Bill 53 would increase Oʻahu housing costs

Honolulu’s housing crisis demands solutions, but Bill 53 takes us backward. While families struggle to afford rent and stay in their communities, this legislation would increase housing costs by reimposing parking mandates on affordable housing.

It threatens years of progress, forcing developers to build expensive parking instead of homes — fueling sprawl, car dependency, and displacement.

Honolulu has made historic strides in parking reform. In 2020, Ordinance 20-41, eliminated costly parking mandates for new housing and commercial development in key areas: the primary urban center, ‘Ewa development plan zones (excluding residential, agricultural, and preservation districts), areas within 0.5 miles of rail stations, and transit-oriented development districts.

That measure built on progress made by Ordinance 19-8, which waived parking mandates for affordable rental housing (“Bill 7 projects”). We cannot afford to reverse course.

Reinstating parking mandates through Bill 53 means choosing cars over people; asphalt over affordability.

Parking mandates do more than raise housing costs — they also distort land use and urban design. Land is wasted on car storage instead of homes, parks, or businesses. Vibrant ground floors become dead parking podiums, not storefronts or community spaces. Walkability is sacrificed for driveways and parking lots.

This car-centric reality is visible across Honolulu: streets lined with vehicles, sidewalks missing, communities divided down the middle by impassible, fenced-off roadways. Without infrastructure investment (like sidewalks) or zoning reform (allowing mixed-use, such as shops beneath housing in Mō‘ili‘ili), Bill 53 traps residents in continued car-dependency.

Requiring developers to include parking beyond what is actually needed will also drive up costs, putting some developments at risk of being halted or canceled altogether.

Instead of undoing our progress, we should continue moving toward a future in which our communities are more walkable, and driving is not the default option to travel. This is a future in which brick and mortar small businesses and public parks are more common than vacant parking lots. It’s a future in which the cost of transportation does not overwhelm household budgets or hinder mobility. 

To get there, we should invest in housing locals can afford and in infrastructure that expands mobility options — not expensive storage for cars. Say no to Bill 53.