Question 2Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
County bonds for housing infrastructure
Explain it like I'm 5
Counties could borrow money now for roads, water pipes, and sewers needed for new homes. They would repay the bonds with future property-tax growth in the area, like borrowing money to build a lemonade stand and paying it back from future sales.
Yes vote
The Legislature may authorize counties to issue RISE bonds for specified housing-related public improvements, with repayment from future property-tax growth in designated districts and exclusion from county debt limits.
No vote
Counties do not receive this new constitutional authority, and existing county debt limits remain unchanged for this financing.
The question to ask yourself
Is this new financing tool worth the risk of borrowing outside existing county debt limits?
The case for
- The bonds could fund roads, water, sewer, and other infrastructure before housing is built.
- Using future tax growth could finance development without raising property-tax rates.
- Excluding the bonds from debt limits could preserve counties' capacity for other borrowing.
Backed by: Governor Josh Green, Hawaii State Association of Counties, Hawaii REALTORS, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, Hawaii Public Housing Authority
The case against
- Excluding the bonds from debt limits removes a safeguard against excessive borrowing.
- If development or tax growth falls short, counties could face repayment pressure.
- The amendment does not itself guarantee affordable homes or require a particular housing project.
Opposed by: Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Libertarian Party of Hawaii
- Money
- No total cost or tax effect is estimated; repayment would use future property-tax growth in designated districts, and the bonds would be outside county debt limits.
- Don't be misled
- Saying the bonds are free is misleading: even without a tax-rate increase, future property-tax growth would be committed to repayment and could fall short.