Relating To Property Maintenance.
HB175 would create a new chapter in the Hawaii Revised Statutes establishing a statewide property maintenance requirement for owners and lessees of real property. The bill is aimed at reducing neglected-property conditions that contribute to invasive species spread, wildfire risk, and public safety hazards such as overgrown vegetation blocking access routes or emergency response. It defines maintenance obligations broadly and applies them to property conditions that threaten native ecosystems, increase combustible fuel loads, or obstruct roads, pathways, and emergency access.
The bill also sets out an enforcement framework. If a state or county agency determines a property poses the covered risks, the owner or lessee must receive written notice and a correction period of up to 30 days. Failure to comply could trigger civil fines ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 per violation, plus $100 per day for ongoing noncompliance and reimbursement of remediation costs incurred by the state or county. The bill allows exceptions for properties under approved restoration, conservation, or agricultural management plans, or for circumstances beyond the owner’s or lessee’s reasonable control.
HB175 assigns implementation duties across multiple agencies. The Department of Agriculture would adopt rules for invasive-species-related enforcement, while the State Fire Marshal would adopt rules for wildfire and other public-safety hazards, with authority to delegate to county fire departments. Counties would also be required to adopt ordinances to carry out the chapter. Any fines collected would be used for invasive species control, wildfire prevention and response, and community education and outreach.
The bill would add a new layer of state and county authority over property upkeep, while expressly preserving existing maintenance duties under other laws, including section 339-5. It does not alter rights, duties, penalties, or proceedings that existed before its effective date. The measure is drafted to take effect on July 1, 3000, which is a common placeholder date in introduced legislation and indicates it is not intended as a near-term operative date in its current form.
Overall, the bill’s stated purpose suggests strong support for environmental protection, wildfire mitigation, and community safety, but the available record contains no committee transcripts or votes showing debate or opposition. Based on the text alone, likely points of contention would include the breadth of the maintenance mandate, the size of the fines, how agencies would determine violations, and the potential burden on property owners and lessees, especially those with agricultural, conservation, or restoration uses.
HB175 would create a new statutory chapter imposing affirmative maintenance duties on real property owners and lessees and authorizing state and county enforcement against neglected properties that foster invasive species, wildfire hazards, or public safety risks. It would require rulemaking by the Department of Agriculture and the State Fire Marshal, and would direct counties to adopt implementing ordinances. The bill would also establish a fine structure and allow agencies to recover remediation costs, while preserving existing property-maintenance obligations under other laws, including section 339-5.
The bill’s stated rationale is strongly supportive of environmental stewardship, wildfire prevention, and community safety, and the report title and description frame it as a public-protection measure. However, there is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders. On its face, the measure appears policy-driven and enforcement-oriented, with a clear emphasis on deterrence and remediation.
No formal contention is documented in the provided record, but the bill’s structure suggests several likely pressure points. Property owners and lessees may object to the broad maintenance duty, the $1,000 to $10,000 fine range, daily penalties, and reimbursement of government remediation costs. Counties and enforcement agencies may have concerns about inspection, appeals, and implementation burdens. The exceptions for restoration, conservation, and agricultural management plans indicate an effort to address concerns from land managers and conservation interests, while the inclusion of wildfire and invasive-species enforcement reflects the priorities of environmental and emergency-management agencies.