Testimony on Palamanui

As citizens, we have obligations and rights. The obligations include obeying local, state and federal laws, and our rights include the expectation others will do the same. We also have a right to know our elected and appointed leaders and lawmakers will obey and enforce our laws. None of us has a right to decide, without ramifications, which laws or portions of them we will abide by and/or enforce.

So why can a developer in Hawaii County select the portions of the laws they wish to follow? Ordinance 93-45, effective May 12, 1993, required an 80 foot right of way mauka-makai road that was to be extended to Queen Kaahumanu Highway when development occurred in what is now Palamanui. This same requirement was part of Ordinance 850, effective February 15, 1983, and was restated in Ordinance 88-23, effective February 29, 1988. Yet the road required by three laws for over twenty years was never built.

Instead, we’re saddled with a substandard road not built to applicable standards per our own County officials and therefore, according to the Hawaii Supreme Court in the recently decided case of Kienker vs. Bauer and the State of Hawaii, one that leaves the residents of Hawaii County exposed to significant legal liability as a public road. The existing road was designed, constructed and designated by the County as a minor road. Per the County Code, it may be used exclusively for access to abutting property and not as the required mauka-makai connector. It should therefore not be accepted by the County as the County Code requires roads accepted by dedication meet all appropriate standards.

Using the figures presented in the March 21st edition of West Hawaii Today, the anticipated value of Palamanui at build out will be $958 million. With land costs of $4.6 million and $300 million in infrastructure, the resulting $658 million is a return on investment of over 14,200%. The $25 million estimate provided by County Planning Director Chris Yuen for an alternate mauka-makai connector represents but 3.8% of that. Guy Lam’s own estimate of $15 million is only 2.3%. Either estimate is a small price for a properly designed and constructed safe road that meets the County’s standards as legally required.

While we’re told Hiluhilu is “actively pursuing” alternatives, it is unconscionable to grant any zoning changes and/or variances as requested in Bills 224 and 225 without a firm and binding commitment to meet its existing obligations. Anything less will leave us with another high density subdivision with lots of promise and excuses why promises can’t be kept after the fact, exactly as has happened with the mauka-makai road. While Bill 225 contains a “housekeeping” component, the combined effect of the two bills relieves the developer of its obligations to build the road that meets County standards as has been legally required since 1983. This goes way beyond mere “housekeeping”.

The University is in question. The once promised hospital and golf course are gone. One acre lots have been replaced by high density lots. The required road doesn’t exist. Concurrency must start someplace. Please, make it here. Require this developer to meet its existing legal obligations to the citizens of Hawaii County.

Jerry Schneyer