House members debate ‘sanctuary pilot’ proposal for homelessness; concerns raised about scope and faith-based contracting

Members of the Hawaii House of Representatives debated a resolution on March 27 that would direct the governor’s coordinator on homelessness to help establish a “sanctuary pilot” — a semi-permanent location to provide shelter and services to people experiencing homelessness. The measure, discussed during the floor’s standing committee report segment, prompted questions about whether it duplicates existing programs and whether it could raise constitutional concerns.

Representative Keli Souza rose in question to the resolution, saying “on the first page it talks about, sanctuary locations. So it's unclear whether this resolution is meant to create locations or just 1 location,” and she said the resolution asks the governor’s coordinator on homelessness to designate a specific location on state or county land and “contract with qualified churches as one of the entities,” which she said raised issues with the establishment clause.

Representative Matt Shimizu spoke in strong support and described the proposal as “just an idea and, a vision of ... helping our homeless population and providing a place where they would be cared for and attended to, instead of them having to find places that they think are safe.” Shimizu said the resolution would create a tool and an option and emphasized it was intended as a two‑year pilot to test whether a more permanent sanctuary site could work.

Representative Garcia urged the chamber not to dismiss faith‑based organizations from the list of potential partners, noting that “the state of Hawaii has for decades worked with nonprofit organizations, and they receive both federal and state grants to address homelessness. Many churches do, and I think we should continue working with our nonprofit entities, which includes faith based organizations.”

Shimizu said the sanctuary pilot is “not” the same as the HONO model (a mobile, temporary model that moves from place to place). He described the proposal as “a 2 year pilot program, something that ... is really an experiment to see, is this something that will work?” and said he had discussed potential improvements with law‑enforcement and HONO‑project personnel to learn lessons from prior efforts.

Opponents and those urging caution asked for clarity about whether the resolution duplicates existing efforts such as the HONO project and sought more specifics about site selection, contracting authority, and potential constitutional limits on working with churches. Several members asked for the measure’s language to be clarified in committee; on the floor the chair recorded the committee report and registered members’ comments and reservations.

Why it matters: The measure would direct state coordination on homelessness toward a pilot that could create a semi‑permanent shelter model on public land and explicitly contemplates partnerships with faith‑based groups. That raises practical questions about where sites would be located, how contracts would be structured, and how the state would avoid establishment‑clause challenges while working with nonprofits and churches.

Next steps: The committee report was adopted as presented during the block of standing committee actions; members’ reservations and floor comments were entered for the record and the measure will continue through the committee and calendaring process for any further refinement.