HILO — Depending on whom you ask, the single local amendment on the Big Island’s general election ballot will either do nothing or quite a lot. ADVERTISING HILO — Depending on whom you ask, the single local amendment on the
HILO — Depending on whom you ask, the single local amendment on the Big Island’s general election ballot will either do nothing or quite a lot.
The amendment changes language in the county charter, the county’s governing document. It would broaden the scope of the General Plan, the document that dictates what can be developed, where.
Two other amendments on the ballot would change the state constitution, one by reducing the need for a jury trial and another by expanding allowable uses for budget surpluses.
The amendments are on the ballot for the Nov. 8 general election. Early voting starts Tuesday at four Hawaii County locations: Aupuni Center Conference Room in Hilo, West Hawaii Civic Center Community Room (Building G) in Kailua-Kona, Waimea Community Center and Pahala Community Center.
The county General Plan currently sets policy for “the long-range comprehensive physical development of the county.” New language would add long-range policy for matters related to the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural well-being of the county and expand matters promoted by the General Plan to include the health of the people of the county.
“Socio-cultural,” sometimes used in planner-speak, includes customs, lifestyles and values that characterize a society, for example, religion, attitudes, economic status, class, language, politics and law. An example would be homelessness, said Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille, the amendment sponsor.
Amending the charter with these words won’t really do anything, according to Planning Director Duane Kanuha, because county leaders already take environmental, health and socio-cultural well-being into account in their planning decisions.
Kanuha called the language a compromise coming after he met with Wille. The councilwoman originally wanted to put so much more in the General Plan, he said, but he “talked her down.”
“Even though it’s not spelled out, by default we look at those things anyway,” Kanuha said Thursday.
Wille disagrees. Even without enabling legislation, the change to the charter will force county leader to be more proactive in addressing issues in addition to physical infrastructure when deciding new development, she said.
“It’s somewhat philosophical,” Wille said, “but it will allow us to take more time upfront to identify our cultural assets and our environmental assets.”
The local amendment is not the only amendment that experts say will make little, if any, difference.
A proposed amendment to the state constitution will allow two new uses for budget surpluses: prepayment of bond debt and prepayment of employee pensions and post-retirement benefits. The state Legislature decides where the money will be spent.
But the state already pretty much spends the money how it wants, according to Thomas Yamachika, president of the nonprofit Tax Foundation of Hawaii.
“With the language the way it is now, they get around it anyway,” Yamachika said. “It was a good thought, but in practice, it really doesn’t do much.”
Until 2010, the constitution required state government to give refunds when there was a 5 percent or more budget surplus for two consecutive years. Sometimes that meant the state sent out $1 checks to each taxpayer.
After a 2010 constitutional amendment passed, the state could choose between the refunds and depositing the money in special “rainy day,” or budget reserve accounts.
Five percent of the current budget is about a $250 million surplus. Gov. David Ige last month announced the state had a record $1 billion left over for the fiscal year that ended June 30.
But Wesley Machida, director of the state Department of Budget and Finance, has concerns with expanding the allowed uses for what is known as “excess revenues.” He worries it will dilute savings and deposits into the rainy day fund, he said in Feb. 11 testimony to the Legislature.
The second proposed constitutional amendment will raise the value in dispute in a civil lawsuit in order to get a jury trial from $5,000 to $10,000. Proponents say it will lessen the burden on circuit courts for matters not involving large sums of money. It will also improve access to justice, because bench trials at district courts cost less and dispose of matters more quickly.
State Farm Insurance opposes the measure because the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right, representative Rick Tsujimura told the Legislature in Jan. 30 testimony.
“Our system of justice is based on the notion that the ordinary people that make up a jury are best able to hear the evidence and come to a reasonable decision based on their everyday experiences,” Tsujimura said. “This is no less true in cases where the amount in controversy is less than $5,000.”
