Janice Palma-Glennie responds

NELHA
More access, not less
It’s been at least 20 yearssince NELHA managementeliminated camping on thatstate property “temporarily”(no camping in sight).It’s been at least 10 yearssince NELHA shut off thewater to the public showersdue to a “homeless problem.”(No homeless problem therefor years.)It’s been at least 5 yearssince NELHA tried to stoppublic beach access to thelateral Jeep road (stoppedby public outcry).Now NELHA has agrand plan to severely, andindefinitely, restrict publicshoreline access. StartingAug. 1, the mauka/makaiand lateral access roads willbe completely closed to thepublic on weekends andafter 4:30p.m. weekdays.The “nuclear” Jeep roadgate will remain closed at alltimes, meaning that therewill be no further lateralpublic vehicle access joiningKohanaiki/Ooma and theNELHA property.Public shoreline accessand activity are at thecore of Hawaiian cultureand largely define thequality of life of Hawaii’sresidents. NELHA’s planwould further privatize andexclusify the public trustresources of that area, whileadding huge, unplannedforenvironmental stresson adjacent properties,including conservationprotectedOoma II. Butit’s obvious that NELHAand the governor areincreasingly looking afterthe commercial tenants’desires and goals — notthe public’s needs andrights. The coastal parkat NELHA is in greatdemand for recreationaland subsistence use and isone of only too few publicbeach parks in this region.Meanwhile, claims thatthe new Kohanaiki accessroad will balance the loss atNELHA are poorly thoughtout,dangerous and patentlyuntrue. Kohanaiki andOoma are already heavilyand increasingly used by agrowing population, withhundreds of residences atKohanaiki approved fordevelopment.Though I understandNELHA’s concerns forits tenants’ bottom line,NELHA’s tenants createdtheir business structuresand signed their leasesknowing full well that apublic park was part of thatfacility. And the public waspromised a permanent parkwith meaningful access anduse at this taxpayer-fundedfacility.Fears of vandalism havebeen used by NELHAmanagement for decadesas an excuse for creatinga more private, exclusivebusiness enclave. Butallowing fear of the actionsof a few hypothetical badapples to determine publicuse of public trust resourcesis an overused rationale thatcan be contrived to limitpublic use of any naturalarea where a for-profitfacility exists (i.e., resorts).As far as the valueand potential vandalismof company assets andpipeline ($40 million ofwhich is reportedly taxpayerfunding), is the publicmeant to believe that there’sno insurance if somethinggoes amiss with these multimilliondollar facilities?So, while it’s easy to tossaround a dollar value of apipeline or abalone tanks,it’s much more difficult (ifnot impossible) to pinpointthe greenback value of thebenefits to a communityhaving adequate safe,healthy, noncommercialplaces to recreate andcongregate. Does that makethe value any less? Howthen is the value of passivepublic use of the shorelinehonored when it has asmuch, or even greater, valueto a community than abusiness’ bottom line?NELHA was designedto include a public beachfacility (with camping).NELHA’s mission wasto host individualsand companies withenvironmentally friendly,sustainable ideas that couldlead to positive outcomes forthe world (how NELHA waspromoted to sell its value asa publicly funded facility).The facility was meant tobe futuristic and inclusiveof those who didn’t havetons of money but who hadvaluable, alternative ideas.(Selling bottled water underthe guise of it being morehealthful than other distilledwater wasn’t something thatmight have seemed to fitthis original vision, though,Lord knows, they seem tobe making plenty of moneyfor themselves.) It seemsthen that NELHA has beenallowed to stray too farfrom its original plan, usingthe excuse of “bad times”(not enough funds) and“good times” (no time tomiss those extra dollars) toeliminate “public” from theequation.If road striping, aconnector road to theairport and other costlyprojects are in the worksat NELHA, how muchof a financial dent wouldit actually make to limitsecurity personnel related topublic access (value talliedseparately from protectionof private businesses)?It would probably be apittance compared to, say,what this state gives awayin corporate tax breaks (i.e.,bucks-up film companieswho enjoy the use of publicparks for near nothingor for free). Maybe if thestate left the gates opendue to its lack of funds,then the tenants wouldrally to provide security fortheir multimillion dollarenterprises.If Kona’s youth andfamilies have insufficientno-cost, healthful places tocongregate, then imbalancessuch as increased crime, lossof native culture (includingohana camping, fishing,gathering, etc.) and othersocial maladies are sure tofollow. The dollar costs tocombat those losses? Youthwith time on their hands,families split, shorelinekept “off-limits” for thebenefit of monied interests,subsistence food gatheringdiminished, environmentcompromised. What is itworth in dollars to preventthose problems fromincreasing?For the amount ofjoy and community andfamily bonding that thecoastal park at NELHAprovides, almost no excuseis good enough to decreasepublic access as NELHAproposes. In fact, moreaccess, including promisedcamping, is long overdue.Janice Palma-GlennieKailua-Kona