Laserfiche WebLink
behind the Mamalahoa By-Pass and thus the County's ability to condemn Coupe's land for the <br /> Mamalahoa By-Pass. As the Hawai`i Supreme Court explained in its second decision addressing <br /> Coupe's challenge to the condemnation of its land for the Mamalahoa By-Pass, Coupe argued, <br /> among other things, that"the only entity that stood to benefit [from the Mamalohoa By-Pass] . . . <br /> was Oceanside because Oceanside could not open the Hokulia project without completing and <br /> conveying the Bypass to the County." County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Fam. Limited. <br /> Partnership, 124 Haw. 281, 297, 242 P.3d 1136, 1152 (2010). The Hawai`i Supreme Court <br /> rightly rejected Coupe's argument, finding that there was sufficient evidence to "support a <br /> conclusion that the Bypass satisfied a broad public use of alleviating traffic congestion in the <br /> area, rather than to simply confer a wholly private benefit to Oceanside." Id. at 299, 242 <br /> P.3d at 1154 (emphasis added). Undoubtedly, the countless residents of the Kona region that <br /> regularly use the Mamalohoa By-Pass would agree with that seemingly self-evident conclusion. <br /> IV. CONCLUSION <br /> Oceanside does not generally oppose Coupe's request to intervene in this appeal. <br /> However, Coupe's Petition raises some concerns about Coupe's participation in this appeal and <br /> whether Coupe will seek to unnecessarily complicate or distract from these proceedings. <br /> Oceanside hopes that is not the case. <br /> DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, July 15, 2024. <br /> ls/Derek B. Simon <br /> PATRICK K. WONG <br /> DEREK B. SIMON <br /> IAN WESLEY-SMITH <br /> Attorneys for <br /> 1250 OCEANSIDE, LLC <br /> 4874-1139-8863.1.051730- 00058 7 <br />