 episode of Condon Cider. And my name is Jane Sugimura. I'm your host today. And we're going to be doing a legislative update with my good friend and guest, Senator Sharon Moriwaki. And we've got a lot to talk about. I don't even know if we're going to have time to hit every, hit all the issues. So let's get started. Can I introduce my guest? Welcome to Condon Cider, Senator Moriwaki. Thank you, Jane. It's a pleasure to be here with you. Very good friend. And who I call the condo queen. All my information is from Jane. So I'm very pleased to be here with you and give you what what the few bills passed. Unfortunately, I wish there were more. I think two bills are important bills for us anyway. I sit on the on Waterfront Towers Kakaako Board. And and these are two bills that that really help condo owners. So I'm pleased at least we have these two bills that we can work on in the interim. But and you know, why don't we give our list or some background? I mean, you're the senator of the 12th senatorial district. What does that include? Oh, it's a big district. It's a pretty much the urban area. It covers Kakaako, Makali Mo'ili'ili, Alamoana, and Waikiki. So it's a broad, very diverse area from the apartment buildings and some of the single family dwelling units, but mostly along Kakaako and Waikiki. Really, I think we have the highest number of condo dwellers in the state. So condo living and looking at laws that can really help all of us who live in condos are very important near dear to me. And and I really appreciate Jay's doing this inside condo insider, because we all really need to be educated on how we can be better condo dwellers as well as knowing the laws that can protect our interests. Yeah. Well, you know, why don't we get started? I mean, you mentioned that, you know, two laws, two bills have passed out of the legislature. But when the legislature opened, there were several condo bills. I mean, there must have been at least 20. Right. And and that includes companion bills. In fact, the first bill we're going to be talking about is House Bill 599, which was a companion bill to the one you introduced. That's right. Senate Bill 784. Right. Yes. And this was about association governance. And and and and one of the things that, you know, that resulted from this pandemic is you had condominium associations who couldn't hold annual meetings, right, because their governing documents and the statute didn't allow them to do remote hearings. We were allowed to do remote board hearing, board meetings. Right. We couldn't do annual meetings. And yet and there were other types of community associations like the 421J, you know, the community associations and the co-ops who are regulated by 21I and the, you know, the Hawaii corporate laws, right. They were allowed, you know, through their through the statute and their governing documents to do remote hearings. So they could do it. So it was only condos, basically, that couldn't do their annual meetings. So what does what does 599 what does House Bill 599 and Senate Bill 784 do for condos? It's very, it's very extensive in terms of allowing for condos to meet during the pandemic. So the governor has to proclaim that it's an emergency situation. So during the pandemic, it really was important. But for other areas, you know, in the big island, if you were to be hit by, you know, a the volcanoes or or if you have a major disaster and you still need to meet for your either annual meeting or special meetings to just even decide what to do in your condo, this bill, it goes into effect that during that time, you can meet remotely. So you could meet either by phone or by by remote, like your computers, hopefully they work, and not have to meet physically, especially during the pandemic when we had to social distance and we were clustering in our own units, not even being able to meet in the condo. This was really important. I know that I sit on a board for our condo, and we didn't know what to do. We knew we had to meet, but we kept on continuing it until we got some indication from the governor's proclamation that condos, you know, could meet, but it was very temporary. So this law puts into place anytime the governor just declares an emergency situation we can meet. And we know now there are procedures in place now by law that we can meet remotely and how to meet. So I think it's a good bill, hopefully the governor, I'm sure governor will sign it because it's a very important bill on condos and governing yourselves because we all are self-empowered, so we really do need to meet. It's just how do we do it. And you know, for people who are wondering how long does the governor have to sign this bill? He has, okay, so there, I think it's a 45-day period to veto. So it, I think it's in about, I can't tell you for certain, but there's a period in June that he has to declare whether he has an intent to veto. And I think July 6 might be the day that the last day for him to veto. So we've got some time, but I think people who want this bill would be, it would behoove them to write to the governor and say we want this bill. It's very important to us in condo. And this would be House Bill 599, and they can do it by email, right? Yes. And call the contact the governor's office to say, please sign this bill. So the governor really has two choices. He can either sign the bill or he can indicate he's going to veto it. And at that point he does a letter, right? And all the legislators will probably send it out. And you, of course, will send it to me if the governor's going to veto. And then we get all our people to then start emailing and calling the governor's office and say, oh no, don't do that. It's on your veto list, but this is the mistake. You got to sign it, right? And what if he doesn't do either? What if he doesn't sign it, he doesn't veto? If he doesn't sign it, or he doesn't veto it, let's say he doesn't veto it, then it will go into law without his signature. So the big, big trigger is when he intends to veto, then, Jane, you have to pull your forces on condo insider and write to him, because I do know that bills that he would, were on the list to veto have not been vetoed with, because he's gotten input from the community and for others, stakeholders. So it's important to let him know. And as soon as we get that veto list, and if any of these bills are on it, Jane, for sure, I will let you know and you could let your viewers know. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you so much for that. So anyway, so for our viewers, we know that that 599 is on its way to the governor, or it has been already sent to the governor. So he has three choices, can either sign it and becomes a law right away, because it's effective upon approval. That was one of the changes that we asked the conference to make it when it was in conference, because that seemed to be the only disagreement, they had an effective date of something like January 1, 2022 or something like that. So, you know, we contacted both sides, the conferees to say, Oh, please, please, you know, make it effective upon approval. That way that means when the governor signs it, it becomes, you know, the law, and condos can hold their annual meetings remotely, right? Correct. Okay, well, good. So we'll keep our fingers crossed. Special meetings, you know, whenever the association needs to meet, it can be done remotely and there are procedures in the bill. So I think it's a really good bill. Okay. So we're keeping our fingers crossed. And, you know, and, you know, during the process, we didn't have any opposition. We had people who commented on certain changes. And yes, we went back and forth about the changes, but there was no opposition to the idea of allowing condos to hold their annual meetings remotely. So I think, you know, I think we're on a pretty good path. And so hopefully we don't make governor's veto list. And, you know, he will either sign it or let it, you know, become law without doing anything. So like I said, we're keeping our fingers crossed. Okay, the next one is Senate Bill 329. And this one is your bill. It is. And it's a good bill because we who live in condos don't have much space to begin with. So when people abandon whether it's bikes or or any kind of personal equipment that they leave around in common areas, it's a nuisance. And sometimes a liability because you can trip over these, the equipment, you know, so this bill is really a good bill for those of us in condos that want to get rid of people's trash. They leave it if they've abandoned it. This bill has two two case scenarios. One if the owner is still on the premises. So you give them notice, it tells you how much time you can give them notice. And if they don't respond or they don't take away their bike or whatever equipment, then you can you can dispose of it, you can sell it, you can trash it, you can you can give it to charity. But it gives the association the right to proceed with getting rid of that nuisance. The other scenario is if the person no longer lives in the building, and it allows the association to just remove it. So again, it's just keeping your building safe, clean, rid of nuisances and trash so that it helps everybody have a better, nicer building. And in the previous statute, there was some language that was taken out under the previous law. There was language in the bill that said that if you didn't know who you know who the stuff belonged to, you had to run an ad in the newspaper, right? And we all know with the monopoly paper that we have, it's very expensive to run an ad in the newspaper. And so this comes out of the association's pocket, which seems kind of useless, because if you know if they abandon and if it's junk, you know, that to make an association file, you know, a notice in the Star Advertiser, you know, for the stuff that somebody wants anyway, right? And sometimes it costs, you know, hundreds of hundreds of dollars, maybe even a thousand dollars to run those legal ads. And so it gets to be kind of expensive. But that was removed, right? It was removed. Correct. It allows the association to move quickly. So either you get rid of the nuisance, you know, trash the trash. Or if there it is an owner on premises, then you give them notice, you write to them and you say, Hey, get rid of your stuff, or we're going to get rid of it for you. And it's a simpler, less expensive for all owners in the building. And again, condo living is self-governance. So, you know, we have the right to take care of our building. So, you know, if one of your owners or an owner who's moved can't clean up after themselves, I think we have the right to do that. Right. And, you know, so this bill made it out of the legislature. This one is also on its way to the governor. Correct. Right? So the same thing applies to this bill. He could either sign it into law and it becomes law right away. Or he can put it on his veto list. And of course, if that happens, then you will let us know, we will let all of our listeners know that they have to write or call the governor to make sure that, you know, he allows us to become law, or he does nothing and it becomes law sometime in July. Right. Right? So you will know by July where these two bills are. Okay. They both will be signed. Yeah. We will have new law that will help us take better care of our property. And then just before the show started, you and I were talking about one of the bills that didn't make it out. And that was the one on non- judicial foreclosure. And what were the issues with that one? You know, and this is what I don't understand because I was following that bill. It passed the Senate and it went to two committees in the House. The first was a consumer protection committee. It's, it, it, it fell through that one. But it got stuck in judiciary. And I don't know, I was trying to read the testimony because, you know, that was in the other House. And it seems that there might be some misunderstanding about the bill because this bill allows the association to not have to go through, again, the expense of publishing and, and going through the courts when someone doesn't pay their maintenance fees and it builds up and, and, you know, some of these units are also abandoned. The person has not been able to pay. And they're no longer around and they're not paying the maintenance fees that all condo association owners split the cost on, on maintaining the building. So what seems to be the issue is I could read the testimony and I, this is one Jane that I'd like to work on in the interim with you and see how we may address this problem. But it seems that, that some owners think that this, this bill, if passed, would, would take away their right for self governance, which is just not correct. So I don't know what the misunderstanding on the bill is other than it puts into law that you don't have to have the right to a non judicial foreclosure only if it's in your by laws. So what this says is you don't have to have it in your bylaws, you can do it without that. And I think the misunderstanding might be is that we're trying to, to put law out there to govern condo associations when they have their own right via the bylaw. Okay. And this bill, even though it didn't make out of a legislature, this is the first year of the biennial, right? Right, it's still alive. Yeah, the legislature is basically a two year process. Right. So if it gets introduced and the bill doesn't make it out this year, it doesn't really die. Right. So that means it's still alive and you can work on it next year. And that means that bill is still going to have the same bill number. Right. And we can we can work on it every five years. So if it doesn't make it out of the legislature next year in 2022, then it's dead. Right. That means if somebody wants it, they have to reintroduce it in 2023. Right. Right. Okay. Well, why don't we get to the next topic is a bill that also didn't make it out of the legislature, but it's kind of controversial. And this is oh, oh, oh, I guess the intent, because right now we don't know what's going to happen, but they want to build condominiums, residential condominiums on the their land, Mackay of what is it called Mackay of Mackay. It's all the lands of Oceanside Mackay of Alamoana Boulevard. Right there by Ward Warehouse, right, where we were going to be. And I know there was a bill and they wanted to put the condos up and that bill died. And then the newspaper says that they're still working on it. So I mean, if the if the legislature killed the bill, why are they still working on it? Good question. Good question. I don't know. I can't answer that question. I can answer why the bill is a bad bill. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, so look at Kakaako, it's an unusual it's it's like it's an unusual animal. It's under the Hawaii community development authority. It is under the state. So every place else, so you go to Waikai or you go to the downtown area, they're all under the city jurisdiction, even your area is all under the city jurisdiction. So you're you're under the county plan, so to speak. Whereas in in there are three areas in Heia, Kalei Law, and Kakaako, we're under the state. State governs us. So it's the Hawaii community development authority, HCDA has all the zoning requirements, while we may use the city roads and we pay city taxes for the maintenance of it. The zoning, what you build there is all governed by HCDA state and and so so too with Makai. So in 2010, or thereabouts, early 2010, the it was the governor lingles administration, A and B wanted to build a high rise luxury condo on the Makai side, where the parcels are that we're talking about and and the community came out in arms. They said, no, this is shoreline. The legacy here is this is for the people. It's like the People's Park, Alamoana Park, so too, should Makai be open and and they should all be shoreline for people for years to come. And so they fought it. A and B withdrew and thereafter a working group was created to look at how do we deal with and develop Makai and the law was established then in 2010 or 2011. There should be no residential building from Alamoana Boulevard all the way to the shoreline and that it would go from South Street, you know, by where one waterfront powers are, all the way to Kewalo. So it was clearly the People's Land. You could build community parks, you could build a halau training area, community gardens, but it was to be low rise, not residential that would be dense and and really not appropriate for the area. So in 2012, this is not 2024 2012, OHA had or Native Hawaiians had the public trust lands. They said, you know, we were supposed to be paid all of this 200 million dollars that we didn't get all these years, state, you owe us money, you owe us 200 million dollars. And this was then the Abercrombie administration. And and they said, well, you know what, can you, you know, we don't have money. Can you take land? So they had a settlement agreement and that was in law that they could have, I think it was eight or nine parcels in Kakaako Makai. And during that time, they said, well, okay, we'll take the 200 million, but we want the highest and best use, meaning, you know, condos and luxury condos is high best use. So we want to be able to build residential. Meanwhile, the law was clear, no residential Makai. So there was a separate bill, a second bill that was also introduced that year to give the rights, the special benefit of parcels being able to build residential. That bill failed. Two years later, OHA came back and said we want to build residential. That bill failed. So this is the third time they're coming back. The fact of the matter is the way that they're doing it now is they want to have an exemption for OHA to build exactly what A and B was told you cannot do. And that there is a rub. They have, basically, if it passed, there would be legal challenges because it would be a private bill. It is asking for exemption for two parcels on OHA's land where nobody else can build residential on that Makai side. So there's that one thing. The second is that it's not public lands. So they really don't have the right to do anything they want on the land. It really is governed by ACDA and they have zoning rules. They have all kinds of restrictions like you've got to give, you have to dedicate some public facilities. They got exempted from that. You have to have a public hearing if you're going to propose anything on the land. They wanted an exemption from that. So this bill all around was giving a lot of benefits to OHA that don't come to anybody else in the state. So it is a private special bill that's unconstitutional. So we have been told that there would be legal challenges if it were passed. So the follow-on to that, Jane, was that we put in a working group, both the representative from Kakaako, Speaker Psyche, and I had one as a senator from Kakaako, put in a resolution on both sides, OHA's, asking for a working group. Let's look at ways in which we can do something else than building residential and high-rise luxury residential in an area where it's prohibited. And so that's kind of where it also died and OHA says it's going to go forward, but there are a number of problems with their going forward without talking to the community and without talking to HCDA. That's a long way of saying a lot of history there, but that serves, I think, a lot of the community has with this bill. Let me just put in my two cents, because I remember when A&B had the project, and we testified way back when, and it was like, guys, we just got done fighting with the city on Chapter 38, the residential leasehold condo bill, and leasehold condos are a problem. Why are you guys creating another problem? Why would you build leasehold condominium? I mean, it's like, we just got, I mean, it caused so many problems. I mean, people died. I mean, they killed themselves. I mean, you know, and the, I mean, people, I mean, there are so many problems with leasehold because leasehold comes from it. I mean, if it was 99 years and perpetual, then maybe I wouldn't have a concern, but it's good in the beginning, but when you get to the end, there are problems, and then it becomes hard to sell. Nobody wants to buy leasehold because you can't get loans, and then you get the rent reopenings, and there are buildings in Waikiki now, they're coming to the end of the term, and they have no remedy, and you have people who are less ease in the leasehold condominium, and they're just getting bullied by the fee owners who are saying, you know, this is what I want. Take it or leave it, right? And there are people who are living in leasehold condominiums. They hope they're, they passed away before the lease expires. They say, oh, I'm 86. I'm, you know, there's nine years left on the lease. I'm going to die before it ends, but if they're lucky and they live beyond that eight or nine years, they're not going to have a home. You know, so to me, it's a problem with the leasehold, yes. But you know, to me, unless you're going to make really long leases that are perpetual, that you could, like in England, they've got 99-year leases that they've been renewing for hundreds of years, okay? Then it's not a problem, but you know, when you've got leases that have an end, have an expiration date, then you're creating a problem for future homeowners. And you know, it's like, why would you do that? After all, we went through in Hawaii, right? We had a Supreme Court case that went up for single-family homes, for leasehold. And then when Chapter 38 got passed in the city and Bishop and State took that up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. told them, hey, we've already decided this issue for Hawaii. And you know, so, you know, don't bother us. You know, your legislature can determine public purpose. And if they want to make public purpose for people to own their own homes, that's okay with us, right? And so, you know, it's like, why? The minute I hear your leasehold condominiums, I just fringe, you know, like, why would you be wanting to do this all over again? You know what? You have to do more training. You have to do people with implications of long history. And people come in and they jump in and they say, we want to do this. We want this without knowing, you know, all the consequences and lessons learned from the past. Yeah. And these are hard lessons. I mean, people didn't know, you know, what was going to happen. And then when you get to the end and you're stuck because now you're the owner of a leasehold condominium and your lease is expiring, there's nothing you can do. You can't even sell it. You know, and those are issues that I thought, you know, we had pretty much resolved. And, you know, so that's why whenever I hear stuff about you wanting to build a leasehold condominium, I just say, I just shake my head, like, why would you do that? And, you know, so I kind of do more training, Jane. You do training and broader spectrum of people seeing what lessons we've learned because, you know, why keep on doing the same thing over and over that will create problems, especially when you're in these lease ownerships, when you get to the end, you're pretty old and pretty much on fixed income. And what do you do at that point? Really very few options. Right. And that's what I mean, that's what I'm seeing in Waikiki. And there's maybe three or four leasehold condominiums. And there are elderly people who tell me, oh, I'm going to die before the lease expires. And I'm thinking, I hope that's the case because if not, you're not going to have a home. I mean, there's nothing we can do. There's no, they have no remedy. And, you know, to me, that's the lesson that we've learned, at least, you know, now that, you know, when you do leasehold condominiums, you are creating a problem. And so it's better not to do it. But, you know, we run out of time. Oh, no. Yeah, I was just kidding. So, you know, we're going to have to continue this conversation, I'm sure, in the future sometime. Thank you so much for being... You know, what I do want to suggest, Jane, because you're such a condo queen, right, is that in the past, maybe we should have a discussion and maybe one program should be one of the things that didn't pass and should we have it and how can we improve it. And maybe some of your suggestions so that you educate people before the session begins next year. Yeah, maybe that's a good idea to do a show like that before the session opens next year. And thank you very much, Senator. It's nice to be with you again, Jane. Thank you for being our guest and for the people who are listening. Thank you for joining us for another episode. And next week, Reline Kennell is going to be the co-host. And she's going to have John Knork. And it's going to be two consecutive shows. They're going to be talking about labor law and condominiums are employers and they employ, you know, the maintenance of housekeeping, security, and what kind of issues do condominiums as employers have to deal with. So we're going to have two weeks of that. Really interesting. Please join us next week and the week after for condo insider on labor law issues. And thank you very much for joining us today. And thank you again, Senator, for being my guest. My pleasure. Okay. Mahalo.