Policy committee forwards Bill 59 to counsel after debate on street solicitation, safety and free-speech concerns

The Hawaii County Council Policy Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit voted to forward Bill 59 to county counsel with a favorable recommendation after members discussed pedestrian safety, enforcement discretion and possible First Amendment implications.

Bill 59 would amend Chapter 24, Article 9 of the Hawaii County Code to prohibit a person from entering or remaining in a street to receive, solicit, deliver or offer goods or services with occupants of a vehicle, unless the vehicle is legally parked. The measure as introduced includes fines and community‑service penalties: a first violation would carry a fine of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000 or community service of 50–200 hours (or both); a repeat violation within a year would raise the minimum fine to $500 and require 100–200 hours of community service (or both).

Proponents said the change targets safety risks created when people are in traffic lanes, medians or other road areas. "Doing business within a street is not safe for either pedestrians or traffic," said Major Jeremy Evangelista, Administrative Services Division, Hawaii Police Department, who said HPD collaborated on the draft and expects to enforce it through citation.

During committee discussion, Councilmember Inaba, who introduced the draft, said the bill arose from police concerns in Kona about exchanges taking place in streets where cars are present and that the intent is to reduce risks to drivers and pedestrians. Deputy Corporation Counsel Cody Frens told the committee the measure is not an absolute prohibition on speech or activity and that the draft leaves safe, legal alternatives for those who wish to continue soliciting or distributing goods outside the roadway.

A testifier, Austin Martin, identified himself as state chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii and a member of the Libertarian National Committee, and said he was concerned the language could be selectively enforced and could “potentially violate First Amendment rights.” He urged the council to avoid vague phrasing such as what it means to be "in the street" or what constitutes "soliciting."

Members asked for and received clarifications on several technical points. Committee members debated the definitions of "street" versus "roadway": the bill uses the existing code definition of "street," which covers the full width between boundary lines of a public way, rather than the narrower term "roadway," which commonly refers only to the portion used for vehicular travel. Deputy Corporation Counsel Frens noted the code already defines "park" and "parking" (standing of a vehicle other than temporarily for loading or unloading), and suggested the committee could refine community‑service hours to align with the judiciary's formula that converts dollars to hours.

Members also raised enforcement and equity concerns. Major Evangelista said enforcement would be complaint driven or self‑initiated by officers who have discretion to educate or cite; when a juvenile is cited, an adult must appear in court on the juvenile's behalf. Several council members asked about charitable food distributions and youth fundraisers conducted at the roadside; counsel and police said those situations would turn on the specific facts and whether the activity fit the bill's prohibitions, and they urged advance public education if the law is adopted.

Committee members discussed delaying the ordinance's effective date to allow for an education period; the bill's introducer said he would prepare an amendment to set a later effective date if the committee requests it. After discussion about possible technical amendments—definition clarity, community‑service calculation and an implementation delay—the committee voted to forward the bill to county counsel with a favorable recommendation.

According to the committee record, the motion to forward Bill 59 was moved by Councilmember Inaba and seconded by Councilmember Villegas and passed with nine ayes and no recorded opposition. The committee's favorable recommendation sends the measure to further review and potential subsequent readings by the full council.

The committee hearing included multiple council questions and staff answers; several members said they supported the measure as a public‑safety step while noting the need to protect free‑speech activities and to educate the community before strict enforcement.