Though
the meeting is technically about approving the rules that will govern
the new agency, which has tremendous power to circumvent existing
regulatory processes, people are taking advantage of the meeting to
express disapproval of the entire concept.
One
group is circulating a petition asking Gov. Abercrombie and the state
Legislature to repeal Act 55, which created the agency.
A
lot of folks seem unclear about what the PLDC is, and what these
statewide meetings are about. If you're looking for some background,
here's a link to an article I did last year, as the agency was
becoming established:
Donna
Wong, director of Hawaii's Thousand Friends: [I]t’s clear the intent of Act 55 is to cut through all red tape.”
And
that includes exempting private developments pursued under the PLDC
from state and county land use designations, zoning ordinances and
building codes, including the need for general contractors.
[Arnie]
Saiki and others are also concerned about how PLDC activities might
affect the so-called “ceded” lands–thousands of acres
transferred into US control following the 1893 illegal overthrow of
the Hawaiian monarchy.
“Land
that the [Hawaii] Supreme Court said cannot be sold will be up for
these long-term leases and sweetheart deals,” Townsend says. “That
seems really immoral to me.”
As I blogged last year:
The bill passed with very little public attention, but I wasn't concerned until I watched the video of the legislative briefing held by Sens. Malama Solomon and Donovan Dela Cruz, who spearheaded the bill. They were pretty much licking their chops as they spoke about using the PLDC to create density around high-speed rail stations and spark the development of state harbors, rural areas and geothermal energy. It became clear that they, and likely other lawmakers and their developer cronies, have their pet projects that will be pushed right through.
And
here's a link to a piece I wrote last week for Honolulu Weekly on the
current round of public meetings about PLDC rules (click on the links
to draft rule documents):
Under
the draft rules, the PLDC would be allowed to “optimize and develop
projects” either on its own, or with a private developer. Eligible
projects include those that “make optimal use of public land,”
generating “a consistent and sustainable source of revenue for the
State.”
Counties
may be required to pay for infrastructure associated with PLDC
projects, under the rules.
In
other news, The Garden Island today has a story on Erin Wilson's EEOC
settlement from the county, which includes Jake Delaplane, first
deputy prosecutor, claiming that Erin's press release “contained
inaccuracies and lies.”
Jake
then goes on to reiterate the same statement that his
boss, Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, told Civil Beat: “Despite
our numerous requests, the County Attorney’s Office has failed to
provide the OPA with any information regarding monetary settlements,”
he said.
Both
Shay and Jake also claimed the first they'd heard of the settlement
totals was when Justin Kollar mentioned them during last week's
debate.
So
I asked County spokeswoman Beth Tokioka whether that was true, and
got this response:
Department
Heads are notified of EEOC complaints, any investigations, and
ultimately if and when a settlement is reached. The departments are
then notified of the terms and conditions of any settlements
once they are finalized, and any corrective or remedial actions
required of the department(s). Please note that not all pending
EEOC settlements against the Prosecutor’s Office have been
finalized.
Erin's
settlement is finalized, so Shay and Jake were told about it, even though
they are claiming they were not. They also were told of the settlements
given to two other women in their office. Another EEOC complaint
against OPA involving
racial discrimination has not been finalized, although the settlement
amount has been determined.
I
also asked Beth just how many EEOC complaints have been made against
the county in the past four years and how much they have cost the
county.
I
learned there have been a total of six complaints made in that time
period, for a settlement total of $548,000. The settlements were paid
from the general fund, not insurance, so the county's premiums were
not affected.
We already know four
of the complaints involved the Office of Prosecuting Attorney (OPA),
for a total of $223,000. Though Beth said terms of the settlements
precluded her from revealing more information, I previously learned the
other two settlements involved the Planning Department and County
Clerk/Council Services,
for a total of $325,000.
So
of the 19 county agencies, 16 have managed to avoid any EEOC
complaints, two have gotten one each and the OPA — has
gotten four. All of the complaints were filed by women.
I
also asked for comment on the Jake/Shay statement that the county is
settling these claims to make OPA look bad instead of taking them to
court, and got this statement from Beth:
Each
complaint is reviewed and assessed on a case by case basis, with the
appropriate action taken given the particular set of facts and
circumstances. EEOC complaints are not law suits, and as such
are not resolved in the courts.