Office of Housing: Take 2
Affordable housing is a hot-button issue this election season.
The Honolulu City Council on the Nov. 2 ballot is offering one way to take on the problem — restore the Office of Housing that was eliminated after a corruption scandal in the late ’90s.
The sixth of six charter amendment questions asks: “Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to create an office of housing directly under the mayor, to be headed by an administrator who shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to council confirmation, and who may be removed by the mayor?”
The office would deal with the impact of the city’s high housing prices on homelessness and special needs populations. New Mayor Peter Carlisle doesn’t buy the idea, but Council Chair Todd Apo says it’s needed to fill gaps in service to populations in need.
The of a single-family home in Honolulu was about $622,000 in the second quarter of 2010 – a similar-sized city, San Diego, averaged $393,000.
In 2009, the average cost of a home in the United States was $270,900, according to the , a full $351,000 less than Honolulu.
Until December, 1997, the city had a Department of Housing and Community Development, which performed essentially the same duties proposed for the new office. But, due to corruption from within, it was dismantled and its services meshed into the city Finance Department.
In October, 1997, Housing officials Michael Kahapea and Norman Tam were both arrested on charges that they gave housing relocation contracts to family and friends. Tam was charged on 31 corruption counts but died of a heart attack before he faced a trial.
Later, Kahapea was on 43 counts, including theft, money laundering and forgery. He used his position as Honolulu’s relocation expert, to divert $5.8 million from the Ewa Villages community relocation fund into accounts he had access to through accomplices. He received a 50-year sentence.
Kahapea and Tam were the last members of Honolulu’s previous Department of Housing and Community Development in what, at the time, was the “biggest theft of city funds ever,” according to the .
So what exactly would this new office entail and what does it mean for the average voter?
The proposed Office of Housing is a means to combat Honolulu’s housing crisis, according to , drafted by the Honolulu City Council in support of the amendment.
The council cites as evidence of the need for an Office of Housing:
- increasing costs to own and rent homes in Honolulu
- growing numbers of homeless
- a lack of a central agency to field concerns for affordable housing advocates
- the fact that every other county in the state has a similar entity
If approved, the office would be headed by an executive with a minimum of three years experience in the administration of housing programs or advocacy on behalf of the homeless and special needs populations. The executive would be hand-picked by the mayor, who would also have the authority to remove his appointee.
Council Chair Apo told Civil Beat that an Office of Housing would employ two individuals with broad authority who would work in conjunction with the . The OCS is a state agency that assists “Hawaii’s low-income, immigrant and refugee populations to overcome and eliminate workforce barriers to economic self-sufficiency via an array of community-based programs and services,” according to its website.
The Office of Community Services competes for federal and state grants and awards, which it uses primarily to deal with employment and welfare issues. Apo says that the creation of an Office of Housing would fill in any gaps in service that the OCS can’t currently fulfill. The Community Services department, Apo indicated, is stretched thin.
The budget for an Office of Housing would not be substantial, Apo told Civil Beat. According to the drafted for fiscal year 2011, an Office of Housing would need $123,876 for salaries for the two full-time positions. The figure did not include supplies, overhead, etc.
The full cost to the taxpayer, Apo estimated, would be closer to $150,000 per year.
The mayor, on the other hand, says that an Office of Housing would be an unnecessary expense that would strain a city budget with little wiggle-room.
On Oct. 26, Civil Beat reported that Carlisle’s position on the amendment was: “No.”
“The mayor’s position is ‘No’ and here’s why,” said Jim Fulton, Carlisle’s executive assistant. “The city department of community services already handles housing issues. Creating another office would be a costly restructure for the city and would subject the issue of housing to the changing tides of politics.”
