05-17-2018, 03:59 AM
There is an alternative that won't cost the government (i.e. current taxpayers) significantly to implement and has the potential to increase property tax income to the county. It's called "transferable development rights" (TDR). The county claims that it can't prohibit construction of a dwelling on a subdivision parcel because that parcel, when bought, includes the right to develop (build) on that lot. TDR says that the right to build can be separated from that lot and used somewhere else (if approved by the county). In one application of the concept I am familiar with, open space in a particular county was the desired outcome and so owners in the donor area of small family farms, could sell development rights for those farms (and give up any future right to subdivide and build) to developers in designated (more urbanized) receiving areas (increasing density to a previously allowed level) who were required to purchase development rights in order to build to that level. In that case, developers were more than happy to spend $50K for development rights that they could use to build homes in the urban area for $1M or more.
In our case, the donor areas would be those at the highest risk of volcanic (and tsunami) hazard and the receiving areas would be, by definition, outside of those areas (e.g. lava hazard zones 3 or above). Currently, developers get a windfall when they can subdivide a large parcel (that's why they do it...). Requiring that they purchase development rights will cut into that windfall, but I suspect continued subdivision and development will continue to occur nonetheless. And the costs cited above need not be the case here - it would have to managed by supply and demand. That process would gradually reduce the density of housing units in the high risk areas and redirect development into areas of lower risk.
There are any number of variants on the theme: one would be that current owners of lots in zones 1 and 2 could hold their development rights and purchase a lot in a new subdivision and use it there (attractive to the developer since he doesn't have to put up the funds for the development right; attractive to the buyer since he doesn't have to pay as much for the lot; attractive to the taxman since he gets a new home on his roles). As for the land that gives up the development right, it can be sold as farm land - never to be built on in the future - which is appropriate since these are ag lots.
I pitched this idea to Harry Kim's planning director 15 years ago during his first term as Mayor, when these subdivisions had far fewer homes built on them. Completely blew me off - not an iota of interest. So if Harry weeps crocodile tears over the impacted homeowners, remember that he is, to a significant degree, responsible for many of those homes that are at risk...
ETA: I realize that implementing something like this effectively and productively would require a good deal careful, intelligent planning - something that is nearly impossible to find in Hawaii - but one can always hope...
In our case, the donor areas would be those at the highest risk of volcanic (and tsunami) hazard and the receiving areas would be, by definition, outside of those areas (e.g. lava hazard zones 3 or above). Currently, developers get a windfall when they can subdivide a large parcel (that's why they do it...). Requiring that they purchase development rights will cut into that windfall, but I suspect continued subdivision and development will continue to occur nonetheless. And the costs cited above need not be the case here - it would have to managed by supply and demand. That process would gradually reduce the density of housing units in the high risk areas and redirect development into areas of lower risk.
There are any number of variants on the theme: one would be that current owners of lots in zones 1 and 2 could hold their development rights and purchase a lot in a new subdivision and use it there (attractive to the developer since he doesn't have to put up the funds for the development right; attractive to the buyer since he doesn't have to pay as much for the lot; attractive to the taxman since he gets a new home on his roles). As for the land that gives up the development right, it can be sold as farm land - never to be built on in the future - which is appropriate since these are ag lots.
I pitched this idea to Harry Kim's planning director 15 years ago during his first term as Mayor, when these subdivisions had far fewer homes built on them. Completely blew me off - not an iota of interest. So if Harry weeps crocodile tears over the impacted homeowners, remember that he is, to a significant degree, responsible for many of those homes that are at risk...
ETA: I realize that implementing something like this effectively and productively would require a good deal careful, intelligent planning - something that is nearly impossible to find in Hawaii - but one can always hope...