Laserfiche WebLink
Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair <br />and Members of the County Council <br />HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL <br />Page 7 <br />December 18, 2003 <br />various kinds of coastal development. Hawaii County, like the other county governments, <br />has successfully required public access as a condition of development approvals for many <br />years without constitutional challenge. In many cases this has been an affirmation of <br />traditional and customary access that existed before the development. The potential loss <br />of enjoyment of the public shoreline caused by coastal development is adequate nexus for <br />requiring public access, and the degree of access has been tailored to the scope of the <br />development. In almost all cases in this administration, we have been able to negotiate <br />public access conditions that are mutually acceptable. <br />6. If the governmental regulation constitutes a taking of property, the County is <br />potentially liable under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 for damages. The amount of damages <br />depends upon the factual situation, but may be the loss in value of the property due to the <br />regulation. If the government rescinds the regulation, the government may still owe for <br />the temporary deprivation of use. But damages can be awarded only if there is a <br />violation. <br />The enactment of a General Plan amendment, in itself, will not constitute a taking <br />of property, because the amendment itself does not regulate the property. It is important; <br />however, to consider whether the follow-up events that will take place if the amendment <br />is enacted would constitute a taking. That analysis has been done with respect to the <br />proposed map amendments. Denials of rezonings based upon the General Plan <br />amendments, as discussed above, would not be takings. <br />The "takings" issue was specifically analyzed in making these recommendations. <br />No amendments have been proposed that would lead to a taking under current law. I <br />advised the Planning Commission that one amendment suggested by members of the <br />public (and considered by the Planning Commission) should not be enacted because it <br />might lead to a taking: a proposal to establish a wide buffer around the Keakealaniwahine <br />historical site. This might have been a taking because it would have completely covered a <br />number of small parcels. <br />The Council needs to keep this in perspective: the General Plan currently has <br />private property in "Open" and "Conservation" categories. This has been true since the <br />first General Plan, in 1971. To date, it has not caused any successful litigation against the <br />County. Local governments throughout the country intensively regulate private <br />development, imposing open space requirements and density restrictions, without <br />"takings" problems. <br />