Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 3, 1 March 1997 — Opinion about OHA's trust funds and the state [ARTICLE]

Opinion about OHA's trust funds and the state

A January 25 editorial in the Star-Bulletin deserves a response, lest the general publie not be fully informed. First, the article is based on an assumption that the seizure and creation of the ceded lands "trust" was originally a legal activity. Further, that the management of the ceded lands should be maintained for businesses that have succeeded the businesses that first participated in the seizure of those lands. On the other hand, some redress or restitution seems deserving and the nominal amount of $11 million that OHA now receives annually does not appear enough to enable any kind of a recovery in a state said by Bert Dohmen to have the most dismal eeonomie environment of any state in the union. The 1893 and 1898 seizure of lands by business people has created for the community environment degradation, congested development and merchandizing the climate and 'āina worldwide. At the same time we are denying the first residents their needs, as clearly outlined in the voluminous 747 page Native Hawaiians Study Commission report of 1983.

The Aloha Tower "folly" is being blamed on OHA, but did OHA contribute to it or receive anything worthwhile from it? Aloha Tower has been close to bankruptcy and not paying rent, showing the whole development idea was another poorly conceived one to begin with, while promising payoffs. In the 1898 annexation, the ceded land ineome was 100% from all the ceded lands except those in government use. In 1959 the Statehood commitment created two beneficiaries, the general public and the native Hawaiians, whieh may suggest eaeh sharing half of the ineome. Then in the 1978 Con-Con the ceded land ineome to OHA was set at 20%. A later examination shows another reduction with the state taking the "sovereign" ineome leaving perhaps 10% to OHA. The Statehood Compact of 1959 was a promise to provide

for native needs, but it has not measured up. Some $2 billion may be needed just for Hawaiian Homes housing, compared to the $11 million that OHA receives from the ceded land ineome. The artiele seems to be crying "wolf". But if we examine the travel industry (tourism), it is reported to be a $13 biIlion Hawai'i industry. And $1 billion is heralded as being paid in Hawai'i taxes. What hap- — pens to the other $12 billion? Those are the questions that need answers and not those accusing OHA and its beneficiaries of inducing "bankruptcy." The strong charges deserve strong answers and the Iegacy of the 1898 Annexation deserves strong scrutiny as it is not working and should be cast aside with mueh else. Louis Agard, Honolulu