Honolulu Charter Amendments
Making housing a stated priority in Honolulu’s founding document
What is a “Charter”?
The Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu is the city's founding governing document — its version of a constitution for county government. It sets out how the City is structured and run: the powers of the Mayor and City Council, how departments operate, and what the City prioritizes.
Every ten years, a 13-member Charter Commission is appointed to review it — looking for outdated language, inefficiencies, and ways to improve how the City works. The Commission can only recommend changes. It can't make them. Voters get the final say.
This cycle's Commission spent over a year gathering proposals, holding public hearings, and deciding what to send to the ballot. Twenty of those proposed changes are on Honolulu's November 2026 ballot. Five of them — Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 — are about housing.
Why This Matters
Twenty separate questions are on Honolulu's ballot this November. Five of them — Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 — deal with housing. They're easy to miss: they sit in the middle of a long list, most voters have never seen charter-amendment language before, and a question with no clear answer tends to get skipped.
Honolulu charter amendments ratify on a majority of the electors voting on that specific amendment, not a majority of everyone who voted (HRS §50-11, RCH §15-103). But it does mean a question's outcome can come down to a small slice of voters who made it that far down the ballot and understood what they were reading.
This page explains what each housing question actually does. Whatever you decide, decide it with the facts in front of you.
Key Dates
Question 7 — Housing Preservation Policy Statement
The ballot question: "Shall the Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu be amended to encourage increasing housing availability and preserving available housing as policies for the City and County of Honolulu?"
In plain language: This amendment would add language to the Charter declaring that Honolulu doesn't have enough housing for long-term residents, that people leaving the island because they can't find housing ("outmigration") is a serious threat to the City, and that keeping existing housing available to residents is a "compelling governmental interest." It's a policy statement, not a new program — it doesn't build, fund, or require anything specific.
If it passes: The Charter formally states that housing preservation and reducing outmigration are top City priorities. That statement could support future pro-housing laws, budget requests, and legal arguments, but it doesn't mandate any specific action on its own.
If it fails: The Charter's policy language stays as it is today; no new priority statement is added.
The argument for: Puts housing preservation on record as a top City priority, strengthening the legal and political footing for future pro-housing ordinances, budget requests, and litigation.
The argument against: It's symbolic only. Critics may see it as a scaled-back consolation measure after a stronger proposal — an empty homes tax — fell one vote short of the ballot, with no funding or enforcement mechanism attached.
Good to know: This is 1 of 20 questions on the Honolulu ballot this November. The five housing questions are 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12.
Question 8 — Affordable Housing Fund as a Revolving Fund
The ballot question: "Should the Charter be amended to clarify that the Affordable Housing Fund is a revolving fund, with repayments, interest, earnings, proceeds, and other receipts derived from the Fund to be redeposited into the Fund?"
In plain language: The City already has an Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). This amendment would make clear that any money the Fund earns back — loan repayments, interest, other proceeds — gets deposited back into the Fund instead of going elsewhere. That lets the AHF grow over time and support more affordable rental housing, including affordable units inside mixed-use, mixed-income developments.
If it passes: Money the AHF earns or recovers is redeposited into the Fund by Charter mandate, growing its balance over time and expanding what it can finance.
If it fails: Current Charter language governing how AHF receipts are handled stays as-is; this clarification doesn't take effect.
The argument for: Turns the AHF into a self-sustaining, growing pool of affordable-housing capital instead of one that could lose its returns elsewhere, and supports more flexible mixed-income projects.
The argument against: Locks money into one use case for the long term, which some may see as reducing the Council's flexibility to redirect funds if priorities change.
Good to know: This is 1 of 20 questions on the Honolulu ballot this November. The five housing questions are 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12.
Question 9 — Removing the Second Public Hearing for City Real Property Deals
The ballot question: "Should the Charter be amended to no longer require a second public hearing for any transaction related to City real property interests?"
In plain language: Right now, the Department of Housing and Land Management has to hold a separate public hearing on every transaction involving City-owned real property — even small ones, like a utility easement — to determine whether it serves the public interest. This amendment would eliminate that separate hearing requirement. The public would still be able to learn about and testify on these transactions, but through the regular City Council meeting agenda process rather than a dedicated hearing.
If it passes: The separate public hearing requirement for City real property transactions goes away. The public retains the ability to learn about and testify on these transactions when they appear on a City Council meeting agenda — reducing cost and delay, especially for small transactions, without eliminating public input.
If it fails: The current two-hearing requirement stays in place for all real property transactions.
The argument for: Cuts unnecessary process cost on small, low-controversy transactions that draw little public attendance anyway, freeing up staff time for higher-value work.
The argument against: Removes a dedicated hearing specific to each transaction — public input still exists via Council meeting testimony, but critics may see folding it into the general Council agenda as a less visible, less deliberate form of oversight.
Good to know: This is 1 of 20 questions on the Honolulu ballot this November. The five housing questions are 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12.
Question 10 — Required Housing Functional Plan
The ballot question: "Should the City be required to prepare and carry out a functional plan for the development of affordable housing?"
In plain language: This amendment would require the Director of the Department of Housing and Land Management to write and keep up a ten-year Housing Functional Plan, updated at least every five years. The plan would have to line up with the City's General Plan and Development Plans, and would guide future housing policy, capital improvements, and budget decisions — forcing the City to spell out, concretely, how it intends to build more housing. The requirement takes effect January 1, 2030.
If it passes: The Department of Housing and Land Management must write and maintain a standing ten-year Housing Functional Plan, revisited at least every five years, that has to be consistent with the City's General and Development Plans and feeds into future housing policy, capital improvement, and budget decisions.
If it fails: No Charter requirement for a standing, updated housing functional plan; housing planning continues under existing, less formalized processes.
The argument for: Forces the City to commit, in writing and on a recurring schedule, to a concrete plan for building more housing — creating accountability and a benchmark the public and Council can hold the Administration to.
The argument against: Adds another mandated planning document and administrative burden without guaranteeing it changes outcomes; a plan isn't the same as production.
Good to know: This is 1 of 20 questions on the Honolulu ballot this November. The five housing questions are 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12.
Question 12 — Outside Funding for Special Funds (Including the Affordable Housing Fund)
The ballot question: "Should the Revised City Charter be amended to allow the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, Affordable Housing Fund, Climate Resiliency Fund, and other funds established under Section 9-204 to receive funding from federal, state, philanthropic, and other sources?"
In plain language: The City already has several special funds set up in the Charter, including the Affordable Housing Fund, the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, and the Climate Resiliency Fund. Right now each has its own dedicated funding stream. This amendment would let all of them also accept money from federal, state, and philanthropic sources — on top of what they already get. For the Affordable Housing Fund, that means outside grants and gifts could flow directly in, growing the pool of money available for new housing.
If it passes: The Affordable Housing Fund and the other Section 9-204 funds can accept federal, state, philanthropic, and other outside funding on top of their current dedicated revenue — potentially growing the Affordable Housing Fund faster than City-only funding allows.
If it fails: These funds stay limited to their current authorized funding sources; outside contributions couldn't be deposited directly into them under the Charter.
The argument for: Unlocks additional outside capital — federal grants, state appropriations, philanthropic gifts — for affordable housing, clean water, and climate work, without raising local taxes or fees.
The argument against: Broadening how much outside money can flow into earmarked funds can mean less Council oversight over larger sums, and ties City programs more closely to outside funders' priorities and conditions.
Good to know: Question 11 is a separate, related measure that covers only the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund and the Climate Resiliency Fund — it does not include the Affordable Housing Fund and isn't one of the five housing questions.
What’s the most important thing to remember?
The five housing questions are 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12.
It’s the easiest thing to forget, so sign up here for a reminder!
However you plan to vote, make sure your ballot gets there. It must be received — not postmarked — by 7:00 p.m. on November 3.
WHAT COMES NEXT
The policies with the strongest public support are the ones that treat housing as a cost-of-living solution - increasing home and rental availability, prioritizing high-need communities, and making it easier for working families to remain in Hawai‘i.
If you want to be part of the conversation about Hawai‘i's housing future, start here.