Unlike a certain candidate for president, we are doing our homework for the upcoming election and we start with the 20 questions on the ballot regarding the
Honolulu City Charter.
Get back in your seat; it’s not that bad.
There are questions about changing the charter to decide who should be able to fire the chief of
police, how much the city should worry about climate change, and if you really want to pay for the zoo.
Yes, all important questions, but perhaps the two big sleepers are Charter Amendments 4 and 15, the ones about rail and term limits.
Amendment 4 is tough because it asks you to ponder something that has probably not come up in your dinner conversation: “Should a unified multi-modal transportation system be created … ?”
That question about having a plan to put rail and buses and other city transit services under one roof has two important parts.
First, someday the Honolulu rail line is going to be finished and it is going to charge you to ride it — and the folks in that multi-modal transportation system will decide how much you will pay.
Essentially the city’s Transportation Department would be responsible for operation and maintenance of the bus, paratransit and rail.
Second, the existing
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) would still be running the show with building rail, especially the suggested plans for expansion.
Colleen Hanabusa, HART chairwoman, said in an interview that this plan has benefits.
“If this is to be an intermodal system — you can go from bus to rail to bus, etc. — then you need one entity doing the whole system. And City Council will then hold hearings on the fares and so forth,” Hanabusa said, adding that if the charter is not changed, there will still be confusion over whether HART or the city is actually running the rail line.
A rate commission, according to the charter amendment, would be created to review charges, but in the end it would be a question for the elected City Council.
The alternative leaves the public with no place to go to protest rail ticket prices, or how come the stations are dirty or unsafe, or the trains are late and the air conditioning is broken.
The second big question is: Should the mayor, Council and prosecutor be allowed to have three consecutive terms instead of the current limit of two?
Other elected executives are limited to two terms. The state Legislature, however, is free of any term limits, although the issue keeps coming up.
Critics of the current system say it would be treacherous to limit Council terms to two. There is not enough time to build a political base, they say. In other words, your first term in office is all about figuring out how to run for reelection and then as soon as you win reelection, you are finished, you are a lame duck.
The obvious other side is that two terms gives you plenty of time to set in motion new plans and programs and push them forward. Then you leave and go on to something else.
Today’s City Council is filled with former state legislators, and there are several former Council mem-
bers now in the Legislature.
There is much truth to saying that giving mayors and Council members more terms does not build stability, as it creates an invulnerable political class.
As for us, class
dismissed.
Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.
