September 28, 2009
The Honorable Jay Yoshimoto
and members of the County Council
County of Hawai‘i
Hilo, HI 9672
Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members:
I am returning without my approval Bill 103, “An Ordinance amending Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 5-1.0.8, and Chapter 21, Article 2, Section 21-5 of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended), relating to the use of a tent or a structure of similar type as a temporary residence while constructing a permanent dwelling unit.”
I find this bill objectionable for the following reasons:
- It does not apply equal protection of the law to all citizens of the County of Hawai‘i.
- It fails to state why only one district of Hawai‘i County would be subject to this bill.
- It unfairly stigmatizes the District of Puna.
- It could have adverse affects on neighboring properties.
- It sets precedent for more laws written only for certain districts of the county.
Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida advised during your discussions of the bill that potential legal challenges could be addressed with a preamble to the bill explaining the compelling government interest with respect to the Puna District’s unique needs. However, Bill 103 does not include a preamble or other explanation for the need to single out the Puna District in this bill.
Since you passed Bill 103 on September 2, 2009, my office has heard from current Puna homeowners concerned about the county’s ability to enforce the bill and its potential for adverse effects, including declining property values and poor sanitation. They also ask why they would be subject to these potentially adverse effects but not their neighbors in other county districts.
Conversely, I have heard from county residents who do not live in Puna but who desire to live on their property legally while building a home. Yet, they would not have the same opportunity as Puna residents would have under Bill 130.
Because of the disparate treatment of county residents under this bill, it could be challenged in court and I would not want to spend County resources to defend it.
I understand the bill includes a three-year sunset provision that would serve to evaluate its effectiveness in Puna. However the bill can only be evaluated effectively for the Island of Hawai‘i if the pilot program is applied island-wide. If the pilot program is good for Puna, it should be good for all of Hawai‘i County. If not, no district should be subject to the bill.
I am unaware of any other Hawai‘i County ordinance that applies to residents of only one district. Thus, this bill would set precedent for new proposals that would apply only to certain districts or combinations of districts, creating an unwieldy collection of laws that would be difficult to manage and enforce.
Over the years I have been to Puna many times to speak at schools. In those visits I try to instill in our young people a sense of pride in their community. I ask them to strive for excellence in their lives, to encourage them to work hard to achieve their goals and dreams, and to help make Puna a better place to live for themselves, their families and their community. This bill would counter that positive message by suggesting that a lower standard is OK for Puna. We must set a uniform standard of law for our island that does not suggest that any district is better or worse than any other.
Thank you for the time and attention you have given to this important county issue.
For the reasons stated above, I must respectfully veto this bill.
BILLY KENOI
MAYOR
