MIN CHARTER 2019-03-08 (2018-2020)

Home

Hawai`i County Charter Commission -9 March 8, 2019 was further discredited when it was used in recent decades by governments to take private land and then turn it over to private developers and the leading case on that is Kelo v. City of New London. Eminent domain is therefore a tool that should be used rarely and carefully. Please also note that many sources of matching funds such as the Trust for Public Land and private foundations will not participate in projects involving eminent domain. As a parallel method of preserving land emerged in the United States in the 1800's that was based on the concept of willing landowners working with nonprofits to jointly preserve land. The Trustees of Reservations in Massachusetts is the oldest land trust in the world and an exemplar of the concept of land conservation being a community good and community responsibility that requires participation by as many citizens as possible. In Hawai`i it is nothing new and we all know it as kuleana. The popularity of the 2% fund is partly due to the people of Hawai`i Island and their sense of kuleana. Land protection financed by the fund is currently an entirely positive and remarkable process that enables everyone to benefit, form the landowner who, because of a conservation easement, may be able to afford to stay on their land, to conservation groups that have identified lands for preservation that are critical for protection of habitat, clean water and air, and locally grown food. Eminent domain has no place in the 2% land fund process. The mere threat of its use, its presence here, sours the relationships necessary for conservation success. Of course eminent domain is necessary at times, and the County already has this power. The amendment does nothing to extend or restrict the County's eminent domain power, but it inserts a discordant note that needs to be avoided. Let's keep the 2% Land Fund as an expression of our kuleana and discard amendment CA -27. Briefly, the proposed 10-15 Section (g) states that a conservation easement "shall be the preferred method" for achieving the goals of the provision. Presumably, this provision assumes that an easement is a cheaper alternative, and it maintains ownership in private hands. That is certainly laudable. I suggest that the provision remain as it is; the best method of protecting land is the one that is needed in the particular and unique circumstance of each piece of property. Outright purchase may make sense sometimes, and an easement may make sense in others. Please reject CA -27. Thank you very much. CHR. ADAMS: If I could ask Cherie Griffore to please come up to the table as well. Ms. Hecht. DEBBIE HECHT: Proposal No. CA -18 in support and Proposal No. 27 in opposition. Page 3