United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Indi.

Native Hawaiian housing and home lands : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on housing needs of Native Hawaiians, July 3, 1996, Honolulu, HI online

. (page 8 of 34)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on IndiNative Hawaiian housing and home lands : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on housing needs of Native Hawaiians, July 3, 1996, Honolulu, HI → online text (page 8 of 34)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Almost 40 percent are renting their homes, and 16 percent are sharing accommodations
with others. O'ahu applicants were less likely to own their own homes (30%). Fifteen
percent of the applicants had no savings at all, and 47 percent had less than $5,000 in the
family savings account. About five percent had more than $40,000 in the bank.

The data for affordable monthly payments on a home showed a similar pattern. Just over
a third of the applicants (34%) felt they would be able to pay less than $500 per month
for a home on homestead land. Less than 1 2 percent would be ready to pay more than
$1,000 a month. The data on current monthly housing payment are directly comparable
with the affordable payment because the current payment may be shared with other
individuals. The pattern of payments was similar, however, with 35 percent paying less
than $500 per month and 28 percent paying more than $1,000.

Table 22 also shows that about 12 percent of 1995 applicants are living in households
where no one is currently employed, and 19 percent live in households with three or more
employed persons. More than 60 percent of all applicants live on the same island for
which they are applying. That pattern is very different for O'ahu and the Neighbor
islands. Very few of the O'ahu applications are from off island, but at least 40 percent of
neighbor island applications come from O'ahu or out-of-state. On Maui, off-island
applicants outnumber home island applications.



DHHL B«n«ficiafv Study. 1995 Pane 35

>SMS Renarch 1042 Fon St.. «200, Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686 Ssptan4>or. 199S



60



90



Table 22: Other Qualification Information for Homestead Families, by Island



Qualification




Island of First Choice for All


AddM cants


February 1994




Oahu


1 Maui


1 Hawai'l 1


Kaua'i


Moloka"i


Total


Affordable Down Payment














none


4.6


4.2


4.5


4.8


1.1


4.4


less than $5,000


23.4


22.6


24.2


22.6


21.6


23.3


$5,000 to $14,999


40.8


37.4


40.8


35.2


41.8


39.6


$15,000 to $24,999


24.6


22.6


19.7


22.9


27.3


22.6


$25,000 to $39,999


3.9


8.6


5.8


7.4


3.6


5.7


$40,000 or more


2.8


4.6


5.0


7.1


45


4.3


Real Estate Ownership














own home plus other RE


6.8


13.2


11.8


7.4


13.7


10.0


own current unit


23.6


39.5


32.4


35.8


33.3


31.1


own other RE only


4.9


3.3


4.7


5.0


9.1


4.7


renter


47.3


30.8


33.8


35.6


32.0


38.1


sharing


17.4


13.1


17.3


16.3


11.9


16.2


Family Savings














none


17.2


13.2


13.6


15.3


13.9


15.0


less than $5,000


47.3


42.8


49.1


45.3


462


46.8


$5,000 to $24,999


26.2


29.3


27.1


26.3


30.3


27.2


$25,000 to $39,999


6.8


7.8


6.4


4.1


5.5


6.5


$40,000 or more


2.6


6.9


3.8


9.0


4.2


4.5


Affordable Monthly Pay














less than $200


5.5


6.7


7.9


9.0


11.9


7.1


$200 to $499


21.6


25.5


30.6


36.6


29.6


27.0


$500 to $799


26.8


30.6


32.6


30.2


30.4


29.9


$800 to $1 ,099


28.5


25.6


20.5


14.2


17.7


23.6


$1,100 to $1,399


8.6


5.0


3.0


4.7


4.0


5.6


$1 ,400 or more


9.0


6.6


5.4


5.3


6.5


6.9


Current monthly payment














less than $300


17.1


15.6


20.4


23.4


31.5


18.9


$300 to $499


15.9


15.3


17.4


13.2


16.9


16.0


$500 to $699


16.2


19.1


17.9


15.4


20.4


17.3


$700 to $999


22.1


19.9


17.5


20.8


13.4


19.9


$1,000 to $1,499


19.1


15.5


15.3


19.2


11.7


17.0


$1 ,500 or more


9.6


14.6


11.6


7.9


6.1


10.8


Number Adults Employed














none employed


10.2


11.3


11.6


19.4


15.2


11.9


one employed


26.7


28.2


30.7


34.0


25.2


28.9


two employed


39.0


42.2


42.9


34.0


34.3


40.2


three or more employed


24.1


18.3


14.8


12.6


25.2


19.0


Current Address














this island


89.0


33.3


53.8


43.7


43.7


61.4


another island


6.2


56.1


38.4


442


44.2


31.1


not in IHawaii


4.8


10.6


7.8


12.1


12.1


7.4


All Applicant Households


4,483


2,508


4,201


1.256


551


12.999



Data shown for applicant's f^ cttoice of island - some are sigrwd up for more tfian one tstai^. Estimates were t>ased on income for the
*Homestaad Family* - Itw total persons wlio will move to a home on the award land, reported for Calendar 1994 Data are shown only
tor applicants who have not yet received an award, n^ 12,999 The 'Island Median' Is for all housetwids in each county report l>y HUD,
for 1^ The item 'below 30% of median' shows the percent of all applicant families with annual incomes that were below 30 percent of
the mediafl irtcome guidelme for each family see in each of Hawaii's four counbes



DHHL Beneficiarv Study. 1995



•SMS Research 1042 Fort St.. f 200. Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph: 808-S37-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686



September, 1995



91



Index of Housing Readiness

It is unlikely that any survey will produce exact financial qualifications for a group as
diverse as OHHL applicants. The foregoing materials suggest an extremely complex set of
variables on which any qualification scheme must be based. Even those data exclude
detailed information on indebtedness, credit history, unusual family demands on resources
due to illness or other situations, the stability of employment, access to resources other
than family income, and ability to do their own construction. It was, however, possible to
combine the data from the survey to arrive at an index of financial readiness to move to
homestead land. The index was constructed by creating categories in which the
characteristics of applicants were similar and related to financial strength. The categories
were created by combining information on applicants' annual income, affordable down
payment, affordable monthly shelter payment, real estate ownership, employment, current
savings, and family size.

Figure 7 shows the distribution of DHHL applicants based on their financial ability to obtain
housing financing. The distribution shows seven categories ranging from very low financial
qualification to very high qualification.

Figure 7: Applicants ' Financial Qualifications for Housing




Note: Phona curv«v data. Waightad total = 12,773. Categonas wara created by giving weights to all
financiel-ralatad variables m the applicant phona survey data. Total excludes 226 applicants who do not
intend to build home on agricultural or pastoral parcels.



DHHL Banaficiary Study, 1995

•SMS Research 1042 Fon St.. #200, Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686



Page 37

Saptannber, 1995



62



92



The classification scheme is mutually exclusive and exhaustive, meaning that all surveyed
applicants were included in one and only one category. The meaning of the classes,
however, is not rigid with respect to specific housing solutions. The scale was created to
demonstrate the range of financial needs that exists within the applicant population.

The following are brief descriptions of each segment:



Very Low Qualification: These applicants have very little capability to finance a
home, fy/lost of them can afford less than S200 for monthly shelter cost; more than
half of them have family incomes below 30 percent of the median income guideline
established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Few have any resources to apply toward a down payment. About seven percent of
all DHHL applicants wishing to build a house on award land are in this category.

Assisted Rental: With financial assistance, these applicants will be able to stay in
the rental market. Some of them own a home, but will not be able to net out a
down payment for another home. A large majority of them can afford less than
$500 every month for housing cost. There are about 3,000 applicants - or 23
percent of intended builders - who fit this category.

Near Market Rental: These people can rent a bit more comfortably, but would not
likely be able to buy in today's market. About one-quarter of them are classified as
"very low income" by HUD guidelines. About thirty percent of these applicants
have access to special financing, such as VA financing. Those with higher incomes
have no resources for a down payment, and those with some real estate have low
incomes and can afford relatively low monthly housing payments. In total, 20
percent of all applicants intending to move are in this category.

Borderline: Applicants in this category are on the borderline between the rental and
homeowner markets. These applicants could afford market level rental payments,
but would need assistance in order to buy or build their homes. Programs like rent-
to-own or financial education programs might ease many of these people into home
ownership. About one-third of these applicants have family incomes above 1 20
percent of the HUD median figure, and many of them can afford up to $1,000 for
monthly shelter cost. They are not. however, prepared to make reasonable down
payments and few own real estate. About five percent of all applicants who want
to build a home, or approximately 600 applicants, are classified in this category.

Assisted Owner: This group will also require assistance to become home owners
on award land. What separates them from the borderline category is real estate
ownership: many own their current home and/or other real estate property. They
are likely to be able to have some resources for down payment. They may not be
able to qualify for standard financing because they have either the down payment
or the monthly but not both. There are about 2,600 applicants in this category.
That represents 21 percent of all applicants wishing to build on homestead land.



DHHL B«n«ficiarv study. 1995 P«1W 38

»SMS R»aarch1042 Fori St.. #200, Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686 Septambar, 1995



63



93



Low Market Owner: These people may not be able to purchase top-of-the-market
houses, but they are qualified to become home owners. Nearly one-quarter of these
people have family incomes above 120 percent of HUD median guideline. There are
nearly 2,000 applicants in this category, or 1 5 percent of all those who intend to
build home on DHHL land.

High Market Owner: Applicants in this category will not have any serious problems
financing a home. Twenty-percent of them have family incomes that exceed 140
percent of the median income guideline established by HUD. Half of them own
their current home or some other property and almost a quarter of them own more
than one piece of real estate. There are at least 1 ,400 applicants in this category.



Figure 8 shows the distribution of financial status of the applicants from the same island
(top bar) and from off-island (bottom bar). In each of the categories there are more home
island applicants than those from off-island. The home-island applicants, however, were
much more likely to be qualified as renters than as home owners.

Figure 8: Financial Breakdown of Applicants Preferring Single Family Unit





















|1.0»9








HHHHBi


P727
(40


low marttct (Mmcr


jjMJiMi


BFS"





■■■■miH


B99HI




Pl4M


bordcftnc


"*««» 220






JBI 1,5*2




^^^^~


ummf ^^




^^^^^


very Kiwqual




^n?




IMS








^J




200 4M too


MO 1000


1200 1400


1C00 1*00 200(





Note: Phon« survey data. Basa c thosa praferrino singlo-familv homaa (12.730 waighted cases).

The readiness irtdex is a static construct from survey data. It suggests that a substantial
rnimber of applicants from the February 1995 lists at DHHL were probably not qualified to
accept an award ttiat year. That finding is consistent with relatively high rates of deferral



DHHl. Biiaficiafv Study, 1»*S



Page 39



•SM5Raaaarch1042 Fan St.. *200, Honolulu, HI 96*13 Fti: eoa-537-33S« Fax: S08-537-2S86 Saptacnbar, 1995



64



94



and with the number of cases where applicants have been disqualified for specific awards.
It does not mean that 1995 applicants will remain in their 1995 categories for all time.
They may become more qualified over time. At any given time, however, only some
applicants will be prepared to accept an award and move onto the land.

This suggests a method for re-examining the housing stock required to fill the need of
1995 applicants (See Table 17). We might consider the 1995 applicants who were
qualified for home ownership as those who were capable of accepting an award that year.
Adding this new qualification to the required stock analysis, we would get the results
shown in Table 23.

Table 23: Housing Preferences ofDHHL Beneficiaries, 1995



Type of Unit

and

Number Bedrooms


Choices for Specific Applicant G


roups


Second Choice

(Reflects willingness to

accept unit to get an

award faster)


Second Choice for those

who expect DHHL to

build the units


Second Choice for those

who want DHHL units

and are qualified for

home ownership


number percent


number percent


number percent


Single Family


8,124 63.6


3,837 58.2


1 ,689 60.4


at least two
three bedrooms
four bedrooms
five or more
haven't decided


3,230 25.3

3,908 30.6

825 6.5

117 .9

44 .3


1,549 23.5

1,882 28.6

336 5.1

53 .8

17 .3


603 21.5
894 32.0
154 5.5
38 1.4


Multifamay


4,271 33.4


2.605 39.5


1,023 36.6


at least two
three bedrooms
four bedrooms
five or more
haven't decided


2,428 19.0

1,573 12.3

238 1.9

21 .2

12 .1


1,538 23.4
888 13.5
146 2.2
21 .3
12 .2


597 21.3
296 10.6
103 3.7
21 .7
5 .2


Doesn't Matter


378 3.0


147 2.2


86 3.1


at least two
three bedrooms
four bedrooms


82 .6
230 1.8
67 .5


67 1.0
73 1.1
7 .1


36 1.3
43 1.5
7 .2


five or more


— —








Now: 'first Choice' is the answer to the question 'What type of housing unit (number bedrooms) would you like to have?'
'SecorKJ Choice* is the answer to the question, 'K you could get into a urwt faster, would you be willing to accept a
muttifamilv unit (sfnallar number of bedrooms)?' The last column reports second choice for applicants who felt ttiat DHHL
should provide Homestead Lease Awards with the homes eiready built there. In the second and third sets, the classification
system did not move cases where ttte resporvjent was not certain wtMther ttiey would accept a rrtultifamily unit.



DHHL Beneficiarv Study, 1995



Page 40



'SMS Research 1042 Fort St.. *200, Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-3356 Fax: 808-537-2686



September. 1995



65



95



The last column in Table 23 might be considered to be the acceptable new housing stock
profile of units to be built by DHHL for applicants who were qualified for some form of
financing in 1995. The total is almost 2,800 units.

We note that the profile in this last column is more similar to the first column than to the
second. The implication is that people who are more qualified for financing are less willing
to accept a multifamily unit. However, in the long-run, there is a need for a substantial
number of multifamily units.

Applicants' financial status and their expectations have implications on the policy decisions
that have to be made by the DHHL administration. They are described and explored in the
following section.



DHHL B«n«fici«fY Study, 1995 P«g« 41

»SMS R*««arch1042 Foft St.. f200. Honolulu. HI 96813 Pti: 809-S37-3366 fn: 808-S37-26S6 S«(>t*mb*t. 1995



fr-.



96



POLICY ISSUES

From a very long list of policy issues at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, a short
list was prepared to include in the beneficiary surveys. This section of the report presents
their responses. The data is presented in Table 24. The issues are discussed briefly here,
and included in the conclusion section.

DHHL ROLE IN HOUSING POUCY

Beneficiaries would prefer for DHHL to address broader housing policy rather than
attending solely to the distribution of homestead lands. Nearly two-thirds (63%) feel that
way'^. Only 22 percent are against the idea and 15 percent aren't ready to render a
decision. The finding is consistent with other data in our studies, and was underlined in
focus group research.

It is clear from comments of beneficiaries participating in focus groups that many expect
DHHL to have a comprehensive housing policy that includes the same kind of housing
options that are available in the open market. Throughout the State, but especially on
Oahu, beneficiaries expect the Department to be involved in the development of affordable
multifamily units (duplexes, four-plexes, townhouses, and even apartment buildings) in
addition to single-family dwellings. There is general recognition and acceptance of the fact
that there are many beneficiaries who may have difficulty qualifying for a traditional
mortgage or building loan - and DHHL is expected to help find a solution to these
problems. When most beneficiaries think of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the
emphasis is on the "Home".

This is not to say there are no beneficiaries who think that the Department should simply
distribute the remaining land to those on the list. Some even note that this action should
be taken in order to eliminate the need for the Department's existence. Some of these



Th« queation was phra<«d as follows: *Do you think DHHL should concannata onlv on land awards for applicants,
or do you think they should ba involvad in creating othor kinds of housing opportunittas for Hawaiians?' Sixty-thraa
parcant of overall banaficiarias raspondad that the department should be involved in creating housing opportunities.

DHHL Benaficiarv Study. 199S __^ P'"' *i

•SMS Reaearch 1042 Fort St.. #200, Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph; 808-S97-33S6 Fax: 808-S37-2686 September, 1995



Gl



97



beneficiaries feel that as long as DHHL is a State agency, it will not be able to properly or
adequately address the needs and concerns of native Hawaiians". They feel that the
State is part of the problem and that nothing will really change as long as that structure
remains as it is.

While this is a minority view, those who adhere to it seem to be individuals who are
articulate and knowledgeable about many of the key issues. Many of the leaders of State
Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations (SCHHA), for example, are beginning to feel
that their organization is the best structure for administering the land needs of native
Hawaiians - 'beneficiaries of the land deciding what is best for the land." The SCHHA
would become the housing leadership of the sovereignty movement.

Overall, the general impression we got from most of the beneficiaries was that DHHL
should do more not less.



Those voioM were tward as eiwcdotal mtormation at soma of tha focus group sassions. and cannot ba quantifiad
as to what parcantage of tha benaficianas actually faal this way



DHHL Banaficiarv Study. 1995 . "trie

•SM5 Raaaarch 1042 Fort St.. #200. Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph: 808-S37-33S6 Fax: 808-S37-2686 Septambar, 1995



^8



98



Tab/e 24: ApfiUcant and L»SS9« Opinion on Policy fssuM



Policy Issue snd Response


Applicants


Lessees


Ail Beneficiaries


DHHL role In housing policy:*








stick to awarding land only


22 9%


20.9%


224%


not sure


14.5%


145%


14.5%


attend to broader housing needs


626%


645%


63.1%


DHHL role In financing housing:*








use all Home Lands for awards


33 6%


27.7%


32.0%


not sure


18.2%


17.6%


180%


use some land to generate funds


48.2%


54.7%


50.0%


Role of multlfamily units:*








develop only single family units


51.5%


47.4%


504%


not sure


6.1%


11.7%


7.6%


develop some multlfamily units


42.4%


40.9%


42.0%


Role of kupuna unite:*








stick to awarding land


26.4%


216%


24 2%


not sure


51%


8.3%


5.8%


build some kupuna units


685%


70.1%


66.7%


On sharing Infrastructure costs:*








homesteaders should share cost


255%


23.4%


25.0%


not sure


122%


96%


11 5%


DHHL should pay for infrastructure


62 2%


67.0%


63.6%


Observing building codes:*








DHHL should follow County codes


76.1%


60 3%


66 6%


not sure


9.3%


14.4%


123%


Homesteads need less ngid codes


14.6%


25.3%


21.0%


Policy on deferrals:**








should move to bottom of list


522%


51.8%


521%


not sure


4.5%


5.8%


4.9%


should maintain position on list


43 3%


424%


43.0%


Policy on succession:**








should allow pass to children with less

than 50% blood quantum
not sure


73 7%
3.1%


72.3%
4.0%


73.3%
3.4%


don't allow pass to children with less than
50% blood quantum


23.2%


23 7%


234%



Note: Figures are column percentages.

• Pt)one survey data. Those who did not supply their opinions are excluded from the total.

* * Mail survey data. Lessee column includes those who have been awarded Homestead Lease Award
but also waiting for another award.



DHHL Banaficiarv Study, 199S



P«(l«44



•5MS ReMaich 1042 Fan St.. «200. Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph: 808-S37-33S6 Fw: 808-537-2686



Saptombor, 1995



69



99



USE OF DHHL LANDS FOR INCOME GENERATION

A very slight majority of beneficiaries (50.2%) feel the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands should use some of the Homestead lands for commercial development and use the
funds to alleviate housing need among the applicants. About 31 percent do not think that
is a good idea, and the Department should use all the land for awards. The percent who
were not able to answer that question was fairly high at 19 percent, and this issue is much
more divisive than DHHL's housing role.

The idea was generated by focus group participants: as a solution to funding problems for
infrastructure and construction costs. Some even felt it could be applied to the total
shelter costs of needy beneficiaries. The idea is that some of the more commercially
valuable land can be developed and the income from that land can be used for housing
solutions. Participants noted that the most successful of all Hawaiian organizations, the
Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate, had been applying this strategy for years. They
wondered why DHHL could not apply the same policy.

Those who oppose the issue, and many who are not certain where they stand right now,
are concerned about past mismanagement of Hawaiian Homestead Lands. There is
common perception that too many general leases have been "given away" and/or
mismanaged in the past. These leases need to be re-negotiated at fair prices, and the
funds employed to solve native Hawaiian housing problems. Despite this concern, most
beneficiaries are in favor of using homestead lands to generate the needed income for
infrastructure and housing - if it is managed professionally.

Some beneficiaries feel the best policy is to get the land in the hands of the Hawaiians.
They would urge the Department to award the land now - even without infrastructure. It
will give people back their heritage, and provide the motivation to plan and save money for
building.



DHHL B«n«fici«iY SpKly, 1995 P«Qe 4S

•SA«SRM«areh 1042 Fort St.. #200. Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph: 808-537-335$ F«: 808-537-2686 Soptember. 1995



100



MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND RENTALS

This is another issue that divides beneficiaries. The plurality (49.7%) oppose developing
multifamily units. About 41 percent favor the idea, and ten percent have not made up
their minds. The issue of rental housing was not included in the survey, but vi/as
developmd in the focus groups.

Multifamily Units Only

In several of the focus groups when the term 'multifamily housing' was introduced, there
were some participants who made the assumption we were talking about more than one
family living in the same house - a condition that is common in native Hawaiian
households. When 'multifamily housing" was clearly defined, some participants said they
would be interested in living in a four-plex or six-plex unit, especially if their 'ohana (who
also are beneficiaries) could Inhabit the other units in that building.

Most of those who expressed interest In a multifamily unit would expect to have some
section of land that was part of their lease award. Some suggested that the surrounding
land area or yard could be divided up equally among the lessees. Others said they would



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on IndiNative Hawaiian housing and home lands : hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on housing needs of Native Hawaiians, July 3, 1996, Honolulu, HI → online text (page 8 of 34)