Re: Future of Hawaii: For rich only?


What it all comes down to is this:
What is better for Hawaii, the status quo or urban sprawl?
Affordable housing, which might lead eventually to urban sprawl or
let the few landowners keep the majority of land and thereby keep the
urban
sprawl in check.
There are pro and cons to this issue.
I personally prefer the status quo.
The raising interest rates will eventually cause the property prices to
deflate and will bring more affordable homes onto the market.
But once you you develop the land of the few majority landowners, you
cannot reverse that situation anymore, meaning sprawl will take over and
Hawaii will look like California or Florida, with its enormous urban
sprawl.


"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136002200-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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?
    ... 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. ... There was also fear that the large landowners and the Big 5 had undue influence in local politics. ... 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. ... 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. ...
    (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)