2019-03-21 Leeward Exh B (Discussion on condition deadlines)

Home

carrying on these projects that have been in – in Kona Vista the one currently in front of the Commission right now for Kona Vista in my area is 40-some years old. The highway can’t even handle, it’s, it’s, this State has taken notice of the fact that Kuakini Highway can no longer handle the traffic. This is no longer relevant zoning. And when you hear your planners tell you that, well, you know, this is harsh when you see the court, like I know people are going to say, okay, I heard one of my colleagues say, you know, this wouldn’t bring down, you know, the risk of additional litigation. Let me make clear as a tax payer and as a citizen of this community, you are our recourse to these people with deep pockets. It is the responsibility of you to challenge them even if they come in with their big teeth and their lawyers. You are the only thing we have. It’s those large parts of government power, those overwhelming wheels, they protect us the citizens from developers who may have gone out and speculated 40-some years ago and gotten somebody convinced that they were going to build something, and they’ve never touched it. Now, one of the things that happens here – and I see it mysteriously missing from all this – is in a court case, the court case that’s most on point in this case, is this DW ‘Āina, back, it’s a Supreme Court case. I don’t, I have the citation in the written stuff that I gave you. The Supreme Court, although they ruled against the reversion, make it clear, the courts do that all the time; the law says that there is a right to reversion. That right is not only a right but the Senate has told us that it is expectation of the State that we should be enforcing our land use so that we don’t have something that somebody did something for 42 years ago and puts a huge amount of money and it inflates the price of real estate and causes all these problems and havocs with our roads and our infrastructure and all that. Now, I saw, I saw for the first time how the County handles this, because I’ve had questions about this and brought it to the County. They kind of laughed at me when I brought it up the first time this Kona Vista thing, because they said, well, we routinely grant these extensions. And now I’m seeing the criteria they use, and what I’m seeing is unbridled discretion in an agents, in an administrative body, not so much you but all the way down to the planners. And what’s going on here? What’s going on? The State has told us no. The State has said this is not for the benefit of developers; it’s for the benefit of the community, and that we can revert these. It gave the most harsh reversion option to the LUC, but it reserved you guys a lot more authority. So I’m going to suggest that the rule to show cause, which is what came up in the LUC, is not only appropriate but it’s mandatory. The LUC says it’s mandatory. They’ve got to show, a rule to show cause why they haven’t complied with these conditions or met the criteria that they’ve set forth, the contract they made with the County to get rich. And kid yourself not, when they come back, these things don’t look anything like they looked like and the lot property development \[inaudible\] like. So I’m going to suggest that you need a rule to show cause. And if these things have expired, they’ve expired. The law says you finish something up. We are not going back on that. You don’t have the right in the planners to say we’ll give them another year, we’ll give them another two years, even make application. So there is so much here to be talked about. I will, I will release the floor, but I want to make clear; this authority of this body is derived from the State power, it is not independent, and you cannot ignore the intent of the Legislature in this matter. And you’d better get on it, or you’re going to get lawsuits, and I’ll be glad to be along with those when they go for that ride. And I’m going to tell you something else about this— 13 EXHIBIT B