Relating To The Hawaii Housing Finance And Development Corporation.
Should SB2064 be enacted, its most significant impact would be the establishment of a mandatory process where state departments or agencies would need to notify the HHFDC of proposed developments or transfers of property, giving the Corporation an opportunity to claim those projects. This could promote more effective use of state lands for development, especially in areas identified for transit-oriented growth, thereby potentially combatting housing shortages in Hawaii. However, it will notably exclude certain lands, such as those under the Hawaii Public Housing Authority.
Senate Bill 2064 seeks to amend Chapter 201H of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, granting the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) the right of first refusal for the development of state lands. This applies specifically to lands within county-designated transit-oriented development zones or those within a one-half mile radius of proposed or existing transit stations. The intention is to facilitate more coordinated and potentially expedited housing development projects that align with transit infrastructure, thereby supporting growth in strategically important areas.
The initial sentiment surrounding the bill appears positive, particularly among those advocating for targeted housing development and efficient use of land resources. Supporters believe it will streamline development processes by consolidating decision-making and support state efforts to increase housing availability. However, there might be reservations from local governments and organizations concerned about over-centralization and the implications for local control over development in their communities.
Potential points of contention include concerns about the exclusion of lands owned by agencies like the Hawaii public housing authority, which some believe could limit the overall effectiveness of the bill. Additionally, there could be debates on how the right of first refusal might affect competition among developers and whether it adequately addresses community needs or the nuances of local planning preferences. This aspect could lead to a larger discussion about the balance between state oversight and local empowerment in guiding housing development.