Hawaii Senate Bill SR131

Hawaii 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/23
• Refer: 3/15/23

Caption

Requesting The Director Of Finance To Expressly Consider The Amount Of Loans With Favorable Terms That A Depository Has Issued To Developers Of Housing For Hawaii Residents When Evaluating The Beneficial Effects To The State Of Using That Depository, In Addition To The Existing Requirements To Consider Factors Such As Safety, Liquidity, And Yield Offered On Deposits.

Impact

If enacted, this resolution aims to alter the parameters under which public funds are managed, particularly concerning investments in local housing initiatives. By emphasizing the importance of loans with favorable terms, the resolution encourages financial institutions to support housing projects that are primarily available to Hawaii residents. This consideration may lead to a more favorable operating environment for developers who align with these criteria, thus potentially increasing the stock of affordable homes for residents in dire need.

Summary

Senate Resolution 131 requests the Director of Finance of Hawaii to specifically consider the volume of loans provided at favorable terms by depositaries to housing developers when evaluating their beneficial impact on the state. This resolution signifies an acknowledgment of the ongoing housing crisis in Hawaii, highlighting the urgent need for affordable housing solutions in the face of rising property values and low housing availability. It seeks to revise the criteria used by the Director to include not only the traditional factors of safety, liquidity, and yield but also the social implications of lending practices toward housing development.

Contention

While the resolution is poised to facilitate housing development, it may also result in contention regarding the interpretation of 'favorable terms.' Proponents may argue this helps tackle the housing issue, but critics could contend that it may inadequately address the need for broader housing policy reforms or unfairly favor certain developers over others. The potential for favoritism or a misallocation of public funds could inspire debate among policymakers and stakeholders in the housing and finance sectors.