Over on the Wailupe Peninsula, another East Oahu dispute is brewing over the issue of shoreline access.
Again, we hear of the haves putting up locked gates that keep the have-nots from easily reaching a stretch of waterfront that everyone in Hawaii should be able to enjoy. It took years to settle such a divisive matter in nearby Portlock, where the city eventually had to seize a private pathway by eminent domain and open it to the public.
The steel gates blocking three ocean access points off Wailupe Circle make this dispute look like that one, but it simply is not so.
In Portlock, the private lane was the only access to one of the rare sandy spots on that shoreline, as well as to a popular surf spot. In Wailupe, the issue is access to a 15-foot-wide-channel that cuts through the reef. It can be reached via entry points other than the private ones, but the alternatives require a rocky trek or a wade across 300 feet of shallow reef.
It’s not that access is blocked, but rather convenient access is blocked.
The approximately 120 homeowners in the Wailupe subdivision would be entitled to concerns that opening the gates could bring congestion, parking hassles, security challenges, even litter to their quiet neighborhood — although it is unlikely that the area would attract as many oceangoers as are drawn to Portlock.
This is not a problem on that scale. But for hard-core access advocates, the differences don’t matter. They can point to public protections that date to the Hawaiian kingdom era and a state Supreme Court decision from more than 50 years ago upholding the right of beach access. For them, there is no reason that this subdivision should be immune to allowing reasonable shoreline access, and reasonable doesn’t mean a long or rocky walk.
The Supreme Court ruling came years after work on this subdivision began in 1947, when Hawaiian Dredging Co. filled in a fishpond on the property, carving out the channel to provide the fill material. That channel — or trench in the reef — was later billed as an amenity for homeowners, for swimming, fishing and boating. In later years, homeowners built 21 piers that extend over public waters; these are subject to varying public-use standards depending on when they were put up.
It could just be that time is catching up to this subdivision after nearly 75 years. Environmental and access laws have changed, usually for reasons of overarching good, which means that standards held for a couple of generations by private residents may have to yield. The dredging, the piers, the trench, are all benefits to the homeowners, definitely worth a payment in goodwill that is coming due today.
The steel gates — including an overhead cage at one point — and the no-trespassing signs in capital letters, all combine to radiate hostility, contributing to an aura of elitism that hangs over the subdivision. Still, the scale of this dispute calls not for a Portlock-
level nuclear option of public condemnation of property, but for a nonconfrontational approach. A little bit of aloha, perhaps.
Naive? Maybe. But how about we try sitting down, looking each other in the eye and outlining who’s concerned about what? The result could be an end to locked gates and assurances of respect on both sides. It’s worth a shot and now is the time, before a simmering issue becomes a potboiler. If it doesn’t work, it’s always possible to circle back and up the stakes, but that would be a shame.
