Voters should look closely at amendments
For Honolulu voters already fatigued by this election season, the general election ballot will provide no relief. And we’re not talking about Clinton and Trump.
Perhaps the most daunting challenge voters will face are 20 proposed amendments to the Honolulu City Charter — yes-or-no questions, some straightforward, some impenetrable, culled from 154 proposals given to the Honolulu Charter Commission.
It will be tempting to skip over them. Don’t.
Tucked away in those questions are proposals for significant changes to the city’s primary governing document that will affect how Honolulu is managed for at least the next 10 years.
Voters will need to do their research. One good place to look is honoluluchartercommission.org. In the meantime, between now and the election we will offer our analysis and recommendations of some of the more important proposals.
>> Amendment No. 9: Establishes a Honolulu Zoo Fund containing a minimum of one-half of 1 percent of estimated annual real property taxes.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
This proposal addresses the major reason the zoo lost its accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums last March: A lack of consistent funding.
The zoo has long struggled with lack of resources and a revolving door of executive leadership; losing its accreditation only exacerbates the problem.
A zoo without accreditation can lose access to important resources, including the ability to breed and bring in animals from elsewhere. An organization that cares for living animals, including exotic species needing specialized treatment, can’t live hand-to-mouth.
While the fund won’t solve all the zoo’s problems, it will clear up a major one. And if the zoo can’t regain its accreditation by July 1, 2023, the fund would be repealed. Vote yes.
>> No. 15: Increases the term limit from two to three terms for the mayor and City Council; establishes a three-term limit for city prosecutor.
Right now there is no term limit for prosecutor, and the mayor and Council members are held to two four-year terms. Proponents argue that it takes longer than two terms for political leaders to overcome the learning curve and reach peak effectiveness. Continuity on major initiatives would be improved.
However, longer terms also would lead to more entrenched incumbents, supported by special interests that would gain even more influence and power over the city’s growth and development.
It’s good to shake up the leadership at Honolulu Hale on a regular basis. It’s only unfortunate that voters can’t choose to impose a term limit on the prosecutor separately. Vote no.
>> No. 13: Establishes the Grants in Aid Fund as the sole source of city-funded grants for most federal income tax-exempt nonprofit organizations.
The fund, through its advisory commission, provides grants to worthy organizations based on objective criteria that apply to all applicants.
This amendment is a good-government initiative that attempts to eliminate the dubious practice of city agencies or City Council members directing money to favored organizations while skirting the fund’s formal vetting process. The Council can still exercise its spending authority by deciding which of the commission’s recommendations to approve. But the amendment will curb the ability of government officials to promote themselves or buy political support with taxpayer money. Vote yes.
>> No. 7: Establishes an Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency as a way to promote environmentally sound practices.
Yes, the city should be promoting sustainability and stewardship of our natural resources as much as it can. However, using the City Charter to create another agency, particularly an office with no clearly defined duties, seems unwise.
City officials should be able to advance the same goals by simply incorporating the values of sustainability into their policies and planning.
Vote no.
17 responses to “Voters should look closely at amendments”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Don’t procrastinate; an American right.
Most of these amendments are requests to expand the size of our local government, which will necessitate an dramatic increase in taxes in order to pay for them. Several of them are compound questions with two or more issues written into one. They are absurd, but if you look at who is on the board, you will understand the scope of corruption here. Do your research here. These questions are written in a way that elicits the response desired by the Commission. Don’t let them increase the size of our already overblown government. We waste a fortune paying folks that don’t do a thing.
Why waste time just vote NO on all of ’em.
Yup. NO is my vote for all of them !
Typical Republican, only know how to vote “NO”, but no idea why…
Obviously you didn’t bother to read the proposed amendments before you commented. Some of them are consolidating government functions. Many of them are simply to bring the City Charter into compliance with state and federal laws that the City has to follow anyway. One amendment (#12) would reduce the size of government by requiring a review of all commissions and getting rid of those that can’t be justified. Don’t be simpleton. Read the proposed amendments and make an effort to understand what they would do before you give other people advice on how to vote.
Wow PeanutGallery, fully agree with your post. Between us, lets look at the 3rd proposal giving the Prosecutor’s Office the authority and responsibility to manage their own appropriated budget.
Why doesn’t the council just designate that same amount of money to the Zoo? Am I missing something on Amendment 9?
Perhaps funding via our property tax guarantees and substantiate the source of revenue?
Because the Council is not a reliable source of funding. The funds have to extend over a number of years, not just until next year’s Council budget.
The amendments seem written so the average voter has trouble understanding them. Was this done on purpose?
Yes
vote no on all amendments calling for the creation of a new board or office.
vote no on amendments that you don’t understand after reading more than once.
but, vote.
My son was filling out his ballot last night and it became a great opportunity for a learning moment. He was able to see how and why the proposals were written, to parse what they were actually saying and make informed decisions on them. One of his comments was “Hey dad, they’re really sneaky about the way they write these. Somebody without much education wouldn’t have any idea what they are really saying.”
Obviously you didn’t bother to read the proposed amendments before you commented. Some of them are consolidating government functions. Many of them are simply to bring the City Charter into compliance with state and federal laws that the City has to follow anyway. One amendment (#12) would reduce the size of government by requiring a review of all commissions and getting rid of those that can’t be justified. Why don’t you read the proposed amendments and make an effort to understand what they would do before you give other people advice on how to vote.
Please don’t do what I did, closed my eyes and held my nose as I voted.
Power to the People, Stick it to da Man!
Sorry, gotta go pickup rubbish along Kam Hwy.
I have problems creating special funds and then by Charter requiring a certain percentage of the budget to go to the activity. We already have enough special funds. Special funds will just force an increase in property taxes.