Honolulu City Council to debate Bill 53 shopping cart ordinance

Honolulu City Council to debate Bill 53 shopping cart ordinance

by

Bill 53’s Cart Crackdown: Honolulu’s Shopping Cart Battle Hits a Crossroads

On a Tuesday morning at Honolulu City Hall, the air is thick with tension. The Honolulu City Council is set to debate Bill 53, a proposed ordinance that aims to put a stop to the proliferation of abandoned shopping carts clogging sidewalks and streams across Oahu. This isn’t just about carts; it’s a proxy for a much larger and more painful conversation on the island about public safety, poverty, and the limits of the law. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that the measure, introduced back in July by Council Chair Tommy Waters, is scheduled for its second of three readings, following a contentious committee vote that split the Public Safety and Economy Committee on Oct. 22.

Two Sides of the Shopping Cart

The core of Bill 53 is simple on paper: it would broadly prohibit possessing, using, or offering shopping carts for public use unless they are clearly identified by their owners and used under specific conditions. The stated goal, as Waters sees it, is to address a clear nuisance. “I know it’s a controversial measure, but I think it’s important for us to have the conversation,” he told the committee before their vote. “But just to be clear, this bill addresses stolen and abandoned shopping carts that are often left in public spaces, obstructing sidewalks, clogging streams and creating safety hazards.”

The bill’s supporters paint a picture of a public burden. They cite replacement costs for retailers that range from $200 to $800 per cart—a cost Waters says is often passed on to consumers through higher grocery prices. This financial toll on businesses, coupled with the visual blight and safety hazards of carts blocking walkways, has earned the measure support from the Honolulu Police Department and the Retail Merchants of Hawai‘i.

Honolulu City Council District 2 | INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAIʻI

But the bill’s opponents see a different picture entirely. For them, Bill 53 is a blunt instrument that would criminalize homelessness. The measure, which classifies violations as petty misdemeanors, would make it illegal for anyone to possess a shopping cart without authorization, even if that cart is the only way a person without a home can transport their few belongings. The Star-Advertiser noted that while the bill removes an earlier proposal for fines of up to $2,000 and jail time, it still lacks a specified fine amount, leaving the consequences of a violation dangerously ambiguous.

Council member Esther Kia‘aina, who voted against advancing the bill, said the issue is part of the broader challenge of addressing homelessness on Oahu. “I don’t know the solution,” she said of Bill 53 during the committee hearing, “but I know this is not the solution.” This sentiment captures the heart of the opposition. Kia‘aina, along with the city Department of the Prosecuting Attorney and the state Office of the Public Defender, argues that the bill is a disproportionate response to a complex social issue. The Prosecuting Attorney’s office acknowledged the legitimate public safety concerns but questioned whether criminal penalties were the right tool, urging instead for a non-jailable violation with a clear financial penalty. The Public Defender’s office went further, urging the Council to reject the measure outright, arguing it would criminalize possession or use of a cart even when no harm was caused.

Challenging Bill 53's Constitutionality

Beyond the immediate debate on public space, Bill 53 has raised serious legal questions. Mandy Fernandes, policy director at the ACLU of Hawai‘i, has questioned the bill’s very constitutionality. In written testimony to the Council, she suggested that the ordinance could infringe on the rights of people experiencing homelessness by criminalizing a basic necessity for survival and mobility. Fernandes also proposed more constructive alternatives, such as the creation of public lockers for storage and assistance for retailers in implementing automated cart-locking systems that would prevent theft in the first place.

The bill attempts to build in some safeguards. It exempts carts owned by the federal and state governments. It also allows for a written authorization from a property owner to serve as an affirmative defense, meaning someone could possess a cart on another’s property with permission. Anyone convicted would be required to forfeit the cart to the city. Perhaps most critically, the bill includes a 180-day grace period after enactment, during which no arrests or citations could be issued as retailers are given time to identify their carts with markings.

The Human Cost of Cart Control

So, who really stands to lose if Bill 53 passes? The answer is woven into the fabric of Oahu’s most vulnerable communities. While the bill’s proponents emphasize the costs to retailers, the opponents highlight the human cost to those on the margins. For a person experiencing homelessness, a shopping cart is more than a stolen piece of retail equipment; it is a mobile pantry, a mobile closet, and a mobile shelter for their most essential possessions. Losing that cart could mean losing everything they own.

Honolulu City Council heats up with debates on pay raises

This is where the bill’s stated intention clashes with its practical effect. Waters has repeatedly insisted the bill is not intended to target kupuna using personal carts or people experiencing homelessness, arguing that stealing a cart is already a crime and this bill is merely a tool to allow police to more easily confiscate abandoned ones. But the line between a cart that is “abandoned” and one that is “in use” by someone with nowhere else to put their belongings is razor-thin. Critics fear that in practice, the law will be used to sweep homeless individuals and their belongings from public view, effectively criminalizing their existence rather than addressing the root causes of their situation.

The debate has forced a confrontation between two competing visions of public order. One sees clean sidewalks and clear streams as paramount, even if it means pushing a societal problem out of sight. The other sees a compassionate approach that addresses the needs of all citizens, regardless of their housing status. As the Council prepares for its 10 a.m. meeting at 530 S. King St., the choice before them is not simply about what to do with shopping carts. It is about what kind of city Honolulu wants to be.

Related reading

Read next