When the Legislature created the Hawaii Community Development Authority in 1976, leaders agreed that the redevelopment of an urban district with aging buildings and infrastructure deserved the focus of a separate agency. That’s still the most rational approach to the renewal of Kakaako.

As recently as three years ago, when the HCDA adopted the master plan governing the mauka acreage buildout, the subject of Kakaako redevelopment was still being discussed in general, theoretical terms. The document opens with the assertion that the agency’s vision for the area is as "the most sustainable, livable urban community in the state, a place where people can work, live, visit, learn and play."

But now that the rubber has met the road, and actual buildings have begun to rise, people are worried about how lofty words are rendered in reality. And many aren’t convinced the community is benefiting adequately

Reform should be about finding the right balance. The agency needs some autonomy to make deals that mesh well with its overall plan, but it also must be responsive to the community.

Several bills moving through the Legislature seek to reassert some control over the process. And beyond the state Capitol, frustration with HCDA’s recent decision-making has led community groups to insist on a public hearing Wednesday, airing complaints about exceptions made for The Collection, Alexander & Baldwin’s 43-story condominium project.

HCDA does need to hear this feedback and the public needs to stay engaged.

The most draconian response to recent events — the proposal to simply dismantle the agency — has been tabled at the Legislature, thankfully. If there’s any hope for cohesion in the Kakaako landscape, it will come through some coordinated effort of the established authority rather than leaving developers to approach the City Council individually.

And trying to micromanage the whole planning and land-use process ultimately won’t work, either. For example, House Bill 1867 would strictly enforce the height of towers at 400 feet and require their separation by 300 feet.

This bill should be defeated. Such hard-and-fast rules would close off opportunities for compromise that could yield richer public benefits. For example, raising the height limit or some allowance on setback could come with offsets, such as expanded workforce- and affordable-housing commitments. Design could be altered through terracing and other effects to minimize the closed-in feeling at the street level.

HCDA should hew as much as possible to its own development guidance and be wary about making variances routine. But even a master plan needs to have some give in it.

Surveying the remaining bills suggests that, to the extent that they improve public engagement with the process and the leadership of the authority, this lawmaking session could provide a healthy adjustment. For example:

» HB 1866 would limit the governor’s power to appoint HCDA board members. Currently, the governor designates six and chooses three from a list submitted by county officials. The idea of having the governor pick two on his own and tap the rest from lists submitted by other state officials should yield a more diverse leadership group.

» HB 1865, which originally sought a moratorium on agency approvals, has been overhauled and now, more reasonably, would require a management and financial audit of HCDA.

» HB 1863 would allow citizens to sue HCDA. Legal challenges are never the hoped-for outcome in a process that’s supposed to be collaborative, but it should help to define a more potent means of public representation.

These bills deserve to move ahead for further discussion and refinement.

Honolulu is a city where developers contend with some enormous challenges, not the least of which are the costs of land, construction materials and labor. There are pressures to provide at least a share of housing that its own citizens can afford to buy or rent.

But Honolulu is also a city of international appeal and enormous value as well. Developers stand to make a very healthy profit here, and the local community is entitled to expect to keep its place in Kakaako.

The landowners possess a piece of paradise, but Hawaii needs to assert its rights. The message to HCDA should be clear: Don’t sell us short.