Last month I received an unsolicited phone call from a former islander now living in the San Francisco Bay Area who has a background in community development and affordable housing finance. He was anxious to call my attention to the state’s proposal to redevelop the 90-acre site of the aged Aloha Stadium, building a new but smaller stadium as part of what is being called the “New Aloha Stadium Entertainment District.”
He asked that I not use his name because of some specific problems, which he explained, that would result from going public.
The bottom line, he said, is this: “The taxpayers of Hawaii are getting screwed again….It’s a land giveaway to a private developer.”
“Affordable housing should be no-brainer,” he said, and should be the top priority for the state. The fact that the state is instead pursuing a deal that would give long-term development rights to a private developer, recognizing up front that “market changes” could reasonably justify changes from what is initially proposed, is “borderline criminal.”
“Who is the state’s leadership looking out for?” he asked.
He noted how unique the Aloha Stadium situation is.
“Even in the Bay Area, we don’t have 90 acres of avialable vacant public land, where no relocations of existing tenants will be required.” It’s also important that the Halawa site has access to public transportation, and is adjacent to a rail station (in the event Honolulu’s rail system is ever actually finished).
He believes strongly that instead of the proposed hotel, offices, and market priced or luxury homes with a token nod to affordable housing requirements (as we have seen at work in Kakaako), at least 50-60 acres of the site should be set aside for new workforce RENTAL housing like that being built in many mainland cities. This would still leave room for a new stadium to be built on the site.
“This means high quality, affordable rental apartments with rents affordable to teachers, health workers, service industry workers, and young professionals who cannot afford to buy,” he said, and could also include a percentage of supportive housing to help formerly homeless vets, elderly, and small families recovering from substance abuse, domestic violence.
Land costs and financing are usually the biggest hurdles affordable housing developers in Hawaii have to overcome. Yet here is a situation in which public land is available, and the state has already ponied up $350 million in public funds in the form of $50 million in general funds, and another $300 million in general obligation bond funding.
He said working families could expect to spend 30% to 40% of their monthly budget for such workforce housing as compared to 50% or more for many who are current renters, and would enjoy quality housing as compared to 50-60 year old substandard rental housing found in many parts of McCully, Moiliili, Kalihi, and Waipahu.
And although the “entertainment district” project has been fast tracked due to the supposed “urgency” of replacing the Aloha Stadium, one of the first official pronouncements was to tell the stadium’s anchor tenant, the University of Hawaii football team, that it cannot be guaranteed any special consideration, and that the terms, conditions, and costs associated with playing in the new stadium will be up to future negotiations with the developer finally selected.
In other words, when push comes to shove, a new stadium for UH football isn’t at all a priority. It’s just been used as a cover story to get the public to acquiesce.
My caller broke it down this way.
“It’s like you hire a contractor to build a house on land that you already own, and you provide them your credit card to use,” he said. “Then, after the house is built, you learn you will have to pay rent to live in it, and your hired contractor will decide what that rent will be.”
What kind of a crazy deal is the public being saddled with here?
What’s worse, the selection of a developer is being done in secret negotiations, behind closed doors. When the public actual terms are finally revealed to the public, it’s almost certainly going to be presented as a “take it or leave it” deal. Then, once the deal is approved and we’re locked in to one developer, “it is going to be hard to rein them in.”
In essence, a private developer is going to be allowed to steal the unique stadium site away from the state and Hawaii taxpayers.
“In the SF Bay Area, public officials would be run out of town for proposing something like this,” he said.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Having the lion’s share of the property become affordable rental units is a good idea and makes a lot of sense.
. . . and as I always say, that’s why it’s not going to happen.
It seems whenever there’s a choice between a great idea and a particularly bad one, the powers-that-be tend to take the wrong road. And so often it turns out that the better option isn’t chosen, even if it’s an obvious choice.
This has to be brought up in public. And the governor has to be pushed to answer the question without the inevitable hemming and hawing.
There’s only one chance to do the right thing.
Hawaii has always had an efficient and workable system of land use and development. Big-money interests get to do what they want. High-level state and county officials get to retire wealthy. Are you saying that no longer works?
Can we/you ask Star Advertiser to do OpEd, or have Civil Beat pick up this excellent evaluation of a bad project?
So who needs to be run out of town?
Keep very VERY close tabs on the purse string holders in the legislature (Dela Cruz and Luke) as well as the usual “leadership” suspects.
Unfortunately we here CAN’T run the guilty parties out of town because we the citizens have no recourse methods for pathetically poor performing (P3!!) politicians like in California (recalls and referendums).
We have the most mediocre politicians money can buy.
So run for office.
I’m no whore with narcissism issues, thanks.
So true! Dela Cruz and Luke for years have been problem legislators with little regard for transparency or Hawaii’s precious environment. Term limits is the only way to root out entrenched horse trading politicians.
Ian,
The locals love football and want the NFL Pro Bowl back and UH playing games in Halawa again. Others want the return of big-name mega outdoor concerts. Above all, most locals want (and need) a stadium site that instills a sense of civic pride.
A hotel, mixed-used retail (I know, sell the same stuff they sell in Waikiki or Ala Moana), entertainment district, and swap meet causes a sensory overload and positive reaction to the senses for the majority of locals (self included).
Your anonymous caller raises valid points and is probably more right than wrong, but when I look at colorful and glossy press release images of potential new Oahu stadium sites, I don’t see affordable housing or good government advocates winning this battle.
On the topic of CA Bay Area housing and zoning, it’s fluid and varies by county. As you may have heard, the current governor may be recalled and replaced. Just when you think something is set in stone in California, a political earthquake hits and lawmakers are forced to start over. NIMBY’s have clout in CA too.
With our weak state government’s track record of caving to developers and allowing unlimited variances for developers, I don’t trust them in cahoots one bit.
It’s hard to not suspect that a developer came up with this whole plan in the first place and then showed goverment officials how to make it all happen for them. That’s probably what was going on with the DHHL casino plan too, but nobody even really tried to dig into it. Rather than make solid plans and implement them, Hawaii too often seems content to allow moneyed interests to do the thinking. Taxpayer-subsidized “affordable” housing has plenty of issues too, and is not necessarily a panacea. You don’t have to look far from Aloha Stadium to see that, albeit in a much older model.
All that being said, we really do have a chance to do this right. Or at least much better.
Hawaii has a proven record of snatching failure from the jaws of success. Stay tuned…
I like the dissenter’s vision. Sad that this vision is nowhere in the minds of our government and community leaders.
Your Bay Area buddy makes some good points but I’d be VERY leery of looking to that region as a model for much of anything.
SF, especially, is a snake pit of self-righteous dogma and toxic “progressive” bullying that has certainly not solved its extreme housing crunch through “affordable housing” schemes that often boil down to politically connected “nonprofit” developers relying on public money and harnessing ideological intimidation and identity politics to build little empires, which in some cases are even managed by for-profit subsidiaries.
And each year, the homeless problem seems to get even worse and more intractable.
But there’s such a need for affordable housing! How could anyone vote against another bond proposition that will provide grants to developers and career advocates for new affordable housing and “won’t raise taxes” but will just build more tax exempt structures and require repayment from the remaining tax base, thereby creating a hole that must be filled by…
No, the Bay Area has LOTS of problems, and it’s welcome to keep them.
When David Lattimer/UH states that UH has been denied any input in the project it sounds like something fishy is going on.
The NASED [stadium], new jail, n RAIL are all discussed sometimes very candidly at Aiea Neighborhood Board and Aiea Community Association meetings. State staff and consultants for these projects are usually in attendance and are very responsive to community inquires. You may get a fluffy response but Aiea is pretty adamant about getting a straight answer. If there is something that should be brought up for the community to ponder, please consider attending. Meetings are virtual and open to the public. see websites aieacommunity.org and the neighborhood board site for more info.