Re: Future of Hawaii: For rich only?


On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:

ok...one last try.  The one thing good about banging
your head against a solid brick wall, they say, is
when you stop.


I'm enjoying this conversation. Lawrence, I think you
do this to yourself. Your comments below are confusing
and complicated but I'll try to respond as best as I
can.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135950904-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

**********

Yes. It's kind of difficult to respond if you don't
make clear your objection. Here, rather than land
development, you just don't seem to like Democrats. I
don't think that we are discussing the same party at
the present time. We are comparing different historical
contexts here.


heck...I'd make the same points if the Republicans
were in power for over 40 years and the status quo
were much the same.  The point is not the party in
and of itself, but the fact that this one party -
whichever and whatever it is/was - had control at the
state level for 40 years...and this problem of some
much land owned by so few entities still remains
today.  And this despite some rather vigorous
campaigning over the very issue as I recall from the
late 50's, very early 60's.


I don't remember it that way. The main concern was with
what would happen when the plantations closed down.
Would prime agricultural land be covered by urban
sprawl? There was also fear that the large landowners
and the Big 5 had undue influence in local politics.

Why would the Democrat Party or any party for that
matter want to take land away from large landowners?
If this is what you claim the party has been trying to
do, then obviously this is making up things and it
explains why Hawaii land is still owned by large
landowners.

And you still haven't explained why the large
landowners are a problem themselves? I'll read on.

Which raises the question: if a) indeed you don't
disagree with those two points and b) those two
points are what you clipped out...then exactly what
is it in your clip that you charge me with making up?


This kind of comment is like guessing what I am trying
to say. It works no better than me guessing what you
have to say.

Alvin - do all of us (and especially me) a favor.
This is the third time you've charged me with making
things up...basically calling me a liar.  Be more
specific in that which you charge me with making
things up, will you?  It is disconcerting to respond


I have a comment above that will clarify things.

Then why bring the counties into this discussion in
the first place? Sorry...my issue is not that of
more people in the islands than water resources can
provide.  Neither is it existence or non-existence
of land development and water use controls.  My
issue is why still - after some 40 years - is so
much of Hawaii's land owned by so few entities?

And why is that a problem? 

Well, if you accept the status quo of so much of
Hawaii's land owned by so few entities, then you - in
my judgement - really are not in position to complain
about the high cost of housing there.  As per
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
navby=case&court=us&vol=467&page=229 :

"In the mid-1960's, after extensive hearings, the
Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the State
and Federal Governments owned almost 49% of the
State's land, another 47% was in the hands of only 72
private landowners. See Brief for the Hou Hawaiians


The legislature is way off base here, because there is
a lot of govt land, and actually an active market for
buyers already in the market. For example, a second
time buyer taking the profit from a fixer-upper could
buy a more expensive home, because of the huge increase
in the equity of his first home. The govt tried to
build some tennement housing on govt land to meet the
demand for low income housing. This was a spectacular
failure, and subsequent housing of this type was on a
smaller more human scale-- and successfull.

There was a lot of expensive housing built, so the city
and state set rules in place to require moderate income
housing for first time buyers. This was successfull and
freed up a lot of housing for low income people. These
programs continued until there was a glut of housing
and a falling market.

If you believe everything your read then you might
conclude that the legislature intended to take land
away from large landowners. But that isn't what happen
historically.

I am confused here. Because I never mentioned the
above, and I don't know why you have such a concern.


whoa horsie...you are the one who made the statement:
"This period saw the establishment of a lot of state
controls on land developmen and water use. Since we
are islands, it isn't advisable to plant more people
here than water resources can provide" .  Go read
your 12/28 post again...carefully and thoroughly.


The above addresses the state controls to preserve ag
land. I still don't know why you think it has anything
to say about large landowners.

My concern vis a vis so few large landowners owning
so much private lands in the islands has been
constant on my part in this thread because I do
believe that there is a relationship between the
housing prices in Hawaii and this issue.


Baloney. Developers can build lower cost homes. It just
eats into their profit margin. They'd rather maximise
their profit. They complain about state review of their
building projects, and later public review, but that's
their own fault for ignoring past public concerns and
overbuilding. I think that the legislature needs to
restart these programs for building moderate income
housing now that the cost of housing is so high. The
City needs to restart these programs too.

And your responses don't seem to related to Hawaii
history.


So you sweep 40 years - 1962-2002 - of Democratic
rule of the Hawaiian state government away just like
that?  Forty years which lead up to today's situation
where so much private land still remains in so few
hands? And you don't see the connection between that
issue and the high housing prices in Hawaii?  yeesh!
Good ting I no talk on this mattah no more.


You still need to make the point on the connection. It
doesn't wash. No one accepts that. In the past,
moderate income housing has been built despite high
housing prices. Developers have had a smaller but still
great profit margin. But the public has benefited with
better quality and planning of housing.

--alvin

.

Relevant Pages

  • papist multi$million nincompoops housing deceptions exposed
    ... "LOWERING land cost as a way to reduce new Housing Board flat prices is ... Most of cost of HDB flats comes from the land cost component. ... suggestion by Worker's PAP to sell land at a more reasonable price. ... How do we maximise the benefits of public housing for Singaporeans in the ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: Future of Hawaii: For rich only?
    ... What is better for Hawaii, the status quo or urban sprawl? ... But once you you develop the land of the few majority landowners, ... >> about the high cost of housing there. ...
    (soc.culture.hawaii)
  • Re: Workfare, not welfare
    ... Admittedly measures that restrict housing supply (eg planning ... and the current tax regime. ... for imposing a land tax on large holdings only. ... speculators could try to get it re-zoned into a lower-tax ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Workfare, not welfare
    ... what he would like with his own land. ... If the tenant cannot pay the rent then the arrangement under or ... housing benefit or not. ... I would be in favour of some measures that rig the housing market in ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Single Tax?
    ... >>> The average price for all housing in 2003 was around $176,000. ... But residential land accounts for only about 1/2 of all land value, ... >>>that property taxes are only enough to fund about 30% of state and ... >It's assuming a land tax rate of 5% of land value per year, ...
    (sci.econ)