2003-07-28 TBLASMAN (6) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

VITOUSEK:And youÓve selected the point outside the wall because it, because it enables you to require a more, a more unusual planting screen, isnÓt that correct? YUEN:I disagree with the way youÓre asking the question, because it implies that IÓm doing this to make life difficult for the Blasman property owner. IÓm not making, IÓm not doing this to make this difficult for them. IÓm doing this to protect the view of a person that may, in looking at the Keakealaniwahine site, go completely around the wall and look at all parts of the wall. If, and thatÓs the only reason for doing it. It does, it is the point that if you use a different point, itÓs easier to do the landscaping. If you assume that nobody ever has to go or ever wants to go to that part of the wall, then it is easier to do the landscaping. VITOUSEK:I guess what I was interested in was whether there is any basis on the evidence of this contested case for you to conclude that people would be in that location and would exercise cultural practices in that location? YUEN:Well, I donÓt think thereÓs any testimony of that. People see this as a particularly important spot. Right now I have to say that if you go there, you definitely feel awkward. When I went there, I went around, completely around, and I came out, and I came to this spot. And you feel awkward about being there because youÓre looking at the back of someoneÓs house. So, and I think Pua Kanahele testified to something like this. I think thatÓs the experience that anyone would have. As to whether, just a moment, if I could look at the site map. KekahunaÓs map does show what is labeled as the entrance being a point three feet wide at the middle of the south wall, that is this wall facing the Blasmans, which would be directly across from the Blasman property. My, I canÓt remember from our examination whe gap in the wall at that point. I have to say that if that was the entrance there in, if thatÓs what Kekahuna identified as the entrance in the 1950s and if thereÓs a gap in the wall now, itÓs very likely that that would be the point that people would use to go into, into the Pkiha, if that were allowed by the State in the long-term access management of the place, or for cultural practitioners who are going in to have a ceremony. He also, the map also doesnÓt show any other gaps in the walls. There are sloped down places. I donÓt, IÓm, this would be a good point for somebody to look at. I donÓt recall there being any other obvious entrances in the wall. I did go in. I went in through a place where the wall had sloped down, but it was not, itÓs not a designed entrance. I think that thereÓs no question that in the time of this historical use, obviously there was an entrance. There was a passage way through the wall. And thatÓs that, all I can say is from whatÓs on this map, the entrance was directly across from the Blasman property. VITOUSEK:The, so your testimony is that, that cultural, if that is the only entrance, then cultural practitioners would use that to gain access to the site, is that correct, to the Pkiha? Has there been any testimony to that effect in the contested case? 32