Genshiro Kawamoto, the wealthy investor who owns a string of valuable properties that he’s kept in various stages of disrepair, has become a veritable thorn in the sides of city officials, who have not yet found the right instrument to extract it.

It’s his holdings in Kahala that have drawn the most attention, with complaints from residents that overgrown, vandalized and vacant properties have begun to blight an area famous for its multimillion-dollar homes.

City officials have been industrious about collecting the fines allowed under the law; after a recent $3,000 payment to the Department of Planning and Permitting for violations on three properties, the total assessment has amounted to $38,000.

However, the city could benefit from the addition of more powerful tools to its enforcement toolkit, though it’s critical that new policies aimed at addressing this situation be crafted so they don’t unduly penalize people who cause a less serious problem.

Attorney Richard Turbin, a neighbor of one weedy Kawamoto parcel, has led the charge against the billionaire’s violations for years. At least one of his proposals, if enacted, would bring unwanted consequences. Turbin has suggested that the city increase the daily fine being assessed from $50 to $500, but that would be unduly punitive when applied to more conventional offenders, those who lack a Kawamoto-sized bank account.

But Turbin is right that the city needs to find some way to ratchet up its penalties, and that other municipalities could provide a lesson.

Sacramento, for example, enacted an ordinance five years ago sharpening its regulation of vacant buildings and their upkeep. Among other initiatives, the city now cracks down on those who own multiple buildings and fail to maintain them, imposing higher administrative penalties.

That description of the problem and its solution could fit Honolulu’s circumstances as neatly as it does in California’s capital. Multiple properties allowed to go to seed in the same area represent a challenge of a much higher magnitude than an isolated case of a negligent landlord, and merits harsher penalties.

City Councilman Stanley Chang said the city Department of Planning and Permitting has been pursuing a different strategy, placing a lien on offending properties, that seems to be drawing a speedier response.

Further, some critics believe a complaint in civil court would be effective, if sizeable damages could be won to help finance further corrections. There is some precedent for this, in earlier suits against homeowners who violate deed covenants.

In addition, legislation seeking to provide another route for legal actions came close to passage last session and should be refined and resubmitted when lawmakers head back to the Capitol in January.

House Bill 2852 would have created a cause of action against "any person who maintains a property nuisance on residential property that causes industry or damage to the person or property of another person."

Its sponsor, state Rep. Mark Hashem, said it would target repeat offenders whose properties pose a threat to the community, which would be a good plan.

Some say the costs of private legal action, in time and treasure, are impediments. While that’s true, and while government regulators clearly have the dominant role to play, having multiple options available is preferable, especially with an intractable problem like Kawamoto represents.