Relating To Historic Property.
HB533 revises Hawaii’s statutory definition of “historic property” in the State historic preservation law. Under current law, the definition includes buildings, structures, objects, districts, areas, or sites that are over 50 years old; the bill removes that age-based criterion and instead defines historic property as any such resource that is included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places or the Hawaii Register of Historic Places. The definition also expressly includes heiau and underwater sites, and it continues to cover associated artifacts, records, and material remains.
The bill is framed as a technical change to the historic preservation program, but it would shift the legal trigger for historic-property status from age to formal register eligibility or listing. That could affect how state historic preservation requirements apply to development, permitting, review, and protection of cultural resources, because properties would no longer qualify merely by being more than 50 years old. The bill also includes a delayed effective date of July 1, 3000, which appears to function as a placeholder rather than an immediate implementation date.
HB533 would amend section 6E-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which defines “historic property” for purposes of the state’s historic preservation framework. By deleting the “over fifty years old” language and substituting a register-based standard, it would narrow or refocus the set of properties subject to historic preservation review and related protections, while preserving coverage for listed or eligible properties and their associated artifacts, records, and material remains. The change could affect property owners, developers, cultural resource consultants, and state agencies responsible for historic preservation compliance.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be presented as a definitional update to align the statute more closely with formal historic-register criteria. The absence of discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge, but the bill’s drafting suggests a neutral, administrative approach rather than a highly contested policy change.
The main point of potential contention is the replacement of an age-based definition with a register-based definition. Supporters may view this as a more precise and administrable standard that better targets genuinely historic resources, while opponents could argue it risks excluding older properties that are culturally or historically significant but not yet listed or formally determined eligible. Another possible issue is the practical effect on preservation review, since changing the threshold for coverage could alter which projects trigger consultation or protection requirements. No specific stakeholder positions were included in the materials provided.