we could help, one of the things we thought was, wow, if we did some financial literacy training for underserved groups, that could really help
them perhaps qualify, especially when you know something's coming online in, say, six or eight months, that might be enough time for them [to learn] basic skills on how to clean up their credit, how to how to qualify for a loan you know these sort of things.”
Respondents agreed that prospective tenants need education on how to be a “good” tenant, how
to clean up their credit, how to fill out an application, how to provide income statements when
applying for properties, and how to take care of a property. According to multiple respondents, a
tenant first demonstrates that they are “good” by showing up for scheduled appointments when
viewing the apartment, pays their rent on time, maintains their unit in excellent condition and
understands how to be a “good” neighbor by minimizing the impact that their animals and guests
have on other tenants. A respondent reported that this education is particularly needed for those
transitioning from shelters or relying on assistance programs, raising concerns about this group’s
lack of knowledge regarding property maintenance and community standards. She suggested that
developing educational programs for tenants on property care and community living could help
bridge these gaps.
Educational training on fair housing law and cultural sensitivity for landlords was also a
proposed solution. One respondent emphasized that landlords may not be aware of legal
prohibitions against discrimination, including legal requirements regarding familial status and
other factors. She further pointed out that biases (for example, a preference for smaller families)
340
often influence landlord decisions, which can further complicate the housing landscape for
vulnerable groups, including individuals with disabilities and those in recovery. Property
managers voiced the view that this education falls under the property manager’s role, as they
often have more clarity on these issues than the landlords of the properties they manage due to
their engagement in fair housing training and other professional development.
13.2 Housing Regulations and Assistance Programs
In addition to affordability, respondents discussed barriers faced by subsidized tenants
when trying to access private rental housing. Specifically, they articulated how the various
administrative burdens of the voucher programs reduced their enthusiasm for subsidized tenants.
They also discussed how, in their view, various other housing regulations – emotional support
animals and eviction moratoriums, for example – had overall negative impacts on the rental
market.
13.2.1 Delays and difficulties: Landlord and property managers’ views of Section 8/Housing
Choice Vouchers (HCV) and other subsidized housing
Landlords are often resistant to participating in subsidized housing programs. Some of
this related to tenant characteristics and credit worthiness as described below. But other issues
are embedded in the programs themselves, which can make it hard for landlords to accept tenants
with vouchers.
A property manager at one county subsidized property and had a battery of complaints
about the current regulatory system. She said that the forms she was required to fill out and the
wait time before she started receiving the state subsidy portion were, in her words, “nonsense.”
She recounted her experience of managing a single-family residential home that had been
divided into five separate units, which was occupied when she took over management of the
341
property. She was required to fill out all of the paperwork from the county in order to receive the
subsidy for the tenant to ensure that rent paid was directly to her firm: he would pay a portion,
and the county would pay a portion each month. She reported that it took three months for the
paperwork to be processed and for management to receive payment. As a result, they were not
able to collect rent from the tenant for two months. She emphasized that these lengthy delays can
accrue significant debt for landlords and managers of a given property.
This respondent further explained that, though she is a college graduate and reviews
contracts for a living, she had no understanding of the paperwork she was required to fill out or
how to do it correctly, describing it as "redundant" and "repetitive" as the applications ask for the
same information multiple times. She identified this process as an impediment for prospective
tenants, as "a mom and pop [landlord] are not going to sit there and mess with that paperwork"
and that any sort of interaction with the regulatory bodies is "just insane. It takes so much time."
She feels that the people who want to help are being punished. This respondent called for a more
streamlined process and direct assistance for landlords from the Ombudsman, who should have
the responsibility to walk them through these applications.
A different property manager also noted that the Housing Choice Voucher regulations
were “a pain in the butt” and overly complex, with paperwork that was extremely difficult to
understand. This respondent explained, “The paperwork is a different language. And it was in
English, and I only know English.” She noted that some prospective tenants she worked with
appeared to be confused by the complexity of HUD HCV forms. She exemplified this issue with
a story about Micronesian clients, who she described as needing to bring in family members and
work with her, in person, to properly translate and fill out application and financial forms. This
respondent further cited delays in moving new tenants into HCV apartments due to difficulties in
342
scheduling the required inspections; however, she noted that her experience with the Hawaiʻi
County HUD office was positive overall, as they worked closely with her to make sure that
things went relatively smoothly. She explained that the process to prove necessary adjustments
had been made (for example, replacing faulty smoke detectors) was fairly simple; the
management company was permitted to make these adjustments themselves and send proof via
video to the Section 8 HCV office, so inspectors were not required to return for a second
inspection to verify that the necessary work had been completed. She further noted that it usually
took about three weeks for paperwork/inspections to go through, but she found this to be
acceptable.
13.2.2 Negative Perceptions of Section 8/HCV Tenants
Another realtor discussed the significance of fair housing and her initial reluctance to
reject Section 8 HCV applications, though she has to “think twice now” due to a long list of
negative experiences with these tenants in the past. She recounted difficulties with Section 8
HCV tenants, some of which have come from shelters, who want to rent but, in her view, “they
have no knowledge of it. They don't take care of the properties.” She has experienced issues such
as property damage and a lack of understanding of how to take out the trash, which results in
food and refuse littering the sidewalks outside of the building; this behavior only changes after
explaining to the tenants multiple times that they have to put their trash in plastic trash bags
before placing it outside on trash day (and not before then). This realtor further explained that
she has often experienced “Islanders” who are Section 8 HCV tenants and do not understand
how to live with neighbors; in her view, this was demonstrated by the many guests who loiter on
the property while drinking beer and the children who are playing while running up and down
the stairs, “screaming at 10 o’clock at night.” She explained her hesitancy to accept Section 8
343
HCV applicants: “I have to think twice now, because I've done this so many times… We want to
give them a chance, especially when they have a kid, and they say… ‘They're closing down our
shelter, so we need some place else to go.’ And when you call the shelter, they say, ‘Oh, these
are the cleanest people.’ But that's not always true.”
Emphasizing that she did not want to appear prejudiced, this respondent explained her
understanding that sharing with family is a part of her tenants’ culture. This puts her in a difficult
position, as she also knows that many of their family members may not have jobs or other forms
of support; but she feels that tenants are not always honest in disclosing the number of people
who are actually living in their unit. She has often been told that the additional people she sees
consistently inside the home are babysitting or watching the house; but they always seem to be
performing tasks that suggest they are living in the unit, such as laundry or cooking.
Issues related to overcrowding and parking were a key concern among the private
industry respondents interviewed. One respondent shared another story about a tenant with a
child and who was part of the Rent to Work program, which provides “short term rental subsidy
assistance to persons experiencing conditions of homelessness AND willing to enter
employment, to increase their income through ‘earned wages’” (City and County of Honolulu
Department of Community Services WorkHawaiʻi Division, n.d.-b). This tenant was supposed to
pay a portion of his rent, but he frequently missed work; and then he brought his parents to live
with him and his child in the unit, after which the respondent, a property manager, encouraged
him to call the social worker to find another place for his parents to live. She explained the
frustrations of their neighbors, as the parents would “park all over the place” and not only in the
parking stall that was designated for the unit. Whenever she would call to explain that they could
not park there, especially overnight, the tenant would simply not answer his phone. Eventually,
344
another child began living in the unit; she broke the tenant’s TV and he kicked her out of the
house. The child was then seen “roaming around the property” and “sleeping in the hallway,”
which was alarming to the neighbors. This was a particularly difficult situation for our
respondent, as she advocated to take a chance on this tenant and his child. “In his defense,” she
explained that they moved out when he was unable to pay the rent, helping her avoid a costly
eviction.
Continuing to share her experiences with Section 8 HCV, the same respondent also
criticized the city and state for their “inadequate response” to housing issues. In her words, “The
people that we need to police even more than just the mom and pops or the property managers
are the city and the state.” She shared a story about a tenant displaced by a fire, which started
because the unit did not have electricity and the tenant resorted to using candles. She was able to
find him another place to live, but the unit affected by the fire – a wooden townhouse structure –
was never fixed, despite her multiple calls to follow up. At the time of the interview, it had been
five months since the fire and repairs to the unit had not yet been addressed. This respondent
called for greater accountability from city and state agencies regarding housing repairs and for
oversight of Section 8 habitability requirements.
Another real-estate agent from Hawaiʻi County noted that transportation and distance
from urban centers such as Hilo and Kona were an issue for herself and for tenants in rural Puna
on Hawaiʻi Island. When asked about her experience with fair housing regulations and mediation
services, she explained that mediation regulations do not work well for her, as both she and the
tenant would have to drive two hours to get to the courtroom to even meet with mediators. She
did not mention the remote options for mediation that are offered by the Mediation Center of the
Pacific in accordance with Act 57’s Eviction Mediation Program, which states “Once a
345
mediation session is scheduled with the tenant, the landlord will be electronically notified of the
date and time of the mediation session, and provided with a Zoom link (Mediation Center of the
Pacific, n.d.-c). This may reveal a lack of understanding of the mediation program among
property managers.
As a property manager in Puna, a relatively rural area, our respondent felt a sense of
distance or even mistrust of county offices. She hinted at a concern that many of her properties
would not meet Section 8 standards, which creates a reluctance to engage with this program. She
continued to emphasize transportation as a major challenge, as many of her renters and buyers
work in the urban center of Hilo which is nearly two hours’ drive from Puna. She explained that
buses in Puna are unreliable, and so the majority of people either drive or “catch rides.” This
respondent spent a lot of the interview discussing what she saw as the biggest impediment, for
both her and her clients, the rural status of Puna and what she saw as unrealistic HUD regulations
for properties in that area. When asked about her experience with HUD regulations, our
respondent reported that her properties in Puna largely lack a mainline sewage connection, and
that she often had to explain the use of solar, catchment, and septic systems to her potential
renters or buyers. More importantly, she reported that it is difficult for her to meet Section 8
regulatory standards for her properties, citing high renovation costs that disincentivize her from
expanding her docket of Section 8 households. While this respondent was hesitant to share more
details on the condition of her properties, she did mention that she felt that the “realities” of rural
property management are rarely discussed by state legislature, and thus the regulations don’t fit
her situation. This respondent suggested that some kind of county outreach program or satellite
office would make a difference for folks who are unfamiliar with the housing market and need to
travel long distances to meet with county workers.
346
A different property manager also mentioned the lack of information Honolulu legislators
have about the housing/geographical realities of Hawaiʻi Island and other neighbor islands;
Hawaiʻi island does not have the density of employment opportunities that Oʻahu does, and as a
result the need for low-income housing is greater. This respondent explained that there has never
been a time when she had vacant properties – in her experience, there is always a tenant seeking
placement.
13.2.3 Property manager and real estate agents’ wariness of animals for reasonable
accommodation requests
Property managers we spoke to expressed the view that some tenants may also take
advantage of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) reasonable accommodation for emotional support
animals. “The FHA requires covered entities to make reasonable accommodations so that
individuals with disabilities have equal housing opportunities, which includes the opportunity to
enjoy and use a dwelling”. Respondents discussed issues related to emotional support animals,
noting instances of tenants misrepresenting their pets. One respondent explained that she has
often seen the same animals (such as dogs that bark at her every time she is at a property she
manages). She will ask the tenant, “OK, you have a dog? And they said, ‘No, that's our friend's
dog. We're just watching him.’” How do you watch it when nobody else is home?”
This respondent also shared a story about a dog that both she and the owner had heard
barking, followed by a “Shhh!” from inside the unit. She followed up with the tenants, who she
described as “locals” and “not islanders or anything like that.” She asked them, “Hey, do you
guys have a dog? And they said, ‘Oh, yeah, it's our service animal.’ I said, a service animal?
‘Well, no, emotional support animal.’ I said, well, you didn't talk to us about it, you know? I'd
like to see your paperwork. And so, of course, they sent it to me right away, but it's kind of like,
347
why did they shush the dog if they felt like they were entitled to have a support animal?” She
explained, “I see that so many times, the doctor that signs the letters from California or Las
Vegas, you know... The kind that they buy online.”
Another real-estate agent further emphasized the importance of responsible tenant
practices and the challenges posed by similar pet accommodations – she has experienced, for
example, a renter who claimed that all 10 chickens found on the property were emotional support
animals. A respondent from Maui also shared an account from a colleague about someone who
rented a unit and had two cats. Management told the tenant that this was not allowed, and so the
tenant sued management and won – because the cats were support animals.
These responses reveal how property managers and realtors hear stories from colleagues
or have direct experiences that lead to a sense of skepticism toward reasonable accommodation
requests from tenants relating to pets. Unfortunately, some tenants may in fact misrepresent their
pets in ways that spur suspicion and even misinformation about pet-related accommodations.
13.2.4 Landlord-Tenant Relations and Evictions
Landlords shared with us the view that eviction moratoria create risks and reluctance to
rent property; while some long-term landlords maintain reasonable rents out of compassion, the
broader market pressures create frustrations for both tenants and landlords. One property
manager respondent raised the issue of vacant properties due to the current moratorium on
evictions on Maui, initiated as a response to the catastrophic wildfires.3 This respondent reported
her view that many landlords would rather leave a property vacant than rent to a potentially
troublesome tenant.
This respondent described a current situation in which she has one tenant who is renting a
2-bedroom unit from a landlord who insists on keeping prices as fair as possible, despite the
348
ability to raise rents to market rates. The monthly rent for the tenant’s 2-bedroom unit is
$1,600.00, inclusive of utilities, but the tenant has not paid since November 2023. She explained
that “they said, ‘With the moratorium, you can't take us out.’ That's what it is right now. But it's
these people that are creating additional costs for the owners. They're also tying up housing for
somebody that should have it... So that's the frustration that we get as, these abusers of…
moratorium or HUD or housing crisis. So, you know, there is a rental shortage, but there's also a
lot of rentals sitting empty.” Our respondent attributed this dilemma in part to FEMA, who is
paying $7,000.00 a month for empty houses and indicated that homeowners are “scared” because
of “all the rules.”
According to our respondent, the moratorium on Maui is not protecting people who need
housing. She said that, under her management alone, she has 10 rentals sitting empty and another
12 that are empty and receiving FEMA funding. She reported that the
“Twelve owners are scared. The moratorium came out, you know. So… there is a lot of housing sitting empty.” She explained that she does not understand why
FEMA does not simply rent 2 houses with the $7,000.00 they are offering, instead
of paying for an empty house. She elaborated, “I have people call me all the time, good local people looking for a place. Somebody will call and say, ‘Oh, so-and-so has an empty cottage.’ And [the landlord says], ‘Oh, no, no, I don't want to rent it right now,’ which is sad. But I get it, because I have to deal with how to get rid of these people that shouldn't be in the house. So there is more housing than what
used to be. Unfortunately, a lot of it does come down to the money. If you get an empty house at $7,000 and you put somebody in, what are you going to put them in for?”
These situations reveal a stark disconnect between the housing shortage and the number of empty
rentals on Maui after the August 2023 wildfires.
In her view, there is no going back to lower rental prices in this context: “We're not going
to go back to $2,000.00 Right? So now you have to do $3,000.00 or $4,000.00, which just took
all our local people out, our limited income people out, our kūpuna (elders).” Our respondent
349
further discussed Maui’s long-term exemption, which provides property tax breaks to property
owners who rent to local tenants. She explained, “but they constitute what the rents are and
everything. And I think somebody should look at that data to see what our local people are
actually charging for rents. And if they're sitting empty as well, I mean, tax-wise too. The tax
burden is heavy on us right now.”
A different respondent added that the moratorium on evictions on Maui has led to
substantial financial losses for property owners:
“I had two people. One was at $20,000 and the other one was at $15,000. Some people were at $5,000 or $7,000. I have a $17,000 delinquency right now.
Another $7,000.00 delinquency and another $5,000.00 delinquency, and I can't do
anything about it, because of the moratorium. When they're in a lease, I can do a non-renewal and that's what I can do. But if I have somebody who's not in a lease, they've been on month-to-month or whatever for a reason, and the moratorium hit, there's nothing I can do about it. When the owners lose money like that, it makes it difficult for everybody, right? So my heart goes out to people who are
struggling. At the same time, if we as a culture made better choices about things, these things wouldn't be an issue… We all have our moments of being down… and by the grace of God that could be me at any given point. But I do, at the same time, hold people accountable… If people qualify, that means that we deem them
financially able to pay rent, and we expect that.”
Yet another property manager noted that she sees lack of landlord/government
cooperation as a serious impediment to housing availability. She explained that things like
eviction moratoriums put serious financial strain on landlords, especially “mom and pop”
properties. She said, “In the eviction moratorium the one saving grace was there was a Rent
Relief Fund. But just this last year, because of the Maui fire, we had another eviction moratorium
come through, and legislation speaking to eviction moratoriums. And it passed, but it said that
you had to be a fire victim.” She continued to explain that landlords are trying to pay mortgages,
taxes and utilities with no revenue coming in: “The government put people at the risk of going
bankrupt and having foreclosures upon them… Telling someone that no matter what is
350
happening, the tenant doesn't have to pay. That’s wrong.” She does not believe that rent freezes
or rent controls are a good idea and pointed out that, “Government hasn't built any housing.”
13.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Interviews with property managers and real estate agents paint a complex picture of
barriers to fair housing throughout the state. Our respondents pointed to a lack of available
housing supply as a first order affordability problem. When supply is low and demand is high,
housing prices increase resulting in a gradual replacement of low- and middle-income
households with higher income families. Hawaiʻi has many inexorable barriers to supply such a
limited amount of developable land (both literally and for ecological reasons). But some of the
supply shortage is self-inflicted as counties limit options that could promote density. This can
range from an irresponsible focus on single family homes, which present a host of negative
environmental externalities while housing very few persons per acre, to planning and permitting
processes that create enormous delays and, ultimately, benefit the protectionist objectives of
wealthy homeowners over other groups.
Respondents also pointed to frustrations with what researchers would call “housing
readiness.” There is no doubt that research is nearly unanimous in its support of providing
homeless individuals with housing, first and foremost. But so-called “housing first” should never
be “housing only” and challenges faced by individuals with mental health and substance abuse
issues ultimately result in landlord hostilities towards subsidized housing programs. A concerted
effort to help all individuals, regardless of barriers, sustain their housing will certainly help
landlords – as our respondents mentioned – but it will have even more substantial impacts on
renters themselves.
351
Such an effort goes hand-in-hand with efforts to reduce administrative burdens of the
housing programs, particularly those that disincentivize enthusiastic participation from landlords.
Obviously all programs need guardrails to prevent exploitation, but many of the regulations tied
to our current housing programs fail to benefit tenants in a meaningful way and could be
substantially reformed.
Finally, the issues of so-called emotional support animals, represents a key need for fair
housing education. The issue is tricky. For some individuals, an emotional support animal is an
essential part of health and well-being. But for others, landlords are right to be suspicious. HUD
and other fair housing groups have provided more specific guidance on these issues in ways that
attempt to benefit landlord and tenant needs.4 The more landlords are informed about these
issues the more consistent they will be about providing reasonable accommodations without
feeling they are being taken advantage of.
352
Works Cited
VantageScore. 2022. “What Is a VantageScore Used For?” VantageScore. Retrieved December 12, 2024 (https://www.vantagescore.com/press_releases/what-is-a-vantagescore-used-for/).
Americans with Disabilities Act National Network. n.d.-a. “Living with a Service Animal.”
Adata.org. Retrieved December 12, 2024 (https://adata.org/service-animal-resource-hub/living). City and County of Honolulu Department of Community Services WorkHawaiʻi Division. n.d.-b. Rent to Work. Retrieved December 12, 2024 (https://homelessness.hawaii.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/Rent-to-Work-Orientation.pdf). Mediation Center of the Pacific. n.d.-c. Changes to the Landlord Tenant Code, Mediation, and Rental Assistance. Retrieved December 12, 2024 (https://homelessness.hawaii.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/SEMP.MEDIATION.UPDATEOCT2021.pdf).
State of Hawaiʻi Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. n.d.-d. FAQs for Residential Landlords and Tenants on the Island of Maui. Retrieved December 12, 2024 (https://cca.hawaii.gov/ocp/files/2024/07/16th-EP-Rental-Restrictions-Basic-FAQs-REV.pdf).
Inafuku, R., Tyndall, J., & Bonham, C. (2022). Measuring the Burden of Housing Regulation in Hawaiʻi. University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization, 7.
Kent, Joe. 2022. “Are Outsiders Buying up Hawaiʻi?” Grassroot Institute of Hawaiʻi. Retrieved
December 12, 2024 (https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2022/09/are-outsiders-buying-up-hawaii/).
353
14.0 MASTER SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section, we have compiled the recommendations made in previous sections of this
report. Most recommendations are related to respondent interviews and the two sub-analyses
focused on Native Hawaiian Issues and Local Preferences and thus relate to issues from Chapters
6-13. However, for review, we also summarize some potential impediments discussed in the
Demographic and Statistical chapters (Chapters 1-5) though the main purpose of those chapters
is to describe general population characteristics as well as the condition of the housing market of
Hawaiʻi. Further details about each of the impediments identified as well as proposed
solutions are contained in the relevant body chapters of this report (enumerated sections
correspond to the main chapters above). It is strongly recommended that readers refer to
the relevant chapters when considering a finding of an impediment and a related
recommendation for addressing that impediment. It is also worth noting that several of the
funding agencies are already directly engaged in addressing the impediments identified here and
also working in alignment with the recommendations provided. For these issues, our
recommendations are meant to reinforce and underscore the importance of existing efforts
(notable examples include the regular April Fair Housing month, which entails education for a
broad swath of the public as well as for real estate professionals like landlords, property
managers, and other housing service providers).
Our recommendations here are derived primarily from public input and recommendations
from experts that our research team interviewed, including non-profit organization leaders,
government officials, and private sector representatives (details of our data collection and
interviews are described in Chapter 1). In the previous chapters of this report, we provide further
details about what our interview respondents shared and what they would like to see in response
to the identified barriers to fair housing. These chapters also provide context and secondary
354
research to interpret and validate the input we received. We seek to avoid offering specific
guides for the enactment of these recommendations, in order to allow multiple departments or
initiatives to tackle these recommendations in diverse ways. However, the body chapters of this
report offer more information about possible mechanisms through which different agencies may
address the identified impediments.
Also, this report does not rank these impediments and recommendations in terms of
relative priority. This decision is aligned with the original goals of the analysis and to meet the
collective needs of the diverse funding agencies. Given the diversity of agencies and
jurisdictions covered by this analysis, it is important for each agency to identify their own
priority recommendations based on strategic needs, resources, capacity, and potential alignment
with state goals or local needs.
2.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Impediment 2.1: There remain disparities by race/ethnicity in both household income and
homeownership, creating potential financial barriers to housing access on the private
market. Racial/ethnic disparities in household median income as well as homeownership rates
persist, thus creating potential barriers to access to fair housing on the private market. This
reflects trends long-noted by social scientists. Of the largest racial groups in the state, Native
Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders report relatively low rates of homeownership.
Recommendation 2.1.1 See recommendations below. Invest particularly in
homeownership counseling and targeted financial programs to support racial/ethnic
groups historically under-represented among homeowners.
3.0 SEGREGATION, OPPORTUNITY AND POVERTY CONCENTRATION and
4.0 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DEMOGRAPHICS AND LOCATION
Impediment 4.1: Subsidized households (i.e. those participating in HCV or residing in
LIHTC or Public Housing communities) are more likely to live in higher-poverty tracts.
Despite relatively few areas of concentrated poverty across Hawaiʻi, there is an identifiable
association between tract poverty rates and subsidized housing. For HCV households, the
prevalence of households (27%) in high-poverty tracts is roughly twice the statewide average for
355
renters (compared to 10% for all households and 14% for renter households) and LIHTC
households’ rate of exposure to poverty—19% live in tracts with poverty rates of 20% or
higher—also exceeds the state averages. 43% of Public Housing residents live in high-poverty
census tracts. Higher poverty areas in the state also tend to have larger populations of Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander residents, showing some indication of spatial exclusion.
This can create barriers to economic mobility and general well-being for some of Hawaiʻi's most
vulnerable residents.
Recommendation 4.1.1: Affirmative efforts should be made including the siting of
subsidized housing in low-poverty areas, something that the State has struggled to
achieve historically. In order to promote alternative siting, funding must be invested to
promote building in such areas, and policy and community outreach must be expended to
overcome neighborhood opposition to low-income neighbors, multifamily development,
or subsidized projects.
Recommendation 4.1.2.: See below for recommendations to prevent discrimination and
support neighborhood access for HCV recipients.
Impediment 4.2: There is an overlap between participation in federally and state-funded
housing subsidy programs and membership in other protected classes. Despite the limits of
statistics on the background characteristics of subsidized households, it is clear that many
subsidized households in housing assistance programs (HCV, LIHTC and Public Housing) are
not only low-income but part of a group that has been historically marginalized or at risk of
discrimination based on their age, gender, family status, disability, or race/ethnicity. Just over a
third of subsidized households have children, two- thirds are female-headed, and roughly 30%
are female-headed with children (except for Project-Based Section 8, which is much lower).
Disability is also common among this population, with one-in-five subsidized individuals
qualifying as disabled.
The data suggests that subsidized households are slightly more likely to be non-white than the
general population (80%) and that this is particularly true in Public Housing (88%) and less true
in HCV and Project-Based Section 8. Subsidized households in Public Housing are also more
likely to be non-white 63% of subsidized households (and 79% of Public Housing households)
selected “Asian American and Pacific Islander,” a large group that constitutes some of Hawaiʻi’s
highest and lowest earning ethnicities.
Remedy 4.2.1: For Housing Vouchers, as discussed below, it is necessary not only to
prohibit discrimination against HCV recipients but to actively fund enforcement and
testing to ensure compliance. Similarly, recent work has pointed to the value of housing
navigation to help low-income voucher families achieve a broader range of residential
356
outcomes. Special attention should be made in programming to the intersection between
voucher or assisted status and other protected statuses (such as race/ethnicity, disability
status, family status, etc.), given the potential for compounded barriers or discrimination.
5.0 FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT DATA
Impediment 5.1: Disability and Retaliation are the most frequent types of fair housing
complaints . According to data provided by state and federal agencies, most fair housing
complaints that come to enforcement agencies concern disability and retalation. Retaliation cases
make up a large proportion of HUD and HCRC cases, and questions still remain about why this
is the case.
Remedy 5.1.1: Consider remedies to fair housing impediments based on disability
further discussed below.
Remedy 5.1.2: The relatively high rates of retaliation in Hawaiʻi seem unique but poorly
understood. Experts have suggested that there is something unique about personal
relationships and the housing market in the context of Hawaiʻi such that landlords are
more likely to respond pointedly to perceived breaches of interpersonal trust by tenants.
Research be performed to investigate the relatively high rate of landlord retaliation found
in Hawaiʻi.
Impediment 5.2: Discrimination based on Sex, Race/Color, and Family Status are also top
complaints. Across the three main data sets, complaints on the basis of sex (including sexual
orientation) are a top three concern (the second most common concern in the LASH data). When
considered along with gender-based discrimination, or in its own right, sex-based discrimination
in various forms appears to be a major concern for fair housing in Hawaiʻi. In terms of
frequency, complaints related to discrimination on the basis of sex are followed by complaints
about discrimination based on race and/or color. The next most frequent complaints relate to
family and marital status. These are the top five most common issues across the main data
sources.
Remedy 5.2.1: Future analyses should focus on overlapping concerns related to “sex”
(which federally in recent years has been defined expansively to include gender
identity/expression and sexual orientation, etc.) and gender (which include gender
expression and identity). Discrimination on the basis of sex can also include sexual
harassment. While a relatively recent analysis of impediments to fair housing for
Hawai’i focused on disability, with good reason, a future analysis could more deeply
focus on potential concerns related to sex and gender-based discrimination.
357
Impediment 5.3: Complaints about discrimination based on national origin/ancestry and
race/color also occur. Complaints regarding national origin and ancestry (including relating to
language) also occur regularly, and according to LASH data, appear to be the most frequent basis
of complaints for Micronesian households. As discussed below, community stakeholders who
informed other portions of this report identified challenges experienced by Micronesian
households, including those who have Limited English Proficiency. Also, LASH data suggests
that fair housing complaints based on race/color are a concern especially for African Americans
(for whom this was the most frequent basis of complaint).
Remedy 5.3.1: Consider remedies to fair housing discrimination based on national
origin/ancestry and race/color further discussed below.
Remedy 5.3.2: Future analyses should aim to specify how much language barriers are
reflected in the patterns of national origin/ancestry discrimination. Future research
should focus on distinct barriers facing racial/ethnic subgroups including Micronesian as
well as Black/African American households.
6.0 DISABILITY AND HEALTH
Impediment 6.1: As stated above, according to enforcement agencies, Disability is the most
frequent source of fair housing complaints (or the second most frequent source of complaints,
after retaliation, depending on the data source).
Impediment 6.2: Hawaiʻi has a shortage of housing at all income levels, but especially for those
with physical disabilities. Stakeholders also emphasized the need for design elements to promote
physical accessibility among subsidized units.
Recommendation 6.2.1: Accelerate the pace of initiatives to increase the inventory of
accessible housing. A variety of initiatives to increase the stock of affordable housing
accessible to those with disabilities were described in the 2016 report on the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in Hawaiʻi with a Focus on People with Disabilities
(CDS 2016). This current report amplifies the recommendations of that analysis, as the
situation has not appreciably improved.
Recommendation 6.2.2: Increase targeted funding to develop accessible housing in all
forms (i.e. residences, apartments, subsidized housing)
Recommendation 6.2.3: Implement universal design in all new building projects to
enable visitability and aging in place.
Interview data suggest that those with disabilities who have experienced homelessness
and chronic homelessness face the steepest barriers to accessing housing, including on
the private market and through traditional assistance programs. Continue to support
housing first programs which serve the homeless population. Interview data suggest that
358
those with disabilities who have experienced homelessness and chronic homelessness
face the steepest barriers to accessing housing, including on the private market and
through traditional assistance programs.
Impediment 6.3: A large share of the homeless population also reports having one or more
disabling conditions (55% as of 2024, according to the Point-in-Time count (PIC 2024)).
Interviews with experts who serve this community also stress the vulnerability of those with
disabilities in the homeless population who often have extreme difficulties finding housing,
though can be served by permanent and stable options in kauhale situations or other assisted
programs.
Recommendation 6.3.1: Support a variety of housing projects including “kauhale” type
projects, or communal living communities, to serve individuals and households with
disabilities transitioning out of homelessness. Continue to invest heavily in housing first
programs, with special attention to those groups in protected classes (including those with
disabilities, victims of gender-based violence, etc.).
Impediment 6.4: Online applications create new barriers for those living with disabilities. This
is significant given the fast proliferation of online-based service applications, especially since
COVID 19.
Recommendation 6.4.1: Develop accessibility guidelines for online applications and
websites listing apartments funded with public subsidies. We recommend the
development of universal best practices across all state and local agencies. The policy on
the accessibility of programming and services can be found in Section 6, Appendix E.
Please see also specific guidelines for website accessibility in Section 6, Appendix F.
Recommendation 6.4.2: Secure an expert assessment of language used on online
housing applications by public agencies. Consultant should make recommendations to
reduce jargon and improve readability across all forms of disability.
Recommendation 6.4.3: Publicly disseminate best practices to real estate groups and
developers to promote application accessibility in the unsubsidized housing stock.
Impediment 6.5: Landlords need more education on fair housing issues related to tenants living
with disabilities. This education would increase landlord comfort with leasing to individuals with
disability and clarify the rights and responsibility of all parties.
Recommendation 6.5.1: Increase fair housing education and support for landlords
regarding the housing process for people with disabilities. In particular, there appears to
be a lack of understanding related to reasonable accommodation. The fair housing
community currently hosts several trainings throughout the year, continued efforts should
359
be made to reach a variety of landlords and property management companies (including
small and mid-sized landlords).
Recommendation 6.5.2: Provide training and translation support for personnel offering
housing support to people with disabilities. For example, a lease “cheat sheet” may be
helpful for case managers to help clients with developmental disabilities understand their
leases in very simple terms. This may require collaboration between attorneys and
property management agencies.
Impediment 6.6: A major challenge for Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs) in
realizing their potential to be a one-stop shop for people with disabilities includes limitations
they face in navigating services and programs that are not within their immediate scope (see
reccommendations in CDS 2016).
Recommendation 6.6.1: Identify resources to increase ADRC capacity in housing,
allowing them to realize their potential to help clients navigate the State’s complex
housing market and assistance programs. ADRCs may require collaboration with local or
county elderly affairs or other social service rograms to achieve this.
Recommendation 6.6.2: Increase funding to county ADRCs to provide direct services
including emergency preparedness rosters in the event of a disaster.
Recommendation 6.6.3: Increase communication and shared information between
government and non-profit entities who have responsibilities related to housing, and
entities focused on aging or disability, including ADRCs and other elderly affairs
organizations and agencies.
Impediment 6.7: A lack of knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to support people with
disabilities exists among personnel and systems that are often the “gatekeepers” of housing
opportunities (CDS 2016: 108). Whether intentional or not, such deficiencies can result in
discrimination, exclusion and a lack of equity throughout the housing application process.
Recommendation 6.7.1: Establish and support new and existing methods of anonymous
reporting so that people with disabilities have a pathway to pursue their housing concerns
without fear of retaliation from landlords. HCRC maintains a significant caseload
focusing on disability and retaliation. Further consider actions that can be taken to
discourage/prevent retaliation, as current initiatives are often reactive, responsive only
after the retaliation has already occurred.
Impediment 6.8: The presence of assistance animals can complicate housing qualifications for
people with disabilities, as landlords can be hesitant to rent to people with animals even when for
disability accommodation.
360
Recommendation 6.8.1: Increase dissemination of clear guidance and education on
service animals for both landlords and tenants. Education initiatives for landlords and
property managers should be focused on helping them to understand the differences
between service animals, emotional support animals and pets, as well as the laws for
reasonable accommodation. Education and training for people with disabilities should
focus on how to minimize their service animals’ impact on neighboring tenants.
7.0 VOUCHER PROGRAMS AND SOURCE OF INCOME PROTECTIONS
Impediment 7.1: Despite recent legislation (i.e. Act 310) explicitly prohibiting “source of
income” (SOI) discrimination, there are multiple challenges facing households attempting to use
rental subsidies such as Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), Emergency Housing Vouchers, and
other forms of rental subsidies (e.g. those for homelessness or for veterans) on the private rental
market. Households experience protracted searches and often must request extended time in
order to lease-up.
Recommendation 7.1.1: Updates to Act 310 would make the law stronger and prevent
direct and indirect discrimination of voucher holders. For example, enforcement authority
should be vested in a specific agency, likely the Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission
(HCRC). Penalties also likely need to be increased or modified to cover legal fees and to
create stronger deterrance. Once enforcement authority is established, funding should be
allocated for proactive enforcement and testing of source of income (SOI) discrimination.
Enforcement results should be well-publicized to ensure compliance.
Impediment 7.2: There is a lack of public awareness and understanding of the specifics of Act
310. There are many points of confusion related to exemptions and enforcement.
Recommendation 7.2.1: There is a need for clear and concise informational material
relating to the function and protections of Act 310. Real estate professionals, managers,
and housing agencies should be provided with clear and cogent public-facing materials to
clarify the obligations under the law and to provide information to clients who suspect
they have faced discrimination. Public agencies should develop an informational website
to share to clarify the terms and obligations of Act 310 as existing web resources are very
limited or hard to find. Clients need to understand how to seek damages.
Impediment 7.3: There are reports of secondary discrimination among assisted households or
voucher holders that are also racial minorities, especially for Micronesian and/or other Pacific
Islanders and some other linguistic and ethnic minority households.
Recommendation 7.3.1: Further educational outreach to landlords and property
managers on the topic of cultural practices and legal protections of racial minority and
LEP communities is critical. Efforts should take care to address the specific needs and
361
risks of indirect and direct discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities including
diverse Pacific Islander and Micronesian groups in order to alleviate secondary status
discrimination for voucher holders.
Impediment 7.4: Agencies and real-estate professional report continued bias among real estate
professionals against voucher holders as well as other sources of landlord reluctance to lease-up
to voucher beneficiaries.
Recommendation 7.4.1: Strong and established educational and facilitatory programs
aimed at landlords is needed to support landlord comprehension and engagement with
voucher programs. Different forms of engagement should employ different forms of
communication and outreach, such as: in-person meetings, sharing of online resources,
landlord summits, small gatherings, or presentations by agency staff at real-estate
professional meetings, etc. Consider collaboration with experts on this topic, as well as
incentives for landlord and real-estate professionals participation.
Recommendation 7.4.2: Establish and fund landlord liaisons or other staffing within
housing agencies to support the dissemination of information about the programs and
their strengths and benefits to landlords and the public. Consider incentives for
participation in landlord programs, including programs for landlords to gain access to
guidance or referral resources if they identify potential tenant violations of leasing
agreements.
8. TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITAL TOOLS
Impediment 8.1: Barriers exist relating to the implementation and use of digital tools in the
administrative, maintenance, and outreach initiatives of housing development and management
organizations; this includes a lack of knowledge and digital access among certain communities
(e.g. Native Hawaiian kūpuna), inefficiency of current online platforms in engaging clients and
landlords, a lack of connection between agencies and organizations within the digital space, and
a lack of connection between the digital and in-real-life spaces that offer housing support. These
issues were reported across organizations in all sectors of the housing ecosystem, from homeless
services groups to developers to legal clinics.
Recommendation 8.1.1: Consider engaging a consultant to evaluate online materials and
develop online platforms to effectively provide services to client groups. This can
increase new client outreach, improve the ability to quickly service existing clients and
increase client engagement and intake. Agencies may consider collaboration with entities
such as HCRC, LASH and HUD, in particular for use of their websites to provide easily
accessible and clearly understandable educational materials, made available online for
any client group to access at any time.
362
Recommendation 8.1.2: Organizations can increase their online presence to educate and
incentivize landlords on housing-related issues and encourage them to engage with
housing-first programs and increase the efficacy of the housing-first program through
digitization of systems. Consider ways in which additional training can be provided, in
addition to active social media and marketing.
Recommendation 8.1.3: Supplement current educational programs with stable,
updatable online platforms and materials. Consider engaging a consultant to achieve this.
Recommendation 8.1.4: Build relationships with landlords and property managers via
educational outreach programs in the digital space; this is important for organizations to
get "their foot in the door” and promote participation in housing programs. Digitization
provides improved flexibility in scheduling and administering any kind of educational or
community-building session. Consider collaboration with non-profit organizations and
funding opportunities (e.g. grants) to achieve this.
Recommendation 8.1.5: Dedicate educational and training resources towards Native
Hawaiian kūpuna (elderly) to improve this at-risk population’s ability to find and live in
affordable housing.
Recommendation 8.1.6: Retain some level of in-person appointments and support. A
significant portion of Hawaiʻi’s population is unable to effectively operate in a digital-
only environment. Increase the practice of hosting a group setting for elderly and kūpuna
populations, as this appears to be more successful in reaching these communities.
Recommendation 8.1.7: Overall, continue to ensure multiple modes of communications
are available: phone-based communication, postal mail, and in-person access, in addition
to digital options.
Impediment 8.2: There are substantial digital equity concerns for racial minority populations,
specifically those with limited English-language Proficiency and those living in technologically
underserved areas. Unlike the relationship between technology and elderly populations, this
relationship tended to be identified by our respondents as an issue of digital access rather than an
issue of digital literacy and ongoing support (although digital literacy does wrap around into a
larger access issue).
Recommendation 8.2.1: Hire or work with local community leaders or organizations
within the underserved areas to facilitate access to their housing services and emergency
relief. Organizations including non-profit collaborators should consider available funding
options (e.g. CDBG funds) for this service.
Recommendation 8.2.2: Organizations should utilize community collaborations to fully
understand the needs of the communities and the on-the-ground realities of their
situation; which in turn allows them to customize services and outreach, improving their
aid capacity. Consider the avenues available for communities to formally submit their
363
comments and express their needs so that organizations and other non-profits can take the
initiative to address them.
Recommendation 8.2.3: Work directly with community members who are either
bilingual or technologically savvy (or ideally both) to assist other community members
with translation of digital assets. This method was reported as the best way to counter
geographic and linguistic barriers overall. It provides a means to strengthen the ties
between the community and the organization, and to improve the self-determination of
the community itself. Identify local leaders, organizations and other non-profits who
could assist in administering program services with a high degree of trust and outreach.
As the efficacy of online translation services are sometimes substandard, this method was
reported to additionally improve the level of comprehension of the rights, forms, and
practices associated with programs for client groups.
Impediment 8.3: Language is a barrier not only for accessing digital forms, but for
understanding the (primarily digitally administered) rights and protections that tenants and
housing seekers hold.
Recommendation 8.3.1: Limit the complexity of digital platform language to improve
translation as a secondary measure.
Recommendation 8.3.2: Digital writers should bear in mind that the complexity and
specificity of English legal terminology is often not interculturally shared. Limiting
complexity of language should be a general best-practice so that digital platforms are
easy to comprehend for non-English speakers.
Recommendation 8.3.3: Provide any housing-related resources in multiple languages,
alongside resources for translation into less common languages in Hawaiʻi. Consider
hiring consultants/translators to achieve this.
Impediment 8.4: In the Native Hawaiian Services sector, there is a lack of digital literacy
amongst our elderly and kupuna populations.
Recommendation 8.4.1:Accelerate efforts to reduce geographic and linguistic barriers
through in-person document verification and having a user-friendly backend system.
Recommendation 8.4.2: Offering a nearly 24/7 assistance line can be valuable in
assisting and directing clients towards whatever resources or programs they are seeking.
Assess the agencies and non-profit organizations able to provide these services and
increase their ability to do so.
Recommendation 8.4.3: Retain some level of in-person services for both translation and
digital documentation/form filling assistance. This is a valuable measure towards limiting
the digital divide surrounding the affordable housing system, particularly considering
364
elderly and kupuna digital barriers. Consider collaboration between counties, agencies,
organizations and other non-profits to achieve this.
9. RACE/ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND LANGUAGE
Impediment 9.1 As discussed above, among those filing official complaints with Legal Aid
Society, individuals identifying as Black or African American are most often filing complaints
based on race/color (with disability as the 2nd largest category). Among those complainants
identifying as Micronesian, the largest categories of complaints relate to national origin or
ancestry (with family status) as the next most common complaint. While the numbers in these
data are small, this pattern of complaint data coupled with interview findings suggests persistent
and diverse barriers in accessing housing related to race/ethnicity and national origin/ancestry for
these groups.
Recommendation 9.1.1: Education and outreach about fair housing rights and avenues
to redress experiences of discrimination should make sure to include these groups, among
others. Housing agencies and other non-profit housing and civil rights advocates should
collaborate with community leaders from within the African American and Micronesian
and Pacific Islander communities to build trust, mitigate discrimination, and support
affirmative housing access for members of these groups.
Impediment 9.2: Advocates for immigrants and language minorities with whom we spoke
stressed that English speakers are at an advantage in the housing space, in comparison to Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) households.
Recommendation 9.2.1: Focus on multi-language informational materials. Several of
our respondents expressed the need for Hawaiʻi’s information outreach to be offered in
several languages, including less common ones such as Chuukese and Ukrainian. While
Hawaiʻi’s state and nonprofit services do offer a variety of language options, forefronting
those options in dissemination is recommended. For various Micronesian languages,
including Chuukese, consider the needs of speakers of different dialects. This is a unique
challenge for the state of Hawaiʻi given the significant ethnic and national origin
diversity of our population.
Impediment 9.3: Many newly arrived immigrant households may not be eligible for government
housing programs and struggle with complex lease agreements. Civil rights advocates have
witnessed firsthand the difficulty of gaining interpretation for complicated written
communication.
Recommendation 9.3.1: Expand education initiatives. Both our nonprofit and private
sector respondents recommended expanding educational outreach programs to reach a
365
greater portion of LEP populations, and to simplify the wording of both educational and
informational materials to assist in comprehension and client-side translation.
Impediment 9.4: Cultural differences, including a reluctance to self-advocate when interacting
with managers, landlords, or housing authorities, can also compound language access barriers.
Recommendation 9.4.1: Push to raise awareness of tenant rights among LEP and racial
and ethnic minorities. Several of our respondents noted that minority tenants have issues
navigating the housing market and landlord relations, and improving their understanding
of the rights, protections, and support they have would help these populations to do so.
Non-profit organizations can consider engaging translators and community leaders to
achieve this. Community leaders in the Micronesian community have found success by
partnering with other non-profits in order to be available to also learn about potential
remedies to experiences of language-based exclusion in the housing (for example, when
tenants do not understand notices shared by housing management and thus risk not
responding).
Impediment 9.5: Respondents noted how cultural misunderstandings and implicit or explicit
discrimination amongst the public at large against Micronesian -origin people, including
Chuukese, Marshallese and Palauan groups or citizens of the Freely Associated States (FAS) is
also prevalent in the housing market.
Recommendation 9.5.1: Formation of a committee or advisory council to generate long-
lasting and effective solutions to language and racial discrimination in the housing
market, and to hopefully guide relatively vulnerable groups, especially diverse
Micronesian origin and Pacific Islander groups in finding safe and secure housing.
Recommendation 9.5.2: Provide continued funding and partnership to specific advocacy
groups within the Micronesian communities in each county to include them in
educational efforts around fair housing rights and to help them successfully navigate
difficult rental markets.
11. GENDER AND LBGTQ+
Impediment 10.1 Among fair housing complaints received by agencies including HUD, HCRC,
and LASH, discrimination on the basis of sex or gender is a top issue. Depending on the agency,
it is either the 2nd or 3rd most common type of fair housing complaint (after disability and for
one agency, retaliation). This pattern of complaint data suggests strong barriers for fair housing
on the basis of sex or gender.
Recommendation 10.1.1: Education and outreach about fair housing rights and avenues
to redress experiences of discrimination should make sure to include groups with
366
expertise on issues related to sex and gender, including experts on provisions of VAWA
and domestic violence. Housing agencies and other non-profit housing and civil rights
advocates should collaborate with and partner with community leaders in these areas.
Future analyses should focus on these topics.
Impediment 10.2 Survivors of intimate partner violence still sometimes face threats of eviction
due to disruptive behavior or impacts attributed to the abusive partner, which violate VAWA
(Violence Against Women Act) protections. Also, members of the public are unclear about
which housing programs (public housing, voucher programs) include a preference for domestic
violence victims.
Recommendation 10.2.1: Landlord, property manager, and agency education and
training should continue to include attention to VAWA protections and to mitigate illegal
evictions related to domestic abuse. Where housing assistance and public housing
programs include preference of DV victims, this should also be clearly publicized and
discussed in public-facing resources.
Impediment 10.3: LBGTQ+ youth face distinct risks of being homeless and estranged from
families and support systems. Such youth also face unique vulnerabilities related to risk of drug
use and mental illness.
Recommendation 10.3.1 Policies and programs to serve homeless youth should target
LGBTQ+ youth and include attention to addiction and mental illness risks.
Impediment 10.4: Transgender clients face perceived barriers accessing emergency shelters as
well as drug treatment or “clean and sober” housing, though expert respondents did not specify
why. One possibility is clients may anticipate gender-based discrimination and lack of fit within
gender binaries.
Recommendation 10.4.1: Emergency and low-barrier transitional shelters should
investigate potential sources of gender- based and transgender discrimination and reasons
for perceived exclusion among some transgender clients. Shelters and housing services
should continue to use gender-affirming language and reiterate services are available
without discrimination based on sex (including gender expression and identity, per state
law).
Impediment 10.5: While HIV status is a separate protected status, some advocacy organizations
address HIV status as related to gender and transgender status. Respondents report a lack of
awareness exists about HIV status as a protected class and report that some landlords appear to
discriminate against these groups.
367
Recommendation 10.5.1: Education programs for landlords and property managers
should include attention to protections for HIV status groups.
11A. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING
Impediment 11.1: There is an exceptionally high rate of Native Hawaiians informally sheltering
others. A reduction in Native Hawaiian-led households, due to outmigration or loss of residence,
may result in a substantial overall loss of housing stock and shelter for highly vulnerable
individuals and families.
Recommendation 11.1.1: Treat efforts to support and increase Native Hawaiian
homeownership as a tool to maintain housing and shelter generally, especially for the
hidden homeless and barriers unique to them.
Recommendation 11.1.2: Provide targeted support for and partnership with Native
Hawaiian-led households informally sheltering hidden homeless and “doubling-up” or
experiencing overcrowding.
Impediment 11.2: Data that aggregates Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders may be
insufficient in understanding the issues faced by Native Hawaiians.
Recommendation 11.2.1: Where possible, fund data collection and collect and annually
report disaggregated data on Native Hawaiians, as well as Native Hawaiians and other
Pacific Islanders, to monitor issues related to housing, including housing discrimination,
use of housing vouchers, and other areas directly or indirectly connected to impediments
to fair housing choice.
Recommendation 11.2.2: The Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission should resume such
reporting, and all applicable state and county entities reporting housing-relevant data
should do the same.
Recommendation 11.2.3: Explore whether adding a state-level prohibition against
discrimination based on Indigenous status or Native Hawaiian status may encourage
more effective collection and reporting of Native Hawaiian data on housing.
Impediment 11.3: While similarly as likely to be arrested as the general population, Native
Hawaiians are highly overrepresented among the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated.
Recommendation 11.3.1: Continue to support and strengthen culturally-grounded re-
entry programs, address housing and employment discrimination against those with
criminal records, and create post-incarceration housing support initiatives. Non-profit
368
organizations, among other entities, may consider housing access during community re-
entry as within their scopes of work.
Impediment 11.4: Discriminatory practices in the housing and finance/mortgage market have
prevented Native Hawaiians from accessing safe, affordable, and fair housing. In addition to its
tangible impact on Native Hawaiian home ownership, asset building and access to financial
tools, discriminatory practices against Native Hawaiians and other historical injustices foster
distrust of financing agencies and government institutions.
Recommendation 11.4.1: Build upon existing financial literacy programs for Native
Hawaiians, and provide direct financial assistance for Native Hawaiian renters and home
buyers. Personalized and community-based education, engagement-heavy approaches
that personalize support and community ties, as well as direct funds, can help overcome
traditional financing barriers to housing. This may be especially true when direct support
is paired with culturally-grounded financial literacy education and coaching from a
trusted, community-based organizations. State agencies and DHHL should consider
increasing financial support for such efforts.
11B. HHCA FOCUSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Impediment 11.5: The multigenerational underfunding of DHHL’s mission puts the Department
in the position of responding to a mix of urgent, immediate needs and long-term responsibilities.
On the urgent, immediate end of the spectrum are homeless individuals on the waitlist, followed
by the hidden homeless and other vulnerable populations.
Recommendation 11.5.1: DHHL should continue to emphasize activities that will
ultimately contribute to home ownership, while also continuing to expend a limited,
targeted amount of resources on rental and transitional housing support for highly
vulnerable waitlisted Native Hawaiians.
Impediment 11.6: Practical factors that include scarce funding (relative to need), infrastructure
costs for development in rural and/or remote areas leave DHHL with the unideal options if it is
to provide long-term housing stability for as many eligible Native Hawaiians as possible.
Recommendation 11.6.1: DHHL’s provision of new housing stock should include a
limited, strategic mix of higher-density housing options, especially on Oʻahu.
Recommendation 11.6.2: DHHL should provide clarity as to what forms of financial
assistance are available to both homestead lessees interested in building SDUs on their
property and HHCA-eligible Native Hawaiians looking to rent out these SDUs.
369
Recommendation 11.6.3: While secondary to the provision of on-corpus long-term
housing, DHHL’s off-corpus rental efforts should carefully consider the rights and well-
being of all impacted communities.
Recommendation 11.6.4: To fulfill the vision of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act,
the State of Hawaiʻi and federal government must provide ongoing, significant additional
funding far beyond what has been provided in recent years.
Recommendation 11.6.5: Continue to educate decisionmakers about the benefits for
Congressional adoption of Act 80, SLH 2017. However, to result in an overall increase in
the number of Native Hawaiians in safe, stable housing, passage of Act 80 must be
coupled with further increases in DHHL funding that results in overall increase in HHCA
housing stock, as mentioned in the previous recommendation. Consider exploring federal
funds for grant writing.
12. USING LOCAL PREFERENCES TO ALLEVIATE THE HOUSING CRISIS
Impediment 12.1: There is a lack of clarity regarding the legality of local preference and
prioritization rules in Hawaiʻi
Recommendation 12.1.1: Seek input from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development regarding the fair housing implications of local preferences for subsidized
housing in Hawaiʻi.
Impediment 12.2: There is a shortage of available land, affordable housing for local residents,
and opportunities to purchase or rent housing by local residents
Recommendation 12.2.1: Convene a task force composed of experts in housing,
including researchers, advocates, financers, builders, and community members to address
the issue of improving housing access to local residents. The task force should be
provided sufficient time to fully gather information including analyzing policies in other
states, counties, and possibly internationally. In addition, the task force should be charged
with developing policy solutions and making recommendations. This type of detailed
work will likely take several years to complete, especially if the task force is not funded.
Details about best practices for forming such a task force as well as community advisory
boards is contained in chapter 12.
In particular, the task force should be charged to review and formulate proposals on the
following specific policies that the scoping review identified as promising:
● Implementing housing preferences for low-income housing based on employment
location;
370
● Development of a housing preferences point system that provides points for
existing local residents (e.g., having resided in Hawaiʻi continuously for the last 5
years), homeless, employment location, parental status, having experienced
domestic violence, etc.;
● Implementing government-incentivized deed restrictions with specific
recommended template language;
● Creating a down payment support program for individuals who can show historic
ties to an ahupuaʻa (similar to the Kalipi ruling (Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co.,
Ltd., 1982) providing gathering rights for individuals who can show historic ties
to an ahupuaʻa);
● Implementing a community preference for low-income housing applied to
individuals who currently reside in an area (Vasudevan, 2024);
● Creating a down payment support program for individuals who meet certain
criteria, including, but not limited to: employment location, employment in a key
sector, historic ties to an ahupuaʻa or community, prior familial ties to a
geographic area, parental status, and income.
Impediment 12.3: Even if suitable land exists, ensuring that there is affordable housing that is
available for local residents can be a challenge. Zoning policies, out-of-state buyers, use of land
for construction of luxury developments or short-term rentals can all present barriers to the
development and availability of affordable housing.
Recommendation 12.3.1: Develop and make publicly available handouts of deed
restrictions. This handout should provide information to the public as there appears to be
movement around this mechanism for maintaining affordable housing. At a minimum,
the public should be aware of the benefits, the potential issues, and the process for
implementing a deed restriction on their property.
Impediment 12.4: Hawaiʻi has some laws and regulations in place that may make the
development of a Community Advisory Board difficult; however, it would be a valuable entity to
broaden the perspective of State and Counties in Hawaiʻi as they develop and implement
regulations.
Recommendation 12.4.1: Formation of Community Advisory Board(s). CABs can be
key in supporting the development of holistic policies that consider a variety of
perspectives. While agencies have mechanisms to solicit input from the community, a
CAB is invested in the policymaking process and are selected based on expertise on a
topic. Ideally, a shared CAB could be created where different state and county agencies
could bring questions to them for feedback.
371
Impediment 12.5: Hawaiʻi’s housing market is one of the most expensive in the nation. As an
individual goes through the housing continuum, they are faced with complex decisions some of
which may result in prolonged crisis. Because many housing policies and programs are complex
it can be difficult for someone in crises to fully understand the best path forward.
Recommendation 12.5.1: Identify funding for housing navigators and support existing
housing navigator and counseling programs. Housing navigators support individuals
experiencing homelessness or other challenges in becoming adequately housed. Just as a
healthcare navigator supports individuals who are experiencing a health crisis, housing
navigators support individuals and families who are experiencing housing crises. Housing
navigators could be a paid position, but could also be volunteers or could be nonprofit
organizations that operate in coordination with state and local entities.
Impediment 12.6: The land and housing conditions that exist in Hawaiʻi do not align with those
that exist in most of the United States. Not only do we have a very limited amount of land, but as
a tropical paradise the land is inflated in value. It is widely recognized that many Hawaiʻi
residents and, especially Native Hawaiians, have been forced to out-migrate; the failure of
affirmative actions to support our residents and Indigenous peoples is inconsistent with the
second goal of the Fair Housing Act.
Recommendation 12.6.1: Hawaiʻi already restricts the sale of public lands to foreign
nationals (Haw. Rev. Stat., 2015), but should consider expanding these limits. Significant
leeway exists in how to structure such a restriction to account for the potential benefit of
creating stability. For example, creating a prohibition on nonresident foreign nationals
from owning more than one home in Hawaiʻi or restricting the amount of foreign owned
agricultural lands.
Impediment 12.7: Island communities, like Hawaiʻi, where the ability to build additional
housing or stretch beyond the boundaries of a municipality is not just a theoretical limit, but a
physical limit, cannot sustain units sitting empty waiting for the owners to visit for weeks at a
time.
Recommendation 12.7.1: Implement a vacancy and second home property tax. Vacancy
and second home laws can be seen as a type of foreign home ownership limit law,
however, it could apply more broadly. Vacancy taxes and second home taxes do not
facially discriminate against non-resident citizens or nonresident aliens. For a review of
the benefits of such a tax, see Section 12.8.6. Recent evidence suggests that in certain
highly appealing markets, vacancy and second home taxes could be economically
fruitful. Working with communities and researchers to better understand the impacts to
372
local residents should be undertaken by hosting public meetings and supporting data-
driven research.
13. IMPEDIMENTS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY MANAGERS AND REALTORS
Impediment 13.1: Realtors and property managers identified affordability as a fundamental
barrier to housing access in Hawaiʻi. These respondents identified barriers on both sides of this
issue; on the one hand, households have multiple financial barriers when attempting to qualify
for a mortgage or apply for an apartment. On the other side, the perennial shortage of housing
relative to demand means that prices are often out of reach for many families born and raised in
the state.
Recommendation 13.1.1: Accelerate efforts to increase inventory of available housing
supply. We acknowledge this is a broad objective and would direct attention to numerous
efforts at the state and local levels that offer a host of recommendations including
streamlining the permitting system, upzoning around transit and within the urban core,
and subsidy allocation toward affordable housing development.
Impediment 13.2: Challenges faced by individuals with mental health and substance abuse
issues who may participate in housing programs such as housing first vouchers may result in
landlord hostilities towards subsidized housing programs.
Recommendation 13.2.1: “Housing first” initiatives should never be “housing only” as
challenges faced by individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues may result
in landlord hostilities towards subsidized housing programs in general. Though a
concerted effort to help all individuals, regardless of barriers, sustain their housing will
certainly help landlords, it will have even more substantial impacts on renters themselves.
Consider integrating services into transitional and supportive property managing
organizations and nonprofits. State agencies, where possible, when awarding funding or
tax credits to support affordable projects should include incentives and funding for
wraparound support services.
Impediment 13.3: Some landlords and housing development professionals perceive that housing
programs on the supply side (e.g. housing credit programs) as well as the demand side (e.g.
voucher programs) involve administrative burdens and “red tape.”
Recommendation 13.3.1: Reduce administrative burdens of the housing programs,
particularly those that disincentivize enthusiastic participation from landlords. Though all
373
programs need guardrails to prevent exploitation, specific regulations tied to our current
housing programs could be reformed. Agencies may solicit public comment on specific
rules that could be streamlined. Also, different counties have had success overcoming
landlord perception that housing programs are too burdensome by creating regular
opportunities for landlords to contact housing staff by phone or through regular meetings
and landlord summits or by helping landlords overcome unfair stereotypes about housing
programs and gain familiarity with inspection and lease-up responsibilities.
Impediment 13.4: A lack of understanding exists between landlords and property managers on
differences between service animals, emotional support animals and pets, as well as the laws for
reasonable accommodation. Landlords and property managers report being suspicious of the
legitimacy of renters with service animals.
Recommendation 13.4.1: Fair housing education on service animals is needed for both
landlords and tenants, even as HUD and other fair housing groups have provided more
specific guidance on these issues in ways that attempt to benefit landlord and tenant
needs. The more landlords are informed about these issues, the more consistent they will
be about providing reasonable accommodations without feeling they are being taken
advantage of. This can continue to be a topic of discussion during the April fair housing
trainings and other ongoing landlord education initiatives.