|
important objectives which is the support of agriculture. And, in particular, Paragraph 4.5.4 asks
<br />the County to develop viewshed regulations, and it's followed by Paragraph 4.5.6 which seeks to
<br />discourage what it refers to as tall, vegetative windbreaks. And, you know, I can't find anything
<br />in the CDP that contains any real clear definition of what these viewsheds or viewscapes are nor
<br />how enhancement or protection of them meshes with factors such as ag zoning, private property
<br />rights, State law, State statutes, or the protection of watershed ecosystems, which is something
<br />the CDP itself calls for. And, so these paragraphs that I cited, in my opinion, I think they have
<br />set the stage for some kind of zoning overlay or zoning change that could severely restrict
<br />current as -of -right ag land uses.
<br />And, I think to take away a right is not something that most citizens or legislators should view
<br />lightly. And, on top of that, Hawaii Revised Statutes 165, the State's Right to Farm Statute, was
<br />crafted to protect farmers from the very pressures that something like a viewshed regulation
<br />seeks to impose.
<br />The fact is that the language about viewsheds or viewscapes, it's too broad, it's too permissive,
<br />and opening the door to sweeping legislation to impose significant restrictions on ag land use.
<br />Who is going to decide which viewscape or which viewshed requires protection? In other words,
<br />restricting what landowners, in the line of sight of that particular viewshed, can do with their
<br />land. And, recognize, restriction of private land uses in favor of viewsheds could be challenged
<br />as a government taking, and people could ask for compensation.
<br />My point is that attempts to weaken ag land use rights, will be opposed, and that farm from being
<br />a community document that supports community, this could support community division, and it
<br />could end up in some sort of debate pitting neighbor against neighbor with nasty, bitter
<br />divisiveness, kind of similar to what happened with that ag—ag lands rooster debate. And, I
<br />should add, too, people like me who have this perspective, we're not killjoy ogres. I love
<br />looking at the ocean and mountains, but I also recognize as a farmer and forester that sometimes
<br />what you do on ag lands doesn't always accommodate the desire of say a homeowner or a home
<br />renter to have an unobstructed view of some distant site like the ocean or the mountain. And, in
<br />the end, I feel that if there has to be some language in the CDP about protecting views, only a
<br />restricted version that withstands legal scrutiny should be offered such as perhaps protecting
<br />views of the ocean from identified public viewing areas adjacent to or makai of the Belt Road.
<br />And, that's why I call upon you folks. Please in your wisdom, demand the moderation of this
<br />damaging language and resolve these flaws now. Don't kick it down to the County Council.
<br />Thank you.
<br />VICENTE: My name is Dwight Vicente representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. For the record,
<br />I—this statement is not a sworn statement.
<br />The CDP is based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These are not public lands. These are
<br />either Crown or Government lands, and the history of the application of the Northwest
<br />Ordinance goes back to the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the
<br />United States. For the record, the United States is only 13 states under Article 1, Section 2,
<br />Clause 3. There is no amendment, so there is no State of Hawaii. In the limits of the Northwest
<br />EXHIBIT D
<br />11
<br />
|