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.

It’s important to note just how prohibitively expensive parking is in Honolulu. A 2020 study from the Ulupono Initiative found that the cost to build parking in high-rise buildings (with podium-style parking) for affordable and mixed-income rentals in Honolulu’s urban core costs up to $55,000 per unit. Adjusted for inflation, this cost now exceeds $68,000 per unit.

Imagine that a high-rise building of 200 mixed-income rental units was being planned in Honolulu. If one parking stall was built for every two units (as would be required under Bill 53), in today’s dollars, this would add a whopping $6.8 million to the cost of the project.

Costs Passed On To Tenants

These expenses reduce housing supply and jeopardize project feasibility. These costs are also a passthrough to the tenants. According to the 2020 study, for a single person renting a small studio in urban Honolulu, parking could add up to $410 per month to their rent — even if they don’t own a vehicle.

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 impassable, 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.

Critically, ending parking mandates does not eliminate parking itself. Developers still respond to market demand. For example, preliminary research on Ordinance 20-41 by Hawaiʻi Appleseed Center for Law & Economic Justice shows that permitted parking in TOD zones has decreased by around 20%. This trend is largely driven by rental housing developers who are choosing to build less parking spaces to meet reduced demand.

Bill 53 would impose arbitrary parking minimums on affordable housing, ignoring transit proximity or resident demand. This would reverse progress from Ordinance 20-41, could stall (or stop altogether) Bill 7 projects, and will deepen inequity by forcing lower-income residents — who are less likely to own cars — to subsidize parking they do not and often cannot use.

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.