It was an extraordinary — nay, historic — accomplishment. A land settlement between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the state, approved by the Legislature on Friday, effectively settled Native Hawaiian claims on income from public trust lands from 1978 to 2012. To settle those claims, OHA will receive about 30 acres of Kakaako Makai land currently valued at $200 million.
But that’s not the end of the story. The Legislature was also considering a companion proposal, Senate Bill 682, that could dramatically increase the value of those 30 acres. The bill would do so by lifting the ban on high-rise residential development on the Kakaako makai lands, allowing residential development on two parcels, designated E and I. It provides that 20 percent of the units be designated for low- or moderate-income residents. The projects would also be exempt from fees normally charged to private developers by the Hawaii Community Development Authority, which is in charge of planning and development in Kakaako.
What’s wrong with this picture? Simply put, SB 682 would effectively, if indirectly, change the value and terms of the OHA settlement.
And, in the process, it would abruptly upend years of careful planning — made with extensive public participation — that resulted in the Kakaako Makai Conceptual Master Plan, which guides the development of this last, cherished open public coastline in urban Honolulu. The plan’s vision of a "community gathering place" could be replaced with high-density, high-value oceanfront residential properties.
At the moment, it appears that SB 682 is destined to die in the House Finance Committee. That would be a good thing. The Legislature should abandon SB 682 and work with OHA and the HCDA to come up with a better long-range plan for OHA’s newly acquired property, with the full participation of the public.
First, the $200 million value of the settlement was based on a careful calculation of what both parties believe OHA is owed. As OHA attorney Bill Meheula said in a Star-Advertiser commentary recently, OHA believes the 30 acres, appraised at $200 million based on current land-use rules, "is fair consideration to settle past due claims" ("OHA settlement with state is pono, but issue of future claims remains," Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, March 21). Yes, the settlement is pono. There is no need to embellish it with back-door legislation.
Second, the public’s deep and abiding concern for keeping the Kakaako coastline accessible should not simply be brushed aside. After all, the Conceptual Master Plan was developed after a massive public outcry against a proposal by Alexander & Baldwin Inc. to build high-rise condominiums along the waterfront. The law now forbids residential development on the Kakaako Makai lands.
That said, it’s vitally important that OHA be able to reap a good income from its prime acreage; after all, that’s the point of the settlement. The master plan calls for a broad mix of public attractions and small commercial facilities, but whether such development can pencil out to reasonable profits for OHA and the Native Hawaiians it represents remains in doubt. Nonetheless, the master plan should serve as a blueprint for future development.
OHA acknowledged as much in its testimony on SB 682, saying that "although OHA acknowledges that potential entitlement benefits will add significant value to parcels E and I, OHA remains committed to the guiding principles of the Conceptual Master Plan and will address these principles in any application for development permits for parcels E and I." OHA also noted that it is open to negotiating entitlements for its newly acquired property "in subsequent legislative sessions."
Agreed.
