Posted on: Sunday, December 8, 2002

Term limit can prompt hasty vote

By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

Is this what Honolulu's voters had in mind when they approved a term-limit law for the City Council?

In what turned out to be its very last act, the council last week approved a condemnation resolution that will allow residents of three condominium projects to buy their land in fee simple.

The vote came in the face of a firestorm of emotional opposition and after nine hours of contentious testimony. Four of the five members of the council who voted for condemnation won't be back because of the term-limit law.

The only returnee to vote for condemnation was Gary Okino, who becomes chairman in January. And he hastily promised he'll convene a task force to review the 1992 mandatory leasehold-to-fee law.

Would the other four have voted for condemnation if they had a political future on the council? No one can say for certain, but it surely was no coincidence that this difficult decision was their last act on the way out the door. If the four knew they would be back again in January, the temptation to defer would have been almost irresistible.

Term-limit laws are built around the premise that it is good to shake up political office every so often. Fresh blood, new thinking. But it becomes clear that term-limit laws also have the effect of galvanizing people into making decisions that otherwise might be put off.

And in the case of leasehold condemnation, there is good reason to defer and delay. This has to be one of the most difficult, complex issues the council has faced.

The courts have upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory lease-to-fee law for condominiums. So the majority were on strong legal ground.

But as a matter of public policy, things become complicated.

The state's leasehold conversion law — aimed at single-family homes — has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, the court said, land ownership was so concentrated in so few hands that it constituted a virtual oligopoly. The state had a legitimate interest in spreading out land ownership and creating opportunities for individuals to own their homes in fee.

That issue of concentrated ownership is not quite as obvious in the case of condominiums. There are more landowners, some of them quite small family trusts or religious groups. Also, decisions about whether to petition to buy in fee are made on a group basis; in some cases by a minority of apartment owners making the decision for the group.

And since not every apartment owner can, or will, buy the fee interest, you will end up in some cases with a hodgepodge of fee-simple and leasehold apartments in the same building. Then there are equity issues: An apartment with its lease about to expire is virtually worthless. Once the land is purchased, the apartment's value immediately soars. Should the former landowner be cut in for a share of that sudden windfall?

These are the kinds of issues and questions that can legitimately paralyze a lawmaker when the decision can always be put off for another day. Unless, under the strict deadline of term limits, there is no tomorrow.