Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Musings: The System

Out in the night, a ghost moon on the cusp of full glowed through a blanket of clouds that by morning had subsided enough to let some gold slip through around the edges. The sun was already up, a red disc on the horizon, when Koko and I set out walking and it shone spottily, creating patches of soft light on green mountainsides streaked with waterfalls.

The sky was dotted with puffs of pink and orange, but before long the sun lost its way and the world turned gray. However, things brightened up considerably when I encountered Farmer Jerry, whom I hadn’t seen in weeks because he’d been sidelined with an injury.

“Well, today’s the big showdown for the farm worker housing bill,” Jerry said, noting that Councilman Darryl Kaneshiro, a rancher, recused himself from the last vote, and will do so again today, at the direction of Council Chair Kaipo Asing.

It seems the pro-development Land Use Research Foundation has come out against the bill, which is a point in its favor. That’s their usual tactic: come in late and apply heavy pressure, which is how they got the Legislature to allow landowners to develop 15 percent of the acreage they designate as Important Ag Lands.

So it’ll be interesting to see if any radical amendments are offered — and adopted — at LURF’s behest.

Ironically, the bill – heavily touted as helping ag – could actually end up harming some small farmers in Moloaa, where workers are currently living in tents, buses, cargo containers and other substandard housing. If the bill passes, they’ll have to clean up their act, but some of them don’t have the money to build worker housing. So what will become of them?

Anyway, Jerry said he thinks the bill has been tightened up enough to withstand abuse by gentleman farmers. Besides, applicants will have to go before the Planning Commission for approval.

And we know they’re always on it. Yesterday, they granted Pierce Brosnan permission to vacation rental his oceanfront Wainiha house, with its landscaping that extends well onto the public beach, even though he's been living in it, so it wasn’t a pre-existing use of that property. Not that Pierce actually showed up for the meeting, of course. That’s what lawyers are for.

The approval prompted one observer to remark: “Even the rich guys have to commercialize the beach. Is it never enough?”

Apparently not, if there’s more money to be made. And indeed, it primarily IS the rich guys commercializing the beach. When the small guys try to do it, like a kanaka offering a surf school without a permit or something, they get dinged. As I noted in a January 2009 blog entry:

I also ran into attorney Dan Hempey, who had just gotten charges dismissed against Titus Kinimaka, who had been cited for running a surf school without a county license. But as Dan pointed out to the judge, the county ordinance stated that only those without licenses could offer commercial services in county parks. “I’m going to have to take it literally,” Judge Trudy said in dismissing the charges.

I wonder if they've changed that ordinance yet?

Speaking of Kauai judges, and the Wainiha coastline, it seems the state has decided to blow off Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe, who last month rejected the state’s certified shoreline for a property there. As I wrote in a piece for The Honolulu Weekly:

Watanabe found the state had improperly relied upon cultivated vegetation and current, rather than historical, wave wash data when setting the shoreline for a North Shore Kauai lot now owned by Craig Dobbin.

The decision stemmed from a long-standing dispute over the Wainiha lot’s certified shoreline, which is used to determine how far a house will be set back from the beach.

“The judge said, in effect, your decision is wrong and you have to go back and do it the right way,” [Kauai attorney Harold] Bronstein said. “She’s also saying, interpret the law correctly.”


But the state went ahead and certified the exact same shoreline that Watanabe (who I hear is on the short list for the Hawaii Supreme Court) had overturned.

So now Harold, who did the case pro bono, will have to go back to court to again challenge the state and by the time it gets resolved, the house could be built.

Do you see why people get so disgusted with the system?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

who were the surveyors?

Anonymous said...

so who is the surveyor? do you think that the state will, again, deny the appeal of the location?

The system is being used, and to whose advantage in the end?

Anonymous said...

The Council passed the TVR on Ag bill yesterday by a 5-2 vote. Kaipo and Derek did not sell out to the money. Jay continues to try and justify his support of vacation rentals on ag land, even though it is clearly not allowed under State law. Public hearing coming up next and we'll see how many people will go out and testify.

Anonymous said...

there were no surveyors, there was no new survey, they just used the old survey and certified the shoreline at the same location as they had before the judge ruled. TOTAL blow off of the court ruling.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday, they granted Pierce Brosnan permission to vacation rental his oceanfront Wainiha house, with its landscaping that extends well onto the public beach, even though he's been living in it, so it wasn’t a pre-existing use of that property.

You don't know that he lived in it 365. You only have to rent it for 30 days to qualify. His representative said he rented it 30 days. Are you disputing that ... with facts?

Joan Conrow said...

I'd love to see the proof that his attorney provided to back up her claim that he rented it for 30 days. Perhaps you can share it?

Anonymous said...

The Planning Commission and County Council, under the guidance of the County Attorney, have caved in to the money. It is very obvious that the laws of this land are secondary to satisfying the rich landowners. It's disgusting and must be stopped.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see the proof that his attorney provided to back up her claim that he rented it for 30 days. Perhaps you can share it?

Isn't there some journalistic ethic against making things up until someone proves different? Aren't YOU the one who is suppposed to share the proof of what you write?

Joan Conrow said...

Actually, it's the applicant who is supposed to provide proof that he's meeting the requirements. And nothing in the planning department report to the commission or made available to the public indicated what the approval was based on. Surely we're not supposed to just take his attorney's word for it, or simply trust the department.

Anonymous said...

I beg your pardon, but if a journalist says something is a fact, then it is the journalist who is supposed to provide proof that it is a fact.

YOU said "it wasn’t a pre-existing use of that property." But you don't seem to have any proof that he didn't rent it out for 30 days. So you don't know whether it was a pre-existing use or not.

I would think if a journalist states something as a fact, it's the journalist's ethical duty to know it as a fact and not just present suspicions as facts.

Anonymous said...

Who's the journalist?
This is an opinion blog. No more no less.