RES 269 Draft 03 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

thus as accorded deference on jttidicial appeal. " The Court further stated that Article Xl, section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution "is not self=executing" and requires the Legislature to provide statutory guidance for its implementation. In lieu of the Legislature's inability for over a quarter century to adopt a statute implementing such standards and criteria for important agriculture lands, we believe that the reasonable discretion of the counties to evaluate and approve agricultural subdivisions must be honored. Therein lies the crux of the predicament posed by the Third Circuit Court's land use order. Many citizens within the Agricultural District now live on properties where little or no farm activity is conducted or farm-related income generated - in Hawaii County and throughout the State of Hawaii. We see no public purpose served by subjecting our residents to the anxiety and unfair exercise of meeting a retroactive court-imposed standard of agricultural viability. Moreover, we note that in June 2001 the state Land Use Commission rejected rules proposed by the Sierra Club to require a proposed subdivision to "prove" it is t~~rly agricultural if it contained houses adjacent to golf course fairways, resort-like features, prices exceeding the median price of houses in the state, or dwellings larger than 3,500 square feet. By the assessment of the Hawaii County planning director and the State Department of Agriculture, the full complement of agricultural activity at Hokuli'a, as proposed by the developer, greatly exceeds the property's former productivity as marginal, seasonal grazing land. Finally, we notice with some irony that the Third Circuit Court directive to obtain state Land Use Commission reclassification to the Urban District can only serve to reduce the agricultural component that Hokuli`a now so willingly affords. 4. There comes a time when arguments must yield to reason and good-natured resolution. The prolonged litigation related to Hokuli'a warrants a prompt and conclusive finding by the Hawaii Supreme Court. We need a just, civil conclusion to this arduous, costly Lawsuit and the arguments surrounding it. We owe that conclusion to the people of our island and our state. The public interest compels it. An abiding spirit ol~ aloha yearns for it. Despite much inflamed rhetoric and wounded feelings in our community, we see no villains in this case. On the one hand, we see inspired champions of native Hawaiian rights and probity in land use. On the other hand, we see an earnest developer demonstrably and graciously seeking to do what's best. All parties to this case. and the County of Hawaii, deserve an outcome to this dispute that is clear and conclusive. 4