Skip to main content

Testimony in strong opposition to Bill 6

[Bill 6 criminalizing the homeless by subjecting those erecting a tent on a public sidewalk to 1 year in jail and $1,000 fine will be heard by the Public Safety and Economic Development Committee on Tuesday, January 14, at Honolulu Hale. This is the testimony I submitted.]

12 January 2014

To: Chair Fukunaga and the Honolulu City Council Committee on Public Safety and Economic Development:

It is regrettable that the public must learn that your deferral of Bill 59 (criminalizing homelessness) on moral and legal grounds was more display than substance. Bill 6 is worse in every way.

This bill along with Bill 7, which was already passed into law as ordinance 13-8, targets what Councilmember Stanley Chang famously calls an "epidemic of people who are obstructing our sidewalks." Please remind Councilmember Chang that he is actually talking about the homeless members of our community who have been driven out of housing by high cost and low wages. Laws and HPD have also driven them out parks, beaches, woods and other traditional commons housing areas to the dangerous curbside areas of our urban centers.

At the Bill 59 hearing, Councilmember Ikaika Anderson said he was, "not comfortable with Bill 59," and wanted to take a good look at what other municipalities were doing. Why then, is Bill 6, which was first heard almost a year ago, being brought before the public for hearing obviously without looking at other municipalities are doing?

At the same hearing Councilmember Pine noted that the people in her district do indeed "interpret Hawaiian Law very seriously." Does she imagine that the people in her district will not see Bill 6 as a gross violation of the Kanawai Mamalahoe (Law of the Splintered Paddle) merely because it lacks the words "lying down on the sidewalk"? The people in her district regard ordinances 11-029 (2011's Bill 54) and 13-8 (Bill 7) as violations of the Law of the Splintered paddle as indeed they are. And they will regard Bill 6 as a violation of the Law of the Splintered Paddle as well, because it is without a doubt in direct violation of the Law of the Splintered Paddle as incorporated into the Hawaii Constitution at Article IX Section 10.

These questions apply to Bill 6 as they did to Bill 59:
  • How can Bill 6 not be seen as targeting the homeless?
  • How can Bill 6 not violate the US Constitution (Amendments 1, 4, and 14)?
  • How can Bill 6 not violate the Hawaii Constitution (Article IX Section 10)?
  • How will minors arrested under Bill 6 be cared for?
  • Does the City have resources to care for the children of the arrestees who live elsewhere?
  • What help is available for juveniles who have fled abusive situations and arrested under Bill 6?
  • How will the City pay for legal challenges to Bill 6 such as those now challenging Bill 54 and Bill 7?
  • And of course, since it is being heard by the Committee for Public Safety, how does this ensure the safety of the homeless?
Clearly targeting the poor, expensive to implement, disastrous to the least fortunate members of our community, and completely reliant on selective enforcement, Bill 6 violates the Constitutional protections of the 1st, 4th, and 14 Amendments. Its blatant immorality is indefensible and the Committee's attempt to slip this into law is an offense against the public good.

I urge our public servants on the Council to attack the causes of homelessness -- sky high housing costs and rock bottom wages -- and help extend the protection of the law to all members of our community. Your oaths and your duty call you to kill Bill 6.

Mahalo for your public service,

H. Doug Matsuoka


  1. Thanks for this posting Doug M. Could you also post when the next two bill reading will be? Thanks. Also is Food Not Bombs still happening even w/o a camp at Thomas Square? dean the occupier


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HCDA creates their own anti-homeless police at HAR hearing

While no one was watching, the HCDA (Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority) held  a Hawaii Administrative Rules hearing that creates their own anti-homeless police force, and (incidentally) raises park fees by up to 500%. The affected parks are at the intersection of Honolulu Council Districts 4, 5, and 6, (Trevor Ozawa, Ann Kobayashi, and Carol Fukunaga respectively) but none (or their staff) were present today. These laws were made without any oversight from the public or their elected representatives.

Who knew that such sweeping changes could be made without the oversight of any elected officials? And after one decision making hearing that is accountable to no one? If the Honolulu City Council had to rule on such changes, it would require three full council hearings, and opportunities for public participation at each.

My own interest in attending the hearing was to get some kind of hint as to the mechanism the City would use to curtail First Amendment rights in Thomas Square afte…

What The City Doesn’t Want You To Know About Thomas Square

[This article was originally published by CivilBeat on July 21, 2016. I'm reprinting it with video clips. Doug]

The City of Honolulu plans to close Thomas Square on Aug. 15 for six months and re-open it in February 2017 as something completely different, according to its master plan. Although city officials have unveiled grandiose plans concerning a drastic makeover, there are a number of troubling things they are trying to keep under cover:

1. It will no longer be a public park. The master plan calls for Thomas Square to be transferred from the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation, where it is a public park, to its Department of Enterprise Services. What is it? The department runs the Blaisdell Center, the Waikiki Shell, the zoo and the public golf courses. By way of a memo dated April 28 from the city’s enterprise chief Guy Kaulukukui to the state’s head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the city asked the state to make changes to allow a change of purpose for…

Eric Seitz: Pro bono is a crock

At yesterday's "Justice in Jeopardy, Expanding Access to Justice in Challenging Economic Times" at the UH Richardson Law School, Dean of Harvard Law School Martha L. Minow pointed out that one in five Americans now qualify for civil legal assistance because they are within 125% of the Poverty Level -- a record high in the history in the county. As the demand for legal services grows, the available resources continue to diminish, leaving most without the "equal protection" of the law.

I checked out the breakout session on pro bono because I used to work for Hawaii's pro bono referral service, Volunteer Legal Services Hawaii (VLSH).

These days, most pro bono services are not attorneys representing clients, but short informational sessions at legal clinics. Moderator Robert LeClair asked attorney Eric Seitz what he thought of this turn in pro bono services.  This is what Eric said:

"Well, let me start out by saying that I've always thought pro bono w…