COM 1051.026 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• RNFitU ANL H~Lr+GI EE=~nRP E108 334 1305 F'_C . Ka'upulehu background - Page 2 we came up with the "cultural Mact Statement", or CIS. In 1994, the KHCC submitted a resolution to the AMC convection calling for a CIS to be included in all Environmental Impart Statements (EIS) procedures. This reso passed and went on to be introduced nt the state legislature as a bill. The CTS bill was strongly supported by all Havaii2n organizations because it specitica, instructed a developer to consult roith Hawa_:iaab "from the area to be developed" in regards to actual cultural usage. Prior to this, a developer hired an archaeologist from outside, usually the mainland, to determine if, and where, archaeological sites were present on site_ There was never any consideration of subsistence gathering or religious practices. To a developer, a "significant cultural resource" was an archaeological site, or a petroglyph - not a living, breathing culture. Our work was extensive, exhausting, and all-inclusive. We dedicated thousan,, of hours to research, lobbying at the legislature for 3 years, attending meetings with state officials to change the land use iaws - and so on. All of this to preserve and protect the Purpose of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club, as stated in our constitution - "To actively participate in the promotion and perpetuation of long-held traditional Native Hawaiian attitudes and values that dignify all human life and which are the moral- and ethical underpinnings of our cultural expressions that comprise a unique, rich and enduring legacy of the first people of Hawaii Nei which are commoni,tacknoalea5ed and appreciated by all the people of both our beloved islands and of our great nation" (KHCC C&BL, Art. IT, Sect,la In fact, this project encompassed the entire Article it of our Constitution. As in any e_`fort of this magnitude, thn effort must continue. In 1996, the LUG ruled in favor of the applicant In spite of the enormouse volumes of testimonies, and research that plainly sho,e.' that state was not in compliance with their own rules. However, the chair told us that the LUC did not know ho~a to rule any other way since this was a precedent setting case, and that cultural resources and practices needed to be formall, identified and protected by the Supreme Court. The conditions of approval are also very very stringent. one of the conditions was that a Resource Aspagenent Flan needed to be implemented. based on a ahupua'a concept already developed by Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estar, the landowner. In 1997, the KHCC Board of directors and many other members went to csuyl in Kealakekua when we appealed the LUC decision to the Ad Circuit Court. Judge lbarra upheld the LUC decision, again because this was precedent setting.