Hawaii House Bill HCR89

Hawaii 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/7/24
• Refer: 3/13/24
• Report Pass: 3/27/24
• Report Pass: 4/4/24
• Refer: 3/27/24
• Refer: 4/5/24
• Engrossed: 4/4/24

Caption

Urging The Director Of Finance To Adopt Administrative Rules To Define "beneficial Effects To The State" In Section 38-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, To Include The Financing Of Housing.

Impact

By urging a redefinition of beneficial effects to include housing financing, HCR89 could significantly influence how state funds are allocated to support housing development. This change would incentivize depositories to provide loans at favorable terms to developers, thereby reducing overall development costs. Such financial measures are aimed at expanding the inventory of affordable housing options available to residents of Hawaii, thereby addressing ongoing housing supply concerns.

Summary

HCR89 is a House Concurrent Resolution from Hawaii urging the Director of Finance to adopt administrative rules that redefine 'beneficial effects to the State' in section 38-2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The primary intent of the resolution is to include the financing of housing within this definition, addressing the critical housing shortage faced by the State. The proponents believe that expanding financing options will lead to an increase in available housing, thus benefiting the public trust represented by the State's public treasury.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HCR89 appears to be supportive, as it addresses a pressing issue in Hawaii—the limited supply of housing. The resolution is poised to foster collaboration between state financial institutions and housing developers, emphasizing a proactive approach to managing the public treasury. However, while support seems widespread, there may also be concerns regarding the implementation and oversight of any resultant financing mechanisms to ensure that they effectively serve the local community's needs.

Contention

While HCR89 itself does not appear to face strong opposition, the implementation of the proposed financial measures could generate discussions concerning resource allocation and potential favoritism towards particular developers or financing entities. The balance between public benefit and the interests of private developers will be a significant point of contention that may arise as the resolution moves forward and as the Director of Finance considers the proposed changes.