Hawaii’s land use system is a complex, multifaceted process, one that frustrates public and private sectors alike. To improve it, some West Hawaii residents think there should be more transparency and education, as well as better resources for enforcement and participation.
Hawaii’s land use system is a complex, multifaceted process, one that frustrates public and private sectors alike. To improve it, some West Hawaii residents think there should be more transparency and education, as well as better resources for enforcement and participation.
Twenty-one people attended a state Planning Office meeting Wednesday at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority, where officials gathered input about the state’s land use process, specifically district boundary amendment procedures. Such amendments are obtained by petition to the state Land Use Commission and initiated by the state, county or “any person with a direct interest in the property sought to be reclassified.”
The meeting was among five held statewide and part of the agency’s analysis on how to make the process more effective and efficient without compromising the law — to “preserve, protect and encourage development of the lands in the state for those uses to which they are best suited for public welfare.” Land use system experiences and suggestions were shared Wednesday.
If the process is to be changed, Kona resident Janice Palma-Glennie said “the only reason would be to strength and further the cause of democracy and government transparency by increasing the opportunity for decision-makers to be most sympathetic to, and inclusive of, the public that they’re meant to represent.”
Palma-Glennie spoke about Ooma and how development proposals over the years sought to change this “amazing, untrammeled, natural open space” from its current conservation status to urban classification. She called the protection of Ooma’s conservation status “a huge triumph of the people over the endless greed of speculators and developers,” but it wasn’t easy.
“Only because of the existing state land use process was this community able to overcome a procession of Goliaths with an outcome that reflected the community’s dreams, goals and tireless work,” she said. “Our vision was to preserve Ooma, its coastal waters, and all of the other irreplaceable resources associated with that land now and for our keiki’s keiki. That dream, at last, is a reality.”
Palma-Glennie said “home rule is only as good as its rulers.” She explained how the county was pitted against people who didn’t want the land developed.
“Without the state preempting out county’s myopic, corporate-driven agenda, Ooma would most definitely have been bulldozed into a fake, unrecognizable, urban or resort mess like what exists at next door Kohanaiki due to it not having been in a more protective state conservation classification when it was similarly threatened by development decades ago,” she said. “Layers of government and its checks and balances are key to insuring that democratic process works fairly. In the case of Ooma and many others, the state’s due process made the difference between what the people wanted versus what developers’ greed would have brought to their communities.”
The Planning Office represents the state’s interest in land use matters before the LUC, a quasi-judicial body often targeted by criticism. It also works with other state agencies and counties to evaluate whether proposed projects heard by the LUC further the intent of the state land use law. Still, concerns remain about the system.
Attendees asked about the recent Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that the LUC did not follow state law when it reverted land under the Aina Lea development from urban to agriculture. The LUC, when making the reversion, cited developers’ lack of progress and noncompliance of conditions, such as getting the certificates of occupancy for units. To hold the developers accountable, the LUC did the reversion, later deemed improper.
If the ability to revert land classifications is the LUC’s sole power of enforcement and it’s hard to do, Waikoloa resident Anika Glass suggested better enforcement tools are needed to deal with situations where conditions are unmet. Glass also said instead of reverting land to its original classifications, other classifications should be considered. For instance, she thinks “a field of lava is a thing of beauty and worth preserving,” but doesn’t fit in any of the current classification categories of urban, rural, agricultural and conservation.
The state is required to conserve and protect agricultural lands. However, Waimea resident David Tarnas said the county is supposed to take the lead in identifying and designating Important Agricultural Lands. The problem, he explained, is the county was given that mandate with no funding. While there may be interest, he added, there’s no compulsion to do so. This keeps the LUC from making the classification because of the absence of applications. He recommended the Planning Office advocate that the Legislature fund the counties to go through the IAL classification process, which “should be an inclusive process with public input.”
A woman spoke about the Thirty Meter Telescope being constructed on “sacred land.” She asked if it was the responsibility of the Planning Office and LUC to protect the county as a whole from “that development if it was wrong.” Leo Asuncion, the agency’s acting director, said the LUC only classifies the land, and the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, along with its board, has the authority to say what can be done in that particular conservation district.
Kona resident Aric Arakaki had several suggestions Wednesday: First, land designated as conservation should have no building on it, and if you want to build on conservation land, get it reclassified. Second, with environmental impact statements, the land developer shouldn’t hire the consultants because “it’s a conflict of interest.” Instead, the hiring should be done through the government’s request for proposal process so it’s “more objective and fair for all.” Third, there should be more education about the land use system and how to participate in it. Lastly, create a website that the public can access to click on land and see the permits pulled, as well as the progress and decisions made.
The public has until Dec. 19 to provide comments, which will be incorporated in a report with findings and recommendations prepared by the Planning Office. The final report is expected to be completed by mid 2015. A draft will be available for public review next month. Comments can be emailed to Rodney.Y.Funakoshi@dbedt.hawaii.gov.