Relating To Affordable Housing.
The implications of SB869 on state laws include a significant alteration in how historic property reviews are conducted in relation to affordable housing projects. By introducing the requirement for third-party reviews, the bill aims to expedite the timeframes for development approvals, potentially increasing the supply of affordable housing units in the state. This is particularly critical in light of findings that a substantial number of residents are at risk of homelessness due to economic pressures intensified by the pandemic, thereby necessitating urgent legislative action.
Senate Bill 869 aims to address the pressing affordable housing crisis in Hawaii, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill mandates that the Department of Land and Natural Resources, specifically the State Historic Preservation Division, contract third-party consultants to review proposed state projects and other developments affecting historic properties if the projects are intended for affordable housing and the department cannot complete its review within 60 days. This is a response to the significant rise in unemployment and housing cost burdens in Hawaii, particularly among vulnerable populations during the pandemic, indicating an urgent need for effective solutions to the housing crisis.
The general sentiment surrounding SB869 appears supportive, especially among proponents who acknowledge the need for rapid development of affordable housing in the context of a historical economic downturn. However, there may be concerns about how this expedited process might impact the preservation of historic properties, which are also important to many stakeholders. A balance must be struck between the urgency of creating affordable housing and the responsibilities of preserving Hawaii’s historical and cultural heritage.
Notable points of contention may arise regarding the effectiveness of third-party consultants in preserving historic properties while facilitating the development of affordable housing. Critics may argue that the expedited review process could undermine careful assessment of historic significance and protection measures. Additionally, there may be concerns from historical preservation advocates about the potential for increased development pressure on sensitive sites, challenging the state's ability to maintain its historic character amidst growing housing demands.