Monthly Archives: June 2009

Tuesday…Back to the city after nearly two decades, transit funding catch, behavioral economics, and a few more old photos

Well, I’m going back to work, at least for a while. City Council Member Duke Bainum called last week and asked if I would be interested in filling in temporarily for a staffer who has had to return to the mainland. I worked at the council as senior advisor to then-councilmember Neil Abercrombie from 1988-1990, so it’s been quite a while since I made Honolulu Hale my home-away-from-home. The chance to see how things have changed in the way the council does its business piqued my interest and so I said yes. And, after very quick preliminaries, I’m starting today.

I did provide fair warning that I’ll be blogging through the experience, following the same informal approach I did while working at the legislature. That is, public (or non-confidential) events, documents, procedures, rules, insider perspectives and debates are fair game for blogging. Confidential matters remain off limits, except perhaps indirectly.

In any case, I trust that it’s going to be interesting.

Meanwhile, I may have understated the funding issue that the city council has to deal with tomorrow.

On Sunday, I wrote:

Here’s another somewhat overlooked point. Mayor Hannemann has proposed beginning construction even before the federal environmental impact assessment process has been completed and well before there’s any commitment of federal funding.

This means that for now, at least, the rail is being entirely funded by the city. To do this, Hannemann proposes a billion-dollars of general obligation bonds. As I understand it, once the city goes ahead in this manner, this phase of the project will not be eligible for retroactive federal funding.

Some believe the mayor is bullying ahead in this way to end run the environmental process by awarding the first contracts and locking in his particular choice of technology without waiting for the results of the city’s environmental review. If federal dollars aren’t involved, he doesn’t have to wait for the process to be completed because it doesn’t apply to city-funded projects.

That prompted this email response from a prominent backer of a more flexible and less expensive rail technology than the mayor has chosen:

I wanted to comment that I believe if the Mayor awards any of the contracts related to the Honolulu transit – before the final Record of Decision (by the Federal Transit Administration), we will not be eligible for any New Starts funding for the project. Such a move would jeopardize the entire project should the city move ahead and start with their own funding – before the final EIS is approved and subsequent ROD is favorably issued.

I spoke to the FTA region 9 the other week, and he confirmed that the ROD is key before the city can begin construction.

This was further clarified by another person tracking the process, who said that in order to be eligible for future federal funding, the city cannot begin construction before either the Record of Decision or a “Letter of No Prejudice” is issued, essentially providing a waiver of the ROD requirement.

This funding issue is further complicated by the fact that Honolulu, at best, is likely to see only a very small percentage of the overall cost of the mayor’s transit system paid with federal dollars. While many systems have qualified for nearly 50 percent federal funding, Honolulu is looking at something closer to 10 percent, in part because of the inefficiencies of the mayor’s proposed all-elevated technology.

In any case, the tomorrow’s City Council meeting is where these issues all come to a head.

We were listening to NPR’s All Things Considered on the drive home yesterday afternoon and happened to catch an excellent segment describing the development of “behavioral economics”. It provides an excellent intro to this important approach to the world.

[text]I found a few more photos of my parents which appear to be from the period around 1939-40, when they were newly married. I’m not sure where this photo was taken, but it shows my parents and my mother’s dog, Kiki, who appears in a couple of other photos as well. Just click on this photo to see the others in this little gallery.

Looking at this photo again, it looks a lot like the area at the entry to Miller Hall at the UH Manoa Campus, looking back to the railing that runs along the sidewalk surrounding Varney Circle. But then it could be any number of other similar spots, I suppose.

I was struck by the picture of a party with a pig roasting over an open fire. It looks so old, from such a different era, that I thought it couldn’t have been from the same era as my parents. Then I noticed that one of the men is holding Kiki in his lap. Without a doubt, she places the photo! I just sent these over to my sister and I’m hoping my mother will be able to tell the stories behind the photos. More to follow.

Monday…Adventures in permitting, island-style

We had lunch with a couple of friends yesterday and they told this tale of governmental insanity. And, really, you just can’t make this kind of stuff up.

Back in early 2003, they were the proud new owners of a small vacant lot in Kaaawa and decided to move an older home onto the property and renovate it.

So it was off to the city Department of Planning and Permitting for a building permit.

The clerk looked up the property in the city’s computer system.

“Oh, we can’t issue a permit.”

“Why not?” our friend asks. “It’s zoned for a single family home.”

“But there’s already a house, and you can only have one,” the clerk replied.

“No,” our friend says. “It’s a vacant lot. We just bought it, and there’s no house. There’s no sign of a house being there.”

The clerk: “Well, it shows here that there’s a house, and someone has been paying property taxes on the house for years, so we know there’s a house. You’ll have to demolish it before you can get a building permit.”

Our friend: “So we have to demolish the house that doesn’t exist?”

Simple answer. “Yes”.

So he asks for information on a permit to demolish the house that isn’t there. Turns out it’s not a straight-forward thing.

The clerk: “To get a building permit to demolish the house, you first have to get a permit from the Department of Health.”

So it was off to the Department of Health, where our friends were told that in order to demolish the house that didn’t exist, the law required that they hire an exterminator to prevent rats living in the building from escaping to neighboring homes during the demolition.

“But there isn’t any building, and there really isn’t going to be any demolition,” our friends pleaded.

Apparently it didn’t matter. They needed the DOH permit in order to then get the go-ahead from the city. DOH required our friends to pay a permit fee AND hire a licensed exterminator to control rodents expected to flee from the house that didn’t exist as it was (or wasn’t) being torn down.

Okay. It was getting crazier and our friends were getting frantic. So the proceeded, reluctantly and under protest, paid an exterminator to essentially do nothing. That allowed the Health Department to issue their demolition permit.

Then it was back to the city to show proof of the DOH permit and get the permit to demolish the house that wasn’t.

Finally, with their permits in hand, our friends immediately asked how soon a building inspector could come and inspect the “demolition” so that they could proceed with moving their “new” house to the property.

The clerk (not sure if it was the same one): “Oh, no need for an inspection. You said there isn’t any building, and we believe you. Actually, there hasn’t been a house there for years.”

City online records confirm that a permit was issued for demolition. It contains this note: “HOUSE DEMO’D IN 1980’S BY PREVIOUS OWNER W/OUT A PERMIT.”

Then, to add insult to injury, the records indicate that the city rejected our friends’ estimate that the “demolition” of the house that didn’t exist would cost $500, and instead set the value at $5,000, presumably causing the permit fee to go up as well.

Welcome to Honolulu!