LETTERS for the Feb. 17 issue
Resolve everyone’s concerns about Kahoma Village
Mayor Victorino’s concerns regarding Kahoma Village could be resolved with integrity if the Maui Planning Commission and Stanford Carr Development negotiate with interveners as directed by the Hawaii Supreme Court.
To uphold the law, the County Council was honor-bound to use the previous community plan’s wording.
Considering the ruling was against the county, it would appear corrupt, prejudicial and an abuse of power if the council, mayor or corporation counsel took action to avoid consequences for wrongdoings.
Protect and Preserve Kahoma Ahupua’a Association’s testimony regarding the West Maui Community Plan sought “… guidance from corporation counsel so the wording in the revised community plan upholds the ruling of the Supreme Court.”
“Not only will this ensure justice is served but will help with enforcement of the new community plans in the future.”
“If developers can circumvent laws and disregard rulings of the highest court, and avoid any consequences for violations, then it sets a dangerous precedent. The county council’s decisions on this particular matter are critical to how community plans will be adhered to in the future.”
“If this issue isn’t addressed properly, all the time and effort put toward community plans and the cultural, historical, environmental, and projected growth desires of the community are put at risk.”
PPK-AA’s testimony pleaded with the County Council to “… take the time and effort to word the community plan in such a way that requires the Maui Planning Commission and Stanford Carr to follow the law and right the wrongs committed in an amicable way.”
Before the mayor suggests any amendments for the community plan, thereby avoiding consequences for wrongdoing, it would be honorable and beneficial to right the wrongs committed first.
The court’s ruling in June 2021 gave ample time to resolve the intervener’s issues before the community plan’s finalization in January 2022.
Mayor Victorino didn’t sign the West Maui Community Plan because it “could jeopardize the property rights of Kahoma Village residents”?
Voting with reservations, Council Chair Lee “worried what would happen to homeowners if they wanted to make improvements to their properties, as their homes would not be in compliance?”
Those sentiments suggest it is the community plan’s fault and portrays owners as victims. The Hawaii Supreme Court invalidated the permits for Kahoma Village. Residents and investors signed contracts with full disclosure of its pending lawsuit.
Mayor Victorino expressed concern over counsel’s lack of signature. However, corp. counsel had their chance to assist the County Council with appropriate language in the community plan to ensure justice for both Kahoma Village owners and the citizen group who won in court.
Even though Kahoma Village resulted in irreparable damage, there are ways to make things right. For instance, compensate for the desecration of this historical site and Lahaina’s loss of public park.
Build housing for families who missed their chance of homeownership due to lengthy court proceedings and ensure Kahoma Village subdivision attains legal status.
Accept responsibility for transgressions. Resolve everyone’s concerns. Do what is right!
MICHELE LINCOLN, Lahaina
The real emergency is no balance of powers
Now that the Legislature is back in session, there is one question that many of us are asking: will the Legislature fix the state’s emergency powers law so that our governor will not be able to extend an emergency for as long as he or she likes? For example, our current COVID-19 “emergency” has been going on for almost two years.
As of next month, it will be two years that we have lived under executive orders; two years that we have seen democratically enacted laws suspended and “temporary” regulations imposed by edict; two years that the people’s voice in government has been constrained.
The governor’s emergency powers are derived from the state’s emergency management statute. It says an emergency is supposed to end after 60 days. But Gov. David Ige has extended the COVID-19 emergency 25 times through “supplemental proclamations” — something not mentioned in the emergency-management statute.
In effect, he has turned a 60-day emergency into one that will last at least 751 days, assuming he doesn’t extend it again when the current supplemental proclamation expires on March 25.
The Legislature had the opportunity last year to change the law, to require legislative approval before emergencies can be extended. Unfortunately, that bill failed at the last minute in conference committee.
The good news is that several bills have been introduced in the current legislative session that might finally restore the state’s vitally needed constitutional balance of power.
According to Malia Hill, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii policy director, one of the most promising of these bills is HB1585, which has already passed its first committee hearing. As she explained on the latest episode of my ThinkTech Hawaii program, “Hawaii Together,” the bill would require that any suspensions of law be justified and any edicts issued under the emergency statute be consistent with the state Constitution.
Also, the Legislature would be able to terminate a state of emergency by a two-thirds vote, and it could end an emergency “in whole or in part.”
As good as the bill is, however, Hill said it could be improved by strengthening protections for government transparency and civil rights. In addition, she would like the bill to require legislative approval before the governor could extend an emergency.
HB1585 and its Senate companion, SB3285, are not the only bills that would reform the emergency management statute. There’s also HB1416, which is very similar to the bill that nearly passed last year.
Even the governor has proposed some bills that address the issue: HB2121 and SB3089. They include limits on the suspension of laws and a nod toward constitutionality. But, as you might expect, they do not include a legislative check on the governor’s power to extend an emergency.
One of the most interesting — and telling — things about the governor’s bills is that they would make explicit the executive’s ability to extend an emergency by proclamation.
As Hill pointed out, “It’s almost like an acknowledgment that, ‘Hey, maybe this wasn’t 100 percent OK and legal up until now, but now for sure I can 100 percent do that.’ “
Regarding the governor’s suspension of Hawaii’s open-records laws as part of his emergency orders, Hill noted that there is a bill that has been introduced, SB2916, that would prohibit suspension of open-records and vital-statistics requests during an emergency.
She said she hopes that SB2916 passes, but if not, “There’s no reason why we couldn’t see protections for transparency added to whichever emergency management bill moves forward this session.”
Hill acknowledged that reforming the emergency management act is a challenge, in that nobody wants to inhibit the ability of the governor to respond to a true emergency. But the current law, she said, was written for more immediate emergencies — natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis.
Thus, the bills before the Legislature have been “specifically tailored to address the shortcomings in the existing law” that were exposed by the public policy responses to COVID-19.
Hill said the goal of the reform efforts is not to criticize the governor, but rather to restore Hawaii’s constitutional balance of powers.
Ultimately, she said, even if the Legislature does rein in the governor’s emergency powers, it still might not step in to terminate an “emergency” — unless the people demand it.
In the end, there’s no substitution for getting involved and letting your own voice be heard.
KELI’I AKINA, President/CEO, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii