HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0573.002 2020-2022 PiF
CO C.
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF HAWAII Wil sj7.,3
2CENED
Time 3.z 014 Ry�
Y E Date 2O�2 %TA 24
CHRISTOPHER J. U N
P.O.Box 5
ATTORNEY AT LAW Ninole,HI 96773
Telephone: (808)963-6966
e-mail: chrisyuenz@hotmail.com
January 24, 2022
Re: Corn. 573, Papa`ikou Public Access
Dear Finance Committee Chair Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for bringing up the Papa`ikou Mills Beach public access issue for discussion. Advocates of
assured public access are of course very disappointed in the Mayor's decision not to implement the
Council's resolution.
The Mayor made a number of statements that are either wrong or incomplete and I'm writing to try to fill
in the public record.
The Mayor's statement began with claiming that the previous corporation counsel had recommended
against the acquisition. Joe Kamelamela,the previous corporation counsel, called me after reading the
news story to say that this was not true.
The Mayor mentioned liability. If the County took over the trail it would be potentially liable for injuries
resulting from negligent maintenance. This is also true for every public access, every beach park, and
every gym and playground that the County operates. The government exists to provide these services to
the public.
I can't guarantee that nobody would ever get hurt on this trail,but when I last walked it there were no
obvious hazards. It's a reasonably safe walk. In 2012 a mixed group of councilmembers,media, and the
general public walked the trail. I don't think anybody commented that it seemed dangerous. I am
confident, as well,that community members will assist the County in maintenance if it is purchased.
The mayor mentioned ADA compliance. There is an ADA exemption for trails where compliance is
impractical due to terrain. This would be the case here.
The mayor mentioned the funds the County paid in the last litigation and said that if the County loses it
could be liable for more fees. The County should not"lose"a condemnation case. The three issues in a
condemnation are(1) compliance with various technicalities, (2)public purpose,and(3)just
compensation. There is clearly a public purpose and just compensation would only be a problem if the
County did not want to pay the amount established after a trial.
The County lost the prior case because of technicalities. With all due respect,I believe the judge erred.
He required a new Council resolution because he thought the map wasn't good enough. The law says
nothing about the resolution needing a map. The law says the complaint(initiating condemnation in
court)needs a map. The judge should have granted the County's motion to amend its complaint to
include.a better map. This kind of amendment is supposed to be"freely granted"under the rules: Had
the County been allowed to amend the complaint and completed the condemnation, it would not have
owed attorney's fees to the landowner.
I hope that the Councilmembers find this information helpful.
Yours truly,
Chris Yuen Comm. No. 51 3.
Ref. To: 1Jt
Ref. Date 1 laulaQ11—