"Affordable housing in Hawai'i" shouldn't be a self-canceling phrase.

But for years that's exactly what happened with a proposed massive housing development on the Big Island at Waikoloa.

In the mid-90s, a Japanese developer promised to designate 60 percent of its housing stock as affordable in a deal with the Land Use Commission that allowed for the rezoning of more than 1,000 acres for urban use.

It was a good deal, but impractical.

As it worked out, the 60 percent figure made no financial sense. The developer, Nansay Hawaii, ended up selling the land in foreclosure in 1998.

Now the project has been revived seven years after the fact by Bridge Capital, a California development company.

One big difference: A new affordable housing goal has been set at 20 percent of the total stock.

It hardly puts a real dent in the housing need for workers in that area. And that's a problem. But demanding too much seven years ago netted zero affordable housing. A promise of 20 percent, estimated to be about 385 homes priced around $200,000 for working-class folks, sounds pretty good by comparison.

Still, we are left wondering what might have been if the Land Use Commission had a more realistic formula setting reasonable targets for affordable housing in the first place.

There's no doubt, Hawai'i needs affordable housing.

But the Waikoloa example proves that if the demands are unrealistic and make little financial sense, we are left with nothing. This experience should act as a strong guide toward future policymaking involving development and the endless demand for affordable housing.