Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 3, 1 March 1997 — Developers attack Land Use Commission [ARTICLE]

Developers attack Land Use Commission

Employing the rhetoric of "homerule," "goverment efficiency" and "streamhning the process," developers are onee again attempting to reduce the authority of the Land Use Commission. In the past, we have seen developers use their muscle to develop at Hāpuna, Waikōloa, Punalu'u, 'O'oma, the west end of Moloka'i, Mānele, eentral O'ahu, West Beach and Nukoli'i; and try to develop at Sandy Beach, Queen's Beach, He'eia, Pūko'o, Pu'u o Kaiaka, Waihe'e, Ka'ūpūlehu, Ka'ū, Kohanaiki and Hāna. Other scenic areas and natural resources will be threatened if the Land Use Commission's authority is reduced. If the Land Use Commission's authority is reduced, the public will lose its only significant opportunity to participate in the planning process. Currently the public has the right to ehallenge developers through "contested case hearings." These hearings give the public the only opportunity to crossexamine developers and their "experts," make detailed factual presentations and appeal decisions that violate legal

procedures and standards, or are not based on the facts. In a contested case hearing, the decision-maker may not meet privately with the developer to discuss the case and is prohibited from receiving any money from the developer. Any appearance of impropriety or unfairness is groimds for appeal. The Land Use Commission does not always make appropriate decisions. When the public challenges these improper decisions, however, we often win. Judge Miehael Town, then a private citizen, successfully challenged the proposed development of agricultural land on Maui. Wai'anae residents blocked a 103-acre amusement park at Kahe Point. Miloli'i residents were able to stop the proposed one billion dollar Hawaiian Riviera Resort in Ka'ū. Lāna'i residents have temporarily blocked the further urbanization of Mānele. These examples illustrate the important role the public plays in preventing inappropriate development. The public's role would be trivialized if the authority of the Land Use Commission is reduced. Instead, land use deci-

sions would be relegated exclusively to the counties. Decisions made by the county councils offer none of the procedural safeguards offered by the State Land Use Commission. The pubhc is not allowed to cross-examine developers or their experts. Citizens are often restricted to one or three minute presentations. Developers are free to give eouneil members eampaign contributions and speak with them in private. County eouneil decisions may not be appealed to a court of law for independent review. Average citizens are at a disadvantage when decisions rest exclusively with the eounty councils. Precious natural resources are less likely to be protected without appropriate state, court and citizen oversight. Sufficient land has already been designated for urban development to satisfy projected growth. There is no need to eliminate the role of the state, the courts or the public — except to satisfy the greedy demands of a few developers. David Kimo Frankel, Director, Sierra Club Hawai'i chapter