Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Testimony HB29 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Remote testifiers warn Honolulu council nominees about proposed HB 29 'power of sale' provision
Summary
Multiple remote testifiers warned council members and nominees about a proposed state bill (HB 29) that would permit nonjudicial seizure of property for Department of Planning and Permitting fines, calling it unconstitutional and urging city attorneys and the managing director to review it.
Several remote testifiers raised repeated objections to a proposed state-level bill (referred to in testimony as HB 29) that would grant a “power of sale” allowing property seizure without judicial proceedings for unpaid Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) fines. The comments appeared at multiple points during the Feb. 18, 2025, council meeting while the council considered nominations.
Why it matters: Testifiers said HB 29 would expose homeowners to nonjudicial forfeiture and could be used to penalize nonconforming structures or be exploited for revenue, which, they argued, raises constitutional and due-process concerns. They urged city attorneys and officials to examine and oppose such authority.
What testifiers said: A remote testifier identified in the registration as June James (logged as “Chun/Thune James” in multiple call-ins) described HB 29 as “a road to tyranny,” arguing that nonjudicial seizure circumvents court protections and could be used to retaliate against political enemies or as a revenue source. James urged the corporation counsel and managing director to review the proposal and advise the council. Another remote speaker reiterated similar constitutional concerns and pointed the council to the bill text at the state legislature.
Council response and context: The speakers made their remarks during the public-testimony slots that followed nominations and committee motions; members acknowledged receipt of the testimony but did not take floor action on the bill during the session. The transcript records council members and nominees expressing thanks for testimony; no formal motion was made on the state bill during the meeting.
Background: Testifiers tied their objections to previous mayoral requests and DPP statements seeking expedited remedies for code enforcement. They said the proposed power would allow fines to be placed on property and ultimately lead to seizure without judicial review. The transcript does not record any council briefing or analysis on HB 29 during the meeting; speakers requested that city counsel and the managing director review the constitutional implications.
Ending: The testimony was recorded in the public record and forwarded to council and administration staff; the transcript shows no immediate council vote or formal directive attached to the floor minutes on HB 29 during this session.
