Stadium signage bill draws sharp opposition from Outdoor Circle and questions about guardrails; stadium authority defends inward-facing, community-led approvals

SB2353, a bill that would authorize digital outdoor signage in the Stadium Development District and grant approval authority to the Stadium Authority, drew sustained public opposition and detailed questioning during the House Finance Committee’s April 8 session.

Winston Bolch, executive director of the Outdoor Circle, told the committee SB2353 “is not a refinement” but rather “a complete break in a century of policy” that protects Hawaii’s scenic character. Bolch warned the bill lacks enforceable limits on content, size, brightness, movement and cumulative impact and would override carefully crafted city and county land‑use protections. He urged the committee to defer the measure.

Community members on Zoom — including neighborhood‑board members from Waikiki and Diamond Head — echoed concerns about visual clutter, bright light, traffic and impacts on migratory birds. One witness who identified himself as a longtime Waikiki resident said the district should not be made to “turn into Vegas” with light displays.

Mikey Dahl (Stadium Authority) answered questions about where exterior signage might be placed and how complaints would be handled. Dahl said sign locations were not finalized on schematic designs but asserted the authority would review signage in open board meetings and work with consultants and community stakeholders. He emphasized that the stadium authority includes local members with land‑management experience and said signage would be inward‑facing to the district rather than directed at thoroughfares. Dahl also told the committee the legislature has appropriated $350 million toward stadium development and that private partners would contribute additional funds; he said the authority needs revenue tools to make the project viable.

Committee action: Sponsors proposed amendments to the bill to explicitly restrict digital outdoor signage to be inward‑facing to the stadium district and to add guardrails addressing driver distraction and other impacts. The committee recommended passing SB2353 with those amendments (proposed HD2) and recorded several members’ reservations on the measure. The committee report will capture additional technical guardrails, including possible square‑footage caps in the committee report.

What to watch: The bill remains contentious. Community groups and conservation advocates signaled they want explicit statutory guardrails on content, size, brightness, and cumulative impacts; the stadium authority signaled willingness to work with amendments but pushed back against restrictions that would preclude on‑site signage necessary for revenue generation.