This table compares the three materially documented campaigns using examples rather than themes. Ratings are analytical judgments explained in the text.
| Test | Bissen | Sugimura | La Costa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past statement or record | In 2022, said Maui should invest in alternative industries before limiting lodging options that support jobs. | Five Council terms; chaired budget work; voted against Bill 9 on both readings. | Planning Commission service, real-estate regulation and business ownership; no elected executive record. |
| Observable follow-through | Administration later proposed Bill 9. Public evidence reviewed does not show that alternative industries were established first. | Her Bill 9 vote is clear and consistent. Broader evidence that she materially fixed permitting or infrastructure during Council tenure is less conclusive. | Campaign now specifies repeal procedure, audit and cost-relief ideas. Past public-service outcomes are less readily measurable. |
| Housing delivered or enabled | County reports 500+ affordable/workforce homes completed in 2025, 700+ under construction, and $250M+ allocated supporting 2,883 units. Attribution and affordability terms vary by project. | Points to permitting and infrastructure as bottlenecks; has budget and legislative exposure but has not yet published a complete unit-delivery ledger. | Promises Homes Together and renter-to-owner relief; independent unit, cost and timeline validation remains limited. |
| Future mechanism | Housing investment, infrastructure and conversion of apartment-zoned TVRs to resident use. | Speed permit/project reviews and fund water, wastewater and roads that unlock construction. | Repeal Bill 9 through Council, ease selected enforcement during transition, audit spending and redirect excess revenue. |
| Does the mechanism plausibly reach the goal? | Mixed. Infrastructure spending can enable homes; forced TVR conversion has uncertain yield and large collateral risks. | Plausible. Directly targets known supply constraints, but needs staffing, process and unit targets. | Plausible but underproved. Some relief can be implemented; scale, legality and recurring fiscal effects need validation. |
| Transparency and accountability | Promised weekly project aging reports in 2022. A public, project-level dashboard sufficient to verify that promise was not located in this review. | Campaign emphasizes honesty and accountability but has not yet committed to a detailed public performance dashboard. | Promises a day-one forensic audit. Strong diagnostic step; ongoing operating transparency still needs definition. |
| Best evidence | Actual executive experience; major housing and infrastructure allocations during disaster recovery. | Relevant county experience, budget knowledge, defensible Bill 9 vote, clearer causal housing strategy. | Specific immediate actions and strong land-use/business familiarity. |
| Largest concern | Policy inconsistency, weak public measurability and whether activity has translated into sufficient results. | Whether five terms produced enough reform and whether executive promises become quantified commitments. | Executive scale, fiscal assumptions and implementation team. |
| Current analytical rank | 2 Strong record, significant liabilities | 1 Best current balance | 3 Serious but less proven |
Bissen asks voters to credit the difficulty of the assignment and the scale of activity. That is legitimate, but incumbency also creates a higher duty to show what was promised, what was completed, what failed and why.
Sugimura asks voters to believe that county knowledge plus executive authority will convert into faster delivery. Her policy mechanism is stronger, but the website should continue pressing her for numbers rather than accepting direction alone.
La Costa asks voters to choose a sharper break. Her proposals are increasingly concrete, but a county government cannot be run as a protest campaign; the missing evidence is operational depth.