A quick breakdown of each Honolulu charter amendment, the case for and against, and where I landed.
Aloha,
If you've opened your ballot, you've probably noticed the back side: 20 Honolulu charter amendment questions. The charter is the city's constitution, and it only comes up for review once every ten years, so these votes stick around for a long time. I went through every question and put together a quick breakdown of each one with the case for and against, plus where I landed. My test was simple: if it costs taxpayers more, the benefit has to be worth it. Use this however it helps, and make your own call.
Each charter amendment passes if it gets more yes votes than no votes. Heads up, that's different from the two state constitutional amendments on the front of your ballot, where leaving a question blank counts the same as a no.
Ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
Steady money for local farmers and food producers, with emergency food access built in. No property tax rate increase.
Locks another half percent of property tax into a set-aside, which leaves less for roads, police and parks.
I'm all in on local farmers, but another automatic set-aside leaves less for the basics. Put it in the budget, where the Council has to defend it every year.
Honors the ʻāina, our kūpuna and Prince Kūhiō, and adds the state motto. No cost and no change to city powers.
It's symbolic only, and some prefer not to rewrite founding language.
It costs nothing, adds no new powers and reflects who we are as a community.
Brings kūpuna and cultural practitioners in early on city projects, and charter status keeps the office from disappearing between mayors. Maui approved a similar department in 2022.
Adds a new office and advisory council inside the Mayor's office, when the Mayor and Council can already create and fund this without a charter change.
I want cultural practitioners at the table on city projects. But a new office means new staff and new costs, and the Mayor and Council can already do this without a charter change.
Gives a city-level advisory voice on local issues like policing and housing.
Duplicates the LGBTQ+ Commission the state already runs under the Department of Human Services.
This is about duplication, not the community. The state already has an LGBTQ+ Commission, and taxpayers don't need to fund a second one.
The winner has to reach a majority, and supporters say it cuts down on vote splitting and negative campaigning. It wouldn't start until 2032, and only if the Legislature approves.
It's harder to follow, results come in rounds, and ballots that don't rank the finalists stop counting.
Elections should be simple enough that everyone can follow how the winner was picked.
Protects constitutional rights regardless of immigration status, matches the charter to two new state laws (Acts 141 and 161), and makes clear HPD doesn't act on immigration warrants that a judge hasn't signed.
State law already covers this, and it further limits cooperation with federal law enforcement.
Everyone's constitutional rights deserve protection, and the Legislature already passed laws on this. Adding another layer to the charter only ties HPD's hands further.
Declares more housing a compelling governmental interest. Oʻahu could need up to 24,000 more units by 2035.
It's mostly a statement, and some worry the wording could justify heavier city intervention.
It costs nothing, and more supply is how we bring prices down and keep our kids from moving to Vegas.
Loan repayments and interest go back into the fund instead of disappearing, and it allows mixed-income projects, including near rail.
Opens affordable housing dollars to households earning above 60% of area median income.
Recycling money we already have beats asking taxpayers for more.
Saves staff time and money, and supporters say these hearings draw few people and slow housing down.
Removes the hearing held in your own Council district when the city deals in land over a quarter acre.
This one saves a little money, but neighbors deserve a say on city land in their own district. One hearing is a small price for that.
Requires a housing plan updated every five years, with goals the city can be held to.
A plan without funding behind it can end up as paperwork.
A plan costs little compared to what we spend on housing, and you can't hold the city accountable without goals to measure against.
Lets nonprofits doing conservation and climate work get support from these funds.
The city already has a Grants in Aid Fund with its own rules for nonprofit grants.
Keep nonprofit grants in one accountable place, the Grants in Aid Fund.
Federal, state and private dollars could supplement property tax money.
Outside grants can come with strings attached.
If others want to chip in so taxpayers don't have to, I'm for it.
Could help save historic buildings like the Queen Theater in Kaimukī, using a fund surplus of about $50 million.
Expands the fund's mission instead of asking why it has a surplus in the first place.
A $50 million surplus tells me we may be setting aside too much property tax, not that we need new ways to spend it.
Doubles upkeep money for land acquired by the fund, from about $440,000 to roughly $880,000 a year.
It's more spending, and it should come with clear reporting.
This comes out of money already in the fund, not a new tax, and letting land we paid for fall apart would waste far more. If we bought it, we take care of it.
Puts data, privacy and AI work in the charter so a future mayor can't cut it.
The city already has a chief data officer, and this locks another office into the charter.
It's good work, but the city already has a chief data officer. We don't need another office, and its costs, locked into the charter.
Lets long-time permanent residents, many of them taxpayers, bring their expertise to city boards and commissions.
These boards make public decisions, and the seats are currently limited to citizens.
Many residents who aren't yet citizens contribute a great deal to life here, and I'm grateful for them. Still, I believe decisions about our public institutions belong with citizens, whether born here or naturalized, who have made a lasting commitment to this community.
Boards with empty seats can still take action. Neighborhood Boards aren't affected.
A smaller group of members could end up making decisions.
No cost, and it's a common sense fix so boards with empty seats can still do their jobs.
Matches the other three counties and other cabinet positions in Honolulu.
Turns a civil service job into a political appointment.
No new cost, and it brings Honolulu in line with the other counties.
Gives the once-a-decade Charter Commission the administrative help it currently lacks.
Adds to the Clerk's workload.
Simple housekeeping using staff we already have.
Applies the same two-year ban that already follows a recall.
Some would say voters should get to decide for themselves.
If you get impeached, you sit out. We already have the same rule for recalls.
Mahalo for reading, and mahalo for voting. If you have questions about any of these, email me at joe@joegedeon.com.
Joe
See My Priorities