Daily Archives: March 9, 2010

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

House Journal Written Remarks, 3^rd Reading

House Bill No. 1756, House Draft 1

Relating to Criminal Procedure

Monday, March 2, 2010

I rise in support.

House Bill 1756, House Draft 1 allows for the expungement of convictions for non-violent offenses after a five year waiting period after the completion of sentencing or probation for the offense to be expunged, whichever is later, before an application for expungement may be filed with the court.  It prohibits the expungement of a conviction for any crime that is not eligible for a deferred acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere plea.  The court shall determine that the defendant is not likely to engage in a criminal course of conduct and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that the conviction remain on the applicant’s record before issuing an expungement order.

This bill works together with the Judiciary budget bill that includes the funding for the specialty courts that helps our people who commit non-violent crimes to turn their lives around.  Upon completion of their sentencing or probation, an expungement of convictions for non-violent offenses will help these individuals to get jobs and be productive citizens in our community.

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

House Journal Written Remarks, 3^rd Reading

House Bill No. 1752, House Draft 1

Relating to Repeat Offenders

Monday, March 2, 2010

I rise in support.

The purpose of House Bill 1752, House Draft 1 is to increase judicial discretion by excluding certain non-violent offenders from the repeat offenders statute requiring mandatory minimum prison terms.  The House is aware that the intent of this bill is to give back to Hawaii state judges discretion in sentencing certain defendants guilty of certain crimes as enumerated in the bill without requiring any minimum jail time or alternative sentencing methods if the circumstances do not require incarceration.  Mandatory incarceration of defendants results in huge costs to the State and does not lead to a reduction in recidivism.  According to the Judiciary, the incarceration of an adult defendant costs about $50,735 per year.  The use of alternative courts, such as drug court or Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program, costs about $8,000 per year for each defendant.  In addition, the rates of recidivism for defendants graduating from these alternative courts are markedly lower than those leaving incarceration. 

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

House Journal Written Remarks, 3^rd Reading

House Bill No. 2725, House Draft 1

Relating to Animals

Monday, March 2, 2010

I rise in support.

House Bill 2725, House Draft 1 further protects the health and well being of pet animals.  The bill creates a new definition of “primary pet enclosure,” which means any kennel, cage, or structure used to restrict a pet animal to a limited amount of space.  It requires that an area of confinement in a primary pet enclosure provide access to shelter; is constructed of safe materials to protect an animal from injury; enable an animal to be clean, dry, and free from excess waste or other contaminants that could affect the animal’s health ; provide an animal with a solid surface or resting platform that is large enough for the animal to lie down in a normal manner; provide an animal with a solid surface (in the case of a rabbit or guinea pig the surface may be welded wire of sufficient size to allow feces to pass through, yet comfortably support the animal) or resting platform (in the case of birds, a perch) that is large enough for the animal to lie or perch upon in a normal manner.  In addition, the bill mandates that a primary pet enclosure provide sufficient space to allow an animal to easily stand, sit, lie, turn around, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable normal position for the animal without making physical contact with any other animal enclosure; and interact safely with other animals within the enclosure.

Owners must also provide veterinary care when required to prevent the pet animal from suffering.  The definition of “pet animal” was amended to mean a dog, cat, domesticated rabbit so long as not bred or raised for meat production purposes, guinea pig, or caged birds (passeriformes, piciformes, and psittaciformes only) so long as not bred or raised for egg or meat production purposes. 

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

House Journal Written Remarks, 3^rd Reading

House Bill No. 2250, House Draft 1

Relating to the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act

Monday, March 2, 2010

I rise in support.

The purpose of this bill is to enact the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act, which was designed to determine the risk of a child being abducted by a parent, and establishes measures to prevent abductions before and after child custody determinations.  Under this Act, courts are authorized to issue an abduction prevention order to, among other things, limit travel, or restrict visitation, and issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child.

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

House Journal Written Remarks, 3^rd Reading

House Bill No. 2904, House Draft 1

Relating to County General Plans

Monday, March 02, 2010

I rise in support.

House Bill 2904, House Draft 1 provides that the state general plan shall remain the ultimate controlling authority of land use in the State of Hawaii.  Within all state land use districts other than conservation, the counties have the authority to plan and zone pursuant to sections 46-4 relating to County Zoning and 226-58 relating to County General plans of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.  Even if they are discouraged, land uses that are permitted under: (1) The state general plan; (2) A county’s general plan or development plan; and (3) The county’s current zoning, for a tract of land, shall not be denied for lack of consistency or conformity.”

I would like to clarify that the state general plan should actually be the Hawaii State Planning Act as defined in Chapter 226 in the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

We are emphasizing that a permissible use under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205 relating to the Land Use Commission that defines the land use classifications, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 226 relating to the State Planning Act, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 226-58 relating to County General Plans, and Hawaii Revised Statutes section 46-4 relating to County Zoning should be upheld when there are technical differences such as lack of consistency or conformity.  

As reflected in the testimonies on this measure, there is confusion among communities and planning directors of certain counties.  This confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the hierarchy of the land use regulations that are mandated by state law.  In particular, it is believed in some counties that zoning is not effective where it is contradicted by a county general plan.  According to state law, this belief is incorrect. County general plans set goals and limitations to be followed when exercising zoning powers, but it is the zoning ordinances that dictate which uses of land are permissible.

The Hawaii State Planning Act, as codified in Chapter 226 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires counties to formulate county general plans that are to “indicate desired physical development patterns for each county and regions within each county.”  Further, such plans “should…contain objectives to be achieved and policies to be pursued with respect to…land use.” These broad policies are just that – policies.

In Chapter 46 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the state delegates to the counties the power to zone some of the lands on the islands.  Section 46-4, particularly, requires that ordinances be passed which set out various land use regulations such as restrictions on the location of residential, industrial, and commercial buildings.  These ordinances must “be accomplished within the framework of a long range, comprehensive general plan…” The statute further clarifies that “zoning shall be one of the tools available to the county to put the general plan into effect in an orderly manner.”  As it relates to land use, the county general plan is ineffective until the tool of zoning is utilized.

House Bill 2904, House Draft 1, merely restates the law in a single stroke – obviating the need for an interested party to thumb through the various chapters of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and piece together the various pieces of the land use puzzle.  In effect, it makes clear that zoning ordinances may never be passed that exceed the policies stated in a county general plan.  However, where a county general plan changes and old zoning ordinances remains in place, the county general plan’s policies are not effective with respect to land use until a new zoning ordinance reflecting such policies is passed, except as otherwise provided by state law.

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

House Journal Written Remarks, 3^rd Reading

House Bill No. 2724, House Draft 1

Relating to Offenses Against Public Order

Monday, March 02, 2010

I rise in support.

House Bill 2724, House Draft 1 will help protect dogs from cruelty, yet it is flexible enough to allow the training of working dogs in various industries in the state of Hawaii.  Specifically, the bill further defines the offense of cruelty to animals in the second degree by requiring that tethering, fastening, tying, or restraining a dog to a doghouse, tree, fence, or any other stationary object or to a cable trolley system cannot be done in a cruel or inhumane manner.  It requires that a tether or chain cannot weigh more than ten per cent of the weight of the dog tethered, and the tether or chain must have a swivel on at least one end.  Further, one cannot tether, fasten, tie, or restrain a dog younger than two months old.  Finally, in addition to the misdemeanor penalty currently in law, this bill mandates fines of $50 for a first offense and $200 for any subsequent offense.

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

House Journal Written Remarks, 3^rd Reading

House Bill No. 2248, House Draft 1

Relating to the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act

Monday, March 02, 2010 

I rise in support.

The purpose of this bill is to improve interstate adult guardianship and protective proceedings by, among other things, establishing uniform rules regarding court communication, jurisdiction, and transfers of guardianship or conservatorship.

 Thank you.