It suddenly dawned on me that the Advertiser has changed it’s online file system in a way that has shut off access to archived news stories.

I’m not sure when the change was made. The link to “back issues” only shows the last two months.

However, you could previously go back to any date with a URL in this format:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/year/Mon/dy/

That now delivers up an error message.

Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_STRING in /www/article on line 164

It looks like the change will also have broken the links on this site and others to any ‘Tiser stories more than two months old. I just tested a few and all return the same error message. I’m hoping that this is really an error and not an intentional break with the past. But we’ll see.

You can count me among those who will be voting “No” on the question of a constitutional convention.

In my view, there isn’t a coherent need in terms of public concerns around which a general consensus has yet formed, unlike the case in the 1970s when the ’78 Con Con was preceded by years of debate, analysis, and serious public preparation.

A reader spelled out the difference.

Our last Con Con had ground work (in spades) going for it.

Notably the Governor had appointed a Commission on Operations, Revenues and Expenditures, a clinical examination of government at the “nuts & bolts” level. This was followed by a Commission on Organization of Government that offered a realignment of State-County functions and an organizational structure for the State Executive Branch, a “macro” examination (members were appointed by the Governor, the Senate President and the House Speaker and supposedly didn’t know themselves whose appointee they were). The ’73 Temporary Commission on Statewide Environmental Planning (chaired by Bud Smyser) even provided fodder for deliberation. Nothing like this has been attempted this time around. Imagine the idea of a Con Con would have more traction now if more preparation had gone into it.

Some of those background studies that supported the work of the ’78 Con Con can be found here.

If you’re uncomfortable with the way laws are made by our semi-professional legislature, then you’re really not ready for constitutional amendments made by amateurs elected just for a con con.

One thing should be taken into account. Hawaii became a state in 1959 and it was natural and necessary that a period of legal development followed, including conventions to create and then fine tune the state constitution. Once that work was done, there hasn’t been the need to revisit most of those issues. Some amendments have been proposed by the legislature and passed by the voters, but no wholesale review has been needed.

A similar pattern can be found in opinions issued by the Attorney General. During the 1960s and ’70s, there were any AG opinions as legal interpretations were sorted out, but this number has gone down over time as fewer new issues have arisen. At least that’s my general sense from looking back at the record. Laws evolve, but the basic framework has become more settled.

Let’s see. The Advertiser has more details about a “structure” that collapsed on Gulick Street in Kalihi, first reported as the collapse of a house but later described as a makeshift addition to a house.

Two things jump out at me. First, the Advertiser reports, citing the Red Cross, that the addition “housed more than 50 people”. The Star-Bulletin, quoting a resident, reports there may have been 70 people living there.

The landlord used metal poles, cardboard, tarps and tires to build additional rooms and then rented them out, she said.

In addition, according to the Advertiser, the owner had already been cited for for several things, including litter and improper construction that didn’t meet building code. But if building inspectors were familiar with the property, didn’t they notice that it was more of a small village than a single family home?

According to land records, the area is zoned R-5, meaning that it is zoned for single family homes with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. A single family home was appropriate for this property of 5,942 square feet, and the city limits the number of unrelated individuals who can live in a home to something like eight people. How in the world could 50-70 people be there under the watchful eye of city inspectors?

The Star-Bulletin describes the collapsed area as 20×40, or 800 square feet. If there were 50-70 occupants, that means they had between 11.5 and 16 square feet of living space per person. The home is listed as having 2 full baths and 1 half bath. What were sanitary conditions for those living in the addition?

If these living conditions were not remarkable enough to draw complaints from neighbors, then obviously our housing situation is much worse than has been reported and the city has done a less than stellar job of protecting the public by enforcing the housing, building, and fire codes.

Should today’s stories at least have hinted that these were illegal rentals?

I would hope the mayor will provide assurances that there will be follow-up.

[ad name=”wide-468″]