YIMBY presence in San Francisco tends to be the strongest since the problem is overall the worse in comparison to the other two cities. Los Angeles has objectively the “largest” problem among the three, but thanks to increased development and construction activities in the last few years, the problem has seemed to at least momentarily stabilized. (Will need continued pressure for the next few years to get rents to actually drop, however.) In Hawaii, however, YIMBYism seems to be mostly non-existent…at least for now.

The most interesting thing about housing politics in Hawaii is that the political landscape has remained relatively untouched by the narratives on the mainland for the most part. Mayor Kirk Cadwell of Honolulu has spoken in favor of YIMBY-esque policies (ADU support, housing near transit, reasonable inclusionary rates for developers) but has a mixed-record when it comes to enforcement—in March of 2018 he gave into the demands of neighborhood groups to ban multi-family “Monster Homes” in residential areas, for example.

As the name implies, “Monster Homes” is a pejorative that homeowner groups have come up with in order to discredit the development of multi-family housing in areas zoned as single-family residencies. (To be fair, these homes are technically illegal under current law.) The concerns of homeowner groups in Hawaii, however, slightly differs from standard NIMBYism in that they have often turned a blind eye to these types of (up-)zoning violations many times in the past.

This is largely due to the fact that multi-generational co-living is a very common and accepted lifestyle in Hawaii — sometimes even seen as a good thing that keeps families together. Moving back with your parents after graduation, living with them while working, having your parents move in and help with child-rearing etc. are fairly common situations here, and it doesn’t carry the negative stigma that it might in other parts of the United States.

Homeowners in Hawaii are, however, usually opposed to large numbers of random people living together in “Monster Homes” since they tend to believe that these situations should be exceptions made for family members and family members only. (They will probably be opposed to co-living spaces as a concept, for example.) A “progressive” in Hawaii would have a very liberal definition of “family”, whereas a “conservative” would be very strict in regards to what that really means. Regardless of your definition, however, taking care of your “ohana” (family) is prized very highly here.

On one hand, the fact that these family bonds have allowed the islands to absorb some of the worst aspects of the housing crisis is a good thing and is an example of the compassion and “ohana spirit” that Hawaii embodies as a whole. This has allowed many people in the lower-to-middle income levels in Hawaii to have at least a place to live. The relative lack of desperation here is largely why the YIMBY movement hasn’t quite gotten its legs in Hawaii like it has in other areas of the United States.

On the other hand, the root of the problem — the lack of available housing for everyone — has gone largely unaddressed and the region is starting to see the cracks in the system emerge in the form of increased homelessness among the most vulnerable. Younger generation families wanting to own their own place due to overcrowded multi-family situations are also increasingly finding it more difficult to gain independence as the costs of doing so have skyrocketed in the last 10–15 years. (These are issues that are common to all three cities.)

The bad news is that the YIMBY movement in Hawaii is very weak, if it even exists at all. (If there is, please let me know! Would like to get in touch.) The connection between the emergence of “Monster Homes” and the shortage of apartment and condo developments in the region hasn’t quite been made yet — which is something that a YIMBY would do to help to push the issue in the right direction.

The good news is that in Hawaii, the politics around housing hasn’t developed to the point where people have started forming camps and attacking each other politically, so this may actually be possible. Mayor Cadwell, for example, can openly talk about inclusionary rate adjustments and developer incentivizations without having to worry about being called a “shill for greedy developers”, for example. I’m hesitant to label homeowner groups in Hawaii as “NIMBY” since the chance to solve the problem without excessive conflict may still be a possibility.

As an economy that runs on tourism, Hawaii has to pay closer attention to “neighborhood character” more than most other places, but I do think that they will take the homeless problem more seriously since the prospect of it hurting the ideals and ways of life in Hawaii would be too much for the people to bear. Without the “Aloha Spirit”, what would be the point of being in Hawaii to begin with?

If the elected officials do the right thing, there’s a chance that things could be resolved in the region without the need for a fully-fledged YIMBY movement to emerge but they will have to move quickly before the situation becomes too dire. What would be the best way to achieve this? Letters to officials? An awareness campaign? Given that the needle is right on the verge of tipping, I feel like we may be able to generate a lot of impact using relatively few amount of resources here but it’ll have to be done in a smart way. If you have any ideas regarding this, please let me know.