Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 4, Number 10, 1 October 1987 — Bottom Line on Waiola [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Bottom Line on Waiola

By Clarence F. T. Ching Trustee, O'ahu

"Waiola!" Almost everyone who has read the newspapers or watched TV news has been exposed to "Waiola," a name that has had mueh exposure in the media over the last eouple of years. It has surely had a lot of front page coverage since late August when thp inrv rpfiirnpd its vpr-

dict with a finding that Mayor Frank Fasi, former city managing director D.G. "Andy" Anderson and former city housing director Alvin K. H. Pang committed fraud in spending $482,921 on the Waiola Estates housing project. Unfortunately, the real issues have been clouded by a lot of public name calling and exchanges of insults. Because the uncalled-for rhetoric was broadcast to all corners by the media, the public has become more than a little confused about who has been doing what and have even taken up battle lines regardless of the truth. The city's plan to build an affordable housing project using Section 359G of the Hawaii Revised Statutes did not eome about. Section 359G, because of the critical shortage of housing units for lower ineome residents of the state, allows development of housing projects exempt from all statutes, ordinances, charter provisions and rules of any governmental agency relating to planning, zoning, construction standards, development and improvement of land, and the construction of units thereon. However, before 359G ean be used, approval must first be obtained from the county eouneil regardingthe items it desires to exempt. The administration of the City and County of Honolulu, relying on the exemptions made available by 359G, signed certain contracts to do "preliminary" work and had the contracted-for sums paid out. The problems arose because the administration failed to get the city council's approval before it executed the contracts and paid for the work. In the meantime, Hawaii's Thousand Friends, a nonprofit public interest organization interested in good land-use planning and responsible development, aided by attorney Martin Wolff , filed a lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of the City and County of Honolulu for the return of the misspent funds to the City's coffers. After a four-week trial, the jury deliberated for three and one-half days before it found by a 10 — 2 vote that Fasi, Anderson and Pang committed fraud in their handling of the housing project and ordered the three to repay the city. With on-going denials by Fasi, many eontinue to wonder whether the case was indeed frivolous. As members of the jury went back to their former lives, they, of course, were subjected to all of the media claims that everyone else was experiencing. They were upset that the truth as they knew it was not being told and elected one of their number to represent them. In an attempt to clear things up, this person called Advertiser writer Mark Matsunaga and offered an interview. On Sept. 2, the Advertiser published the story: "Waiola juror says it was a 'fair and unpoliheal' trial." Most of us understand that in our judicialsystem, the iurv becomes the "finder of fact" and the iudae auaran-

tees that the law is followed. Jury members represent a cross-section of the community, and, in effect, they represent us. Suspicions whether the jury was tampered with or whether they really understood the case surfaced from time to time. The juror, according to the Advertiser, is quoted — saying, "We sat through four weeks of testimony after whieh we deliberated for over three days. During deliberations we read and reread documents, letters and other exhibits introduced as evidence. We did not eome up with our verdict easily nor did any of us take our responsibility lightly." She added, " We tried hard to be as fair and unpolitical as possible....There was no jury tampering....I left feeling our justice system is alive and well. There seems to be a lot of checks and balances." As the Waiola saga heads to the next chapter of its litigation history, expectedly in the forms of appeals and cross-appeals, recent developments within the inner workings of the city give us more to think about.

Mike Moon, the "new" director of the Department of Housing and Community Development sent a memorandum dated Dec. 29, 1986, to Jeremy Harris, the "new" managing director. The memo related the existence of four possible problem areas: 1) that the increase of traffic contributed to by the Waiola project would not only add to congestion, but would result in the state's "Air Quality Standards being exceeding by a level neefrly twice that specified as the maximum allowahle and four times the level that would exist without Waiola;" 2) that a buffer zone be established between Waiola and the Navy's ammunition storage facilities in the Waikele and lower Kipapa Gulch areas; 3) that development of Waiola would pose a threat of contaminating the Pearl Harbor acquifer; and 4) that negative responses in nearby communities were expected because Waiola purchasers would have homes of equal or better quality at substantially lower cost. Moon recommended reducing the size of Waiola (reducing its lot sizes and changing its unit price mix to include a greater number of higher ineome homes) as an effective means of dealing with the problems of traffic and air quality. A golf course would provide a productive means of dealing with any blast hazard and add to Waiola's attractiveness and marketability, enhancing the entire surrounding area. The golf course would provide a means of subsidizing the affordable housing units and serve as a source of ineome for the city over the long term, and would have a favorable impact on eeonomie growth. It would also produce jobs and ineome over both the short and long term. With the Dec. 29 recommendations that would increase the ratio of market-priced homes and provide a golf course, it seems that the characterization of Waiola as an affordable housing project does not ring true. It reminds me of the story of the king and his invisible clothes. Because the people were told that the king was fully clothed, almost everyone imagined that he was even though they could see that he wasn't. However, one of the issues that the jury seems to have based their verdict on was the fact that they did not believe Waiola was to be the affordable housing project that it was supposed to be. But the worst tragedy of all that eame out of this experience was that there actually were people who believed that their dreams of having their own homes would eome true. That it has been suggested to them that it was the jury the "inexperienced" judge, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's attorney who are to blame is unfortunate. The real lesson that may be learned here is that we as Hawaiians must identify the source of our information and how the information fits into the whole story. Many times the story does not fit with the facts. Note: The writer is a member of the Board of Directors of Hawaii's Thousand Friends.