Vote No On Constitutional Amendment Question 2
Hawai‘i voters should not approve a financing mechanism that puts public finances at risk.
October 20, 2026 · 4 min read
About the Author
The November ballot will contain a proposal that could ultimately result in an increase in property taxes. Constitutional Amendment Question 2 would allow the counties to use tax increment financing to pay for community development in designated districts.
Under TIF each county would designate districts for development that are expected to increase property tax revenue. In each district the expected increase in property tax revenue would be used to pay off bonds that would finance infrastructure for that district.
Tax increment financing is an idea that has long been used in other jurisdictions. Chicago created the first TIF district in 1984, and has expanded the program more than any other major U.S. city.
A report issued in August 2026 by the University of Illinois at Chicago concludes that “the scale, complexity, and institutionalization of TIF districts have outpaced, and too often ignored, the public discussion necessary to ensure accountability, transparency, and alignment with public goals and equitable development.”
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.
Furthermore, according to the report, tax increment financing “drove up taxes significantly for all property owners across the city…” (emphasis added). Chicago property owners’ tax bills increased 13.7% between 2014 and 2023 because of TIF districts.
In Hawaiʻi, tax increment financing has been described as “RISE bonds” (it stands for Resilient Infrastructure for Shelter and Equity). But if the Chicago experience is any indication, it’s property taxes that may ultimately rise.
How can TIF put upward pressure on taxes if it does not raise the property tax rate?
Property-tax revenue helps pay for police and fire protection, emergency services, parks, refuse collection and other ongoing county services, as well as infrastructure. Under TIF, however, the future property tax growth is committed solely to building infrastructure, so it cannot simultaneously be used to pay for ongoing county services.
Nevertheless, the county must still provide county services. The new development will presumably increase the demand for police, fire protection, emergency services, road maintenance and other county services, and the county must pay for them. But the property tax revenue committed to TIF is no longer available for those purposes.
The county then faces the choice of reducing services county-wide to balance the budget, or finding other revenue to maintain them at the current level. Property taxes are the principal source of county revenue, so the likely result would be pressure for higher property taxes for everyone.
Thus, tax increment financing shifts the burden of financing infrastructure from the development in the TIF district to everyone who pays the property tax. Developers enjoy the benefits of TIF, and taxpayers bear the costs.
This issue is particularly relevant to the New Aloha Stadium Entertainment District, the planned approximately 98-acre development in Hālawa. The project combines a new stadium with a large mixed-use development. A current state presentation estimates more than $2 billion in construction spending.
Voting yes could result in an increase in property taxes.
Private investment and revenue from the mixed use portion of the project will be the main sources of financing. The state has appropriated about $400 million toward the construction of a new stadium. It is estimated that, at full buildout, NASED could generate approximately $17 million annually in new property tax revenue.
Aloha Hālawa District Partners, the state’s selected master developer, is responsible for developing the district as its role in a public-private partnership. Infrastructure needed for the development — including roads, sewers and electric lines — has been estimated at approximately $147 million, in addition to roughly $32 million for the relocation of utilities.
If future property tax revenue from NASED is captured through tax increment financing, that revenue would be committed to paying for infrastructure rather than being available for county services. Yet the completed development would still require police protection, fire protection, emergency services, road maintenance and other county services.
The fundamental problem with TIF is that the development receives the infrastructure up front, while those who pay the property tax assume the risk of paying for the county services needed by the district.
Hawai‘i voters should not approve a financing mechanism that puts public finances at risk. Vote no on Constitutional Amendment Question 2.
Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed.
Community Voices aims to encourage broad discussion on many topics of community interest. It’s kind of a cross between Letters to the Editor and op-eds. This is your space to talk about important issues or interesting people who are making a difference in our world. Column lengths should be no more than 800 words and we need a photo of the author and a bio. We welcome video commentary and other multimedia formats. Send to news@civilbeat.org. The opinions and information expressed in Community Voices are solely those of the authors and not Civil Beat.
Local reporting when you need it most
Support timely, accurate, independent journalism.
Honolulu Civil Beat is a nonprofit organization, and your donation helps us produce local reporting that serves all of Hawaii.
ContributeAbout the Author