| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Larry Goldstein
Lokahi
267 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2006 : 09:36:05 AM
|
Here's an article that may be of interest:
Hawaii Landowners Cannot Landscape to Extend Shoreline
HONOLULU, Hawaii, October 25, 2006 (ENS) - The Hawaii Supreme Court today issued a ruling reaffirming that the shoreline in Hawaii, which marks the boundary between public beach and private land, extends to the highest wash of the waves. The Court rejected the use of deliberately planted vegetation in determining the shoreline.
The case on appeal, Diamond v. State, involved a challenge by North Shore Kauai residents Caren Diamond and her attorney, Harold Bronstein, of the decision of the Chairperson of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, DLNR, to certify the shoreline of a lot on Kauai's North Shore based on vegetation the landowner planted and propagated to create a false shoreline further seaward.
Earthjustice, on behalf of citizen groups Public Access Shoreline Hawaii and Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter, filed an amicus brief in support of Diamond and Bronstein's appeal.
The court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the state's shoreline certification and held that the shoreline should be established "at the highest reach of the highest wash of the waves."
The court also clarified the role of the "vegetation line" and "debris line" as indicators of the shoreline. Contrary to the state's and landowner's interpretation of legal precedent, the court ruled that the vegetation line trumps the debris line only when the vegetation line lies more inland than the debris line.
This decision furthers the public policy of extending to public ownership and use "as much of Hawaii's shoreline as is reasonably possible."
The court also ruled that the state erred in using artificially planted and propagated vegetation to determine the vegetation line based on the reasoning that the vegetation survived more than a year.
The court cited the public policy of protecting and extending public shoreline resources and uses and emphatically "reject[ed] attempts by landowners to evade this policy by artificial extensions of the vegetation lines on their properties."
"I am pleased that the Court acknowledged the principles we have been articulating all these years," said Caren Diamond, who, together with Bronstein and other community members, have resisted attempts by landowners to extend their lots onto public beach with artificially planted vegetation. "Now, our government officials need to start enforcing the law and stop vegetative encroachments that are causing the loss of our sandy beaches."
The court's decision follows on the heels of the state's recent amendment of agency rules, effective June 2006, to remove any preference for the vegetation line over the debris line in the determination of shorelines, an issue first raised years ago by Diamond and Bronstein in their challenges to the location of certified shorelines.
That amendment was the product of a settlement of a lawsuit brought in 2005 by Earthjustice on behalf of citizen groups Public Access Shoreline Hawaii and Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter. The state rendered its decision in the Diamond case in 2004.
"We appreciated the opportunity to work with Chair Peter Young and DLNR to fix the problem of the agency's shoreline definition," said Earthjustice attorney Isaac Moriwake. "However, landowners still persist in planting vegetation and calling it the shoreline. This ruling sends a clear message that this game is over."
"The Supreme Court's ruling vindicates the public's rights to shoreline access and use," said Jeff Mikulina, executive director of the Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter. "But we still need our state and county officials to get serious about protecting these rights from getting buried under walls of vegetation and concrete."
* * *
|
|
|
Podagee57
Lokahi
USA
280 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 9:20:41 PM
|
| Now if they can just preserve the rights of Hawaiian natives to own property in their native land. My wife brought back a real estate guide from her last trip to the islands. When I saw the prices of basic 3 bedroom homes on Kauai I couldn't help but feel for those that live there and make their living there. It seems that they are being run off of their ancestrial lands because outside money is creating a market that puts the average home out of reach. That's a real shame. |
What? You mean high "E" is the TOP string. No way dude! That changes everything! |
 |
|
|
Larry Goldstein
Lokahi
267 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 06:12:57 AM
|
Last summer the Maui county council debated an affordable housing bill. At the time, only 10% of homes had to be "affordable." The concept was to determine a percentage of new home prices based on the median income of local residents.
It's a hot issue in the current race for the governor's race too. One cadidate has advocated 80% of the new homes being built on Moloka'i be affordable.
Larry |
|
|
|
wcerto
Ahonui
USA
5052 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 07:58:41 AM
|
Purely economics -- the problem as I see it (from an independent third party stance, since I live in Cleveland, OH) is commercial development, If a one acre site can be used as a resort or some other touristy type thing, then it is certainly worth more to the seller of the land than if that same one acre site were to be used for homes. If a market is there, the owner of the land obviously will sell it to the highest bidder. The natural wonder of the islands with the mountains, pali, canyons, etc. tends to limit building sites, whether for housing or commercial development. From the start that plays into the law of supply and demand and is self limiting in the amount of land available, which drives the price up to start with. The Homestead land situation is not good, either. First of all, it is not the most prime land, and secondly, eventually the kanaka maoli will not have sufficient blood quantum to qualify. What is the solution to providing sufficient affordable residential land? Obviously to strictly regulate/legislate commercial use of the land. Enough is enough. No more commercial development. Pau. The end. There is enough there already to more than support tourism. Perhaps there should be financial incentives for alternate use of the land, such as agricultural use. Or perhaps penalties for foreign ownership.
The problem began obviously with arrival of the missionaries and the great Mahele. That was the beginning of the end of malama `aina. Malihini did not have the same concept of taking care of the land as the kanaka maoli. Their concept was the land would take care of them in a one sided relationship. Wrong! That is why England ran out of wood for building long, long ago. That is why European countries "colonized" -- they were running out of land and really messed up what they did have. That led to what seems to be very shameful behavior on the part of the Europeans....that it is all right to "discover" someone else's land and to put up a flag in the name of the explorer's monarch. Shame. Sheer arrogance.
What I really have trouble understanding is the ease with which bad things were able to be done in Hawai`i. Why was it so easy for the missionaries to change the way of thinking of the kanaka maoli? Why was it so easy for the ali`i to permit malihini to "buy" land? That is what I don't understand. The Hawaiian people were strong enough to maintain a certain amount of cultural identity in defiance of edicts by the malihini to wipe out just about any of that cultural identity. Western influence almost (and may still yet) resulted in genocide, albeit not a deliberate action to do so (at least I would like to think not).
What I am really in conflict about is that if it were not for that western contact, I would know nothing about Hawai`i Nei. I would know nothing of the loving and beautiful-hearted people. I would know nothing of the mana`o and wisdom of the kupuna. I would not have been so profoundly touched by a culture and people that it has completely changed my philosophy of life and personal behavior. I would never have discovered the beautiful music and poetry. And on, and on and on.
That is why I feel so guilty, though. Back in 1970 when I was a senior in high school, a Native American "activist" visited our history class. My Cleveland high school was in a part of town that was predominately populated by African Americans. I am a white as can be hillbilly from the hollers of West Virginia. I was one of about a dozen or so white kids in my class. The Native American visitor to class was Russell Means. He woud later go on to lead an occupation by Native Americans on land at Wounded Knee, SD. But in 1970 while he was at my high school talking about how much bad had been done to his people by the white man...and the class, majority of whom were black, full well understood what he was talking about because their cultural history was as bad or worse because of the white man. And I agreed with what we was saying. Who with any half a brain could not agree with what he was saying? Facts/history could not possibly refute what he was saying. However, I was ashamed and frightened, because I was white (no body at school knew that I had some microscopic amount of Native American blood in me)and he really had the class fired up and emotional, and the black classmates and the Native American guest looked very harshly at me because I was white and represented all the scummy things that had ever been done to their people.
I feel the same way about Hawai`i's political and cultural past. Somehow I feel personally responsible for the bad that has been done and I want to ho`oponopono, but I don't know how. Meanwhile, the best I can do is to love the people and respect their culture. I want to learn about it and understand it. I want to speak the language, play the music, sing the songs, eat the food, talk story with the people, respect the land and sea and sky, and on and on and on. I truly love Hawai`i and many times wonder if I am making bad things continue by being a tourist in Hawai'i.
I would love to hear what the kanaka maoli would have to say to this mixed-up, perpelexed haole who just wants to make everything pono.
Mahalo.
Wanda |
Me ke aloha
Malama pono,
Wanda |
|
|
|
Podagee57
Lokahi
USA
280 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 10:36:31 AM
|
| Wanda, you make some very good points. From what Islanders have told me, it is a double edged sword. Hawaii needs the tourist industry to create jobs, however some of those tourists decide that they would like to own property in paradise. For many it's a second home, not even their primary residence. That outside money and the resources that bring it drive the market to where owning a home is just a dream to many locals. Just a couple of years ago a basic 3 bedroom home in Kapaa was listed for over 300k, not prime commercial location nor even near the beach. A current look at that same kind of property shows that type of humble home is now listing for 450k. You know that there are hard working families there that would love to own such a home but just can't swing the mortgage payment. To me that's just sickening. They should not have to leave their homeland in order to be able to afford a home of their own. Hopefully there is something on the horizon that will help alleviate this problem and assure that the Hawaiian people will always be able to call the Islands their home. |
What? You mean high "E" is the TOP string. No way dude! That changes everything! |
|
|
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 03:42:10 AM
|
Wanda, there are a couple answers to one of your questions.
"What I really have trouble understanding is the ease with which bad things were able to be done in Hawai`i. Why was it so easy for the missionaries to change the way of thinking of the kanaka maoli? Why was it so easy for the ali`i to permit malihini to "buy" land? That is what I don't understand. The Hawaiian people were strong enough to maintain a certain amount of cultural identity in defiance of edicts by the malihini to wipe out just about any of that cultural identity. Western influence almost (and may still yet) resulted in genocide, albeit not a deliberate action to do so (at least I would like to think not)."
There are several good books, notably the one by Gavan Daws, "Shoal of Time", that talk about this. To abbreviate the whole sad story: The missionaries did not change the way of thinking of the kanaka maoli, if you want to blame a generation of colonizers, it was the second and third generations who were the land grabbers. First, there was no notion of individual land ownership except for the control of territory by Ali`i. The commoners were essentially share croppers. Second, the Ali`i were *often* greedy and did *not* malama the land (Sure, some did, but fewer than you would want to think) - that was most obvious in the sandalwod trade: they made the commoners strip the forests. They also sold out readily to colonizers. They acted just like feudal lords all around the world. Third, many of the colonizers married into ali`i families, so they became inheritors and "owners" of the land automatically. Fourth, "Western" disease decimated Hawaiians, so there were many, many fewer as time went on. There is *much* written about that. The Great Mahele was The Great Screwup, and, moreover, commoners readily sold their kuleana, the few that actually got one. Because, as much as we romanticize taro growing, as Daws says, there were many easier and more interesting ways to make a living.
About the future: I figure there is none. Hawai`i is a suburb of California. Agriculture is not an answer because it has been shown not to be. Amfac sold out the cane fields to developers on West Maui. Maui Land and Pine is basically a real estate outfit, even though they grow a little bit for show and tax advantage. The valley (Wailuku to Waikapu) on Maui is being stripped and housing projects sprout like weeds as I write this. Parker Ranch actually has signs in Waimea that say they are real estate developers. Been in the traffic jams between Kahului and Lahaina? Or to Pukalani? How about in Kona? There is no turning back the clock. You have seen the best it is going to be.
Sad.
...Reid |
Edited by - Reid on 10/30/2006 04:41:32 AM |
|
|
|
Larry Goldstein
Lokahi
267 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 7:17:59 PM
|
Suffice to say, experts disagree on Hawaiian history, which drives me nuts. I mean, emperical data and history should be irrefutable, but alas, it's always in the eye of the beholder, or historian.
Another good source of history that I have enjoyed reading is "Hawaiian Journey," by Joseph Mullins. It is richly illustrated and seems very well researched. Here is a link:
http://www.mutualpublishing.com/bookinfo.aspx?bookID=158
Larry
|
|
|
|
RJS
Ha`aha`a
1635 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 5:22:02 PM
|
| I think the one really hopeful thing is the solid and growing movement to speak Hawaiian. From immersion schools through the University, from halau through families. I am amazed each year how much more depth and breath there is at the Merrie Monarch, especially with the chanting and the older styles of hula. To me it shows how the emphasis on language is spilling over into the rest of the culture. |
|
|
|
wcerto
Ahonui
USA
5052 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 05:30:29 AM
|
E kala mai. If I have abused the `olelo in any way due to my ignorance, I apologize. I understand that it was not pono for me to use "Hawai`i Nei" in the context that I did in my origiinal message above. I am sorry.
Wanda |
Me ke aloha
Malama pono,
Wanda |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
