Honolulu is entering what could be one of its tightest budget cycles in years.

As recently reported, Mayor Rick Blangiardi has proposed cutting vacant city positions to save $50 million, citing stagnating revenue and the end of pandemic-era federal support. The post-Covid real estate surge that boosted property tax collections has cooled. Federal dollars are shrinking. Hard choices are ahead.

In moments like this, good governance requires looking carefully at tools already studied and available.
One such tool has been sitting before the council awaiting a potential final vote: Bill 46 (2024), Honolulu’s proposed Empty Homes Tax.

Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.

Read More

Unlike many policy proposals, Bill 46 has already undergone independent economic review. A consultant analysis presented to the City Council projected that even using conservative assumptions, the measure could convert over 1,000 empty homes into productive use over a decade and generate approximately $290 million in incremental net revenue over that same period.

Those revenues would not depend on raising property taxes on local residents. Instead, the tax would apply to residential properties left vacant for extended periods — encouraging productive use while generating funds that could support housing initiatives and other city priorities. The current draft is structured with 17 targeted exemptions — including for primary residences, long-term rentals, and qualifying second homes — designed to limit impact only to excess properties that remain unused for extended periods.

The concept is not theoretical.

In Vancouver, British Columbia, an Empty Homes Tax implemented in 2017 has produced measurable results. According to the city’s most recent annual report, the number of vacant homes has fallen below 1,000 for the first time since the program began, decreasing by 67% over that time. Since implementation, Vancouver’s program has generated nearly $200 million Canadian dollars to support affordable housing.

Honolulu’s housing challenges are different in scale but similar in structure. We are a high-demand, globally desirable market with limited land and intense pressure on supply. Each long-term vacant unit represents both lost housing opportunity and unrealized tax capacity.

Locally, support for this approach continues to hold strong. A 2024 study by Ward Research found that 74% of residents surveyed support the idea. Eight Oʻahu neighborhood boards — including Kailua most recently — have formally adopted resolutions urging the Council to advance the Empty Homes Tax. These boards span diverse communities and reflect residents’ frustration with persistent housing scarcity.

Bill 46 is not a silver bullet. It will not, on its own, solve Honolulu’s housing crisis or eliminate budget constraints. But at a time when the city is trimming positions and warning of tighter revenues, it is reasonable to ask whether a carefully structured vacancy tax deserves renewed attention. Honolulu does not lack policy ideas. It sometimes lacks follow-through.

As the council weighs difficult fiscal decisions in the months ahead, revisiting a measure that promises both housing activation and meaningful revenue would not be radical. It would be pragmatic.

The question is not whether Honolulu faces hard choices. It is whether we are willing to use practical, studied tools already within reach.