A better Kaua‘i

Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura’s piece titled “An in-depth look at the Ohana Charter Amendment” that ran yesterday on this page seeks to explain why she opposed the measure.

While she is to be commended for offering her views, her article fails its mission as she omits setting forth the circumstances giving rise to the amendment, misstates the problem and makes inaccurate statements and unjustified assumptions. The following comments are offered to provide a response more in keeping with the realities.

On Kaua‘i, real property taxes comprise the principal revenue source for the county government. These taxes are based on the value of the property. Beginning about the year 2000, property values began a sharp climb. So also did county government spending. In the past six years, expenditures have more than doubled, necessitating a corresponding increase in the property tax burden to finance them. In 2003, when the Ohana concepts were initiated, these conditions were clearly evident. Yukimura suggests that the problem was that assessments, and thus taxes, were skyrocketing. This is fallacious reasoning. Taxes are levied to pay government costs. If government costs were not rising, tax revenues would not have to be increased. The rise in assessments related to increased property values could and should, in that case, be offset by a reduction in tax rates.

The great majority of the properties owned and occupied by citizens as their residences are in the Homestead Class, one of eight classes under the property tax law, but some are in other categories. These “homeowner” properties comprise about one-third of the assessed value of Kaua‘i properties, but due to historic policies, including lower rates and exemptions, contribute less than 20 percent of property tax revenues. When taxes began to soar after 2000, our resident owners felt a serious impact. The fact that their homes may have increased in value did not improve their ability to pay higher taxes. In early 2003, the Ohana group formed and developed a plan to protect homeowners from rapidly rising property taxes by stabilizing taxes and limiting tax increases after 2004 at 2 percent per annum. These concepts were shared with each member of the council, and all were urged to consider them. When after many months it became clear that they would not be favorably considered by the council, the Ohana group circulated petitions among our citizens proposing a charter amendment to implement the plan. The measure was submitted to the voters in the November 2004 election and adopted by a nearly two to one majority.

The Yukimura column raises three so-called problems with the charter amendment. She says that the charter is not the right place to set policy for one category of real property. Her contention is not based on the law as there is absolutely no provision in the charter that specifies what the charter may provide. The Ohana proposal was duly presented to county authorities as a measure to be submitted to voters as a charter amendment and it was duly approved by the county clerk and the county attorney as provided by law. If her contention had validity, it should have been raised before the proposal was submitted for citizen vote. She argues that the subject of the Ohana amendment is homeowner property and that it makes one kind of property harder to change than other categories. Her contention is inaccurate. The Ohana measure deals with taxation of property owned by residents and used as a home. It specifies a limit on the tax amount which may apply to such owners. It does not specify or change the category of any property.

She offers the scaremongering point that an emergency may occur, reducing assessments and necessitating a change. Firstly, the Ohana measure is not geared to assessments, but rather taxes. Secondly, it needs to be noted that the Ohana amendment relates to less than 20 percent of the tax base and then only to impose a tax limit. If changing circumstances require a change in the law, just as the voters adopted it they may amend it. She calls this process unwieldy, but it is not really much different than waiting for the seemingly endless deliberations of our council.

She then states that the Ohana measure may be unconstitutional and that as council members sworn to uphold the law, they needed to find out its legality. So the county, in a weird proceeding, challenged the duly adopted law. The charter imposes no such duty on county officials. The action by the county was nearly unique. In the vast majority of instances challenges to the validity of a law are raised by private parties — not the body whose voters enacted the law. The matter of the constitutionality of the law and the county’s standing to challenge it is before the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, whose ruling may occur at any time.

Finally, she contends that the charter amendment process does not permit the public input occurring in the council ordinance process. The two processes are different. With an ordinance public input may be greater in its formulation, but the public has no voice in its adoption. In a charter amendment by petitions from the public, its terms are typically set before the petitions are circulated, but the public has final voice as to its adoption. Whether there is a meaningful point here is not clear.

In the course of making her comments, Yukimura discusses action by the council to give relief to home-owners “while a more comprehensive package was being developed.” She notes that the council “interim” measures include a component of the Ohana measure, i.e. the 2 percent increase cap and that this provision “may become permanent.” Don’t be misled. This ordinance was only enacted because of the lawsuit filed by the county that blocked the implementation of the Ohana measure. She also seeks credit for adoption of a measure capping increases at 6 percent for affordable rentals. This may be a desirable law, but it does not aid homeowners. Yukimura says that the council did not adopt the rollback provision of the Ohana measure because the county was advised such a provision could adversely affect the county’s bond rating. The sponsors of the Ohana amendment were advised to the contrary, but the people were never given the choice whether they would prefer the rollback or the risk of a changed bond rating. So much for the council providing input to the public.

This is written with the sincere conviction that citizens of the county are entitled in a democracy to determine how they wish to be governed, and that in furtherance of that privilege and purpose, the Ohana measure was adopted in good faith. The foregoing comments are not intended to be personal recriminations as to Yukimura, whom I respect, but rather to point out the frailties of the arguments against the Ohana law and the substantial benefits to our citizens that will arise when it is implemented.

• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.