Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House floor debate highlights disagreement over kohale homeless‑housing proposals and $50 million request
Summary
Lawmakers debated a proposal described on the floor as seeking $50 million for kohale (village‑style housing) and related permanent supportive housing. Supporters framed kohale as services‑linked housing to help residents gain employment; critics opposed the funding level and expressed concerns about program scope and distribution.
The Hawaii House of Representatives spent substantial floor time debating a set of measures related to kohale — village‑style housing proposals aimed at addressing homelessness that, according to floor remarks, include funding for permanent supportive housing and related services.
Representative Pierrick criticized the proposal on fiscal and fairness grounds, saying on the floor: "This bill would ask for $50,000,000 to house permanently homeless people ... We're going to reallocate that into a pot of money for $50,000,000 to give it towards people that aren't trying, they're not working, they're not paying taxes, and we're going to house them. That's not fair." Representative Pierrick argued the measure would shift taxpayer funds to people he characterized as not contributing to the tax base.
By contrast, Representative Cappella and others said kohale provides housing that also offers social and employment supports, calling it an investment to help people move toward independence. Representative Cappella said kohale requires the state "to be a village for those who need support." Representative Souza and others entered supporting remarks into the record and emphasized the program’s goal of meeting people where they are to help them obtain jobs, treatment and services.
Why it matters: House comments indicate the proposal raises both fiscal and programmatic questions about the state’s role in providing supportive housing, the appropriate funding level, and how projects would be distributed across islands. Supporters view the funding as an investment in services that can increase residents’ independence; opponents view it as an unsustainable allocation of taxpayer resources.
What the record shows: The debate occurred during consideration of standing committee report 765 (floor references: "standing committee report 7 65"). Members entered a mix of recorded positions (support, opposition, reservations) and requested written comments; the transcript does not show a separate roll‑call tally for the individual measure on the floor, and the item was advanced as part of the larger bundle of committee reports.
