COM 0032.104 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ho`omalu Hawaii's Testimony Regarding Bill No. 167 {Draft 2) or, in the Alternative, Bill No. 167 October 12, 2007 Page 3 of 4 I Thus, the ills that have been carefully studied and identified will happen regardless of where the "superstore" is located - on Hawauan homes lands or other privately held lands. There has also been some question as to whether DHHL might somehow have a legal grievance based upon agreements it might have with Wal-Mart to develop a "superstore" in Hilo. We submit that this is not possible. First, DHHL has publicly represented that it has not signed any binding agreement with Wal-Mart for the site. Seco~, we assert that DHHL cannot legally engage in any commercial development with Wal-Mart without first completing the required environmental assessment, which it has not comgleted. See HRS § 343-5(a~l) (requiring an environmental assessment for actions that propose the use of state lands), see also K~`o v. Watson 87 Hawaii 91, 952 P.2d 379 (1998) (holding that HRS chapter 343 applies to Hawaiian home lands). To our knowledge, DHHL has not even commenced this grocess. Third, DHHL could not bring any claim for damages unless it has already complied with all county laws and obtained all discretionary t:ormty (and state) pemaits for the Hilo "superstore" -something neither DHHL nor Wal-Mart have done. To our knowledge, neither DHHL nor Wal-Mart have even applied for, let alone received, any such permits. Lastly, we believe we need to provide a factual response to the director of DHHL's recently launched strongly worded and divisive public relations campaign. Specifically, the duector and other agents of DHHL are stating publicly that any attempt to limit "superstores" on Hawauan home lands is an attack on the economic interests of Native Hawaiians. This is as irresponsible as it is untrue. First, Ho`omalu Hawaii has no interest in encouraging or discouraging responsible economic development anywhere in Hawaii. Ho`omalu Hawaii's sole concern is with the adverse community impacts of "superstores." Second, DHHL has never offered any proof that any proposed deal with Wal-Mart fora "superstore" on the Hilo sits is the best economic deal that it could strike or that it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries of DHHL. To the contrary, we submit that it is unusual if not unique that (1) DHHL failed to notify established Hilo and Big Island developers and adjoining landowners of its intent to offer to lease the Hilo site, (2) DHHL chose not to publish notice of its offer of the Hilo site is the Honolulu Advertiser, the Hawaii newspaper that has - by far -the largest paid circulation in Hawaii (more than twice the circulation of the newspapers DHHL chose to limit its published notice to), (3) in its notice, published only once each in the Friday December 1, 2(106 editions of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Hawaii Tribtme-Herald, DHHL incorrectly identified the property by using a tax map key number that represents a small, adjacent parcel, not the large parcel that it offered to Wal- Mart, and (4) the only proposal DHHL did receive from nay develotesr was finm Wal-Mart. ( While the true facts of why DHHL conducted its solicitation process in such an tmusuat manner will only be known through litigation, we submit that the recent campaign by DHHL should not influence this Council's decision making. If it were to do so, we would respectfully urge the ' The Cotmcil may be imawaze 16at DI1FII.. is tinder scrutiny for other politically motivated lac-room deals that do no[ appear to be is the best interest of its bene5ciaries. See Jim Dooley, Xawoii fvm got E7.3 million in nonbid work, Honolulu Advtntisu, September 2, 2007 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1). BICKERTON • LEE • DANG ¦ SULLIVAN ~ ,mrtto rwum ur ummxv Tope Financial Center, Fort Street Tower • 745 Fort Street, Snitc 801 • Honolulu, Hawa~ i 96813 Pha.^._:?n_?~9?s!ti Fax: 898.533.2467 Web: www.HSOS.com