HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0372.044 2024-2026From: kanaloaleohano
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 12:44 AM
Cc: Council Testimony, CorpCounsel; Kimball, Heather, Hustace, James; Kierkiewicz,
Ashley; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Galimba,
Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; LPCtestimony, Planning General Plan; Planning Internet
Mail; Roy, Alex; Kay, Christian
Subject: Request to Reject Proposed Hawaii 2045 General Plan, with reasons and
recommendations
To the Honorable Members of the Hawai'i County Council:
The proposed Plan must not be enacted. It is not a representation of the people of Hawai'i C,"ntyocd
contradicts the United States Constitution.
1'00% of testimony has been against this proposed Plan±
CO a -<
I request it to be reconsidered and revised based on the below facts: y
L Executive Summary ; n
The proposed General Plan 2045 uses words that are not clearly defined. It would ignore constitut offal
protections, traditional land use, and community autonomy. Chief among the concerns are:
• Instead of Important Agricultural Lands (IAL), it just calls them "Natural"
• Planning process described does not provide transparency nor public imput.
• Rural, Native Hawaiian, and small -farming communities would be the most affected, and would be affected
poorly.
• Changes local governance to foreign influence.
• Would require miles of red tape with unnecessary burdens on farmers and cultural practitioners.
• Truncates property rights
11. Core Concerns
A. Property Rights & Land Use Designation
The Plan proposes converting vast areas of IAL into "Natural" zones. However, this term remains undefined
and unexplained. The impact? Landowners risk losing viable use of their land —whether for housing,
agriculture, fencing, or water access —while continuing to bear tax and legal responsibilities. This may
constitute a regulatory "taking" under state and federal law, with no clear compensatory mechanism.
Cited cases such as Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council and Penn Central v. New York affirm that land
use regulations must not deprive owners of economic benefit without due process and fair compensation. By
these standards, the Plan's changes fall short.
B. Due Process & Transparency
The Plan's terms and buzzwords —for example, "Resilience Hubs," "Urban Containment," "Natural Resource
Management Areas" —lack precise definitions and ways to measure success. Such language leads to uneven
enforcement, legal uncertainty, and public confusion. Even though land owners would be hugely affected, the
county has failed to properly inform them in writing of this planning process so they can have meanin ful
participation. Comm. N �'1-
Ref. To:
1 Ref. DateJUL 2�15,
C. Cultural and Customary Rights
Passing the proposed plan would lead to costly lawsuits against the county and its management. Native
Hawaiians who rely on land for customary practices would have to sue to keep their rights. The Plan does not
adequately ensure these rights are preserved, especially in light of Ka Pa`akai o Ka `Aina v. Land Use
Commission, which requires comprehensive analysis of impacts on traditional uses.
The proposed Plan shows Pu`u `Ohau, a sacred burial site here in Hawaii County, has a residential
development planned for it !
D. Overreach and Outside Influence
The Plan echoes and imitates UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. These top -down models do not reflect
Hawai`is unique legal traditions or cultural context. Several states —including Tennessee and Maine —have
taken steps to prevent foreign influence (specifically Agenda 21/30) on domestic policy. We urge Hawaii
County to do the same.
E. Energy Policy and Electric Vehicles (EVs)
The Plan includes provisions of Net Zero without offering reasonable, workable solutions. Encouraging EV
adoption while downplaying documented safety concerns is unacceptable. Matson now refuses EV shipments
because of fire risk from lithium -ion batteries. Major lawsuits —including Riley v. Tesla—show unresolved
hazards. Public policy must preserve the right to travel freely by all.
Ill. Unanswered Questions
• Will property owners lose the right to house relatives or grow gardens?
• Will landowners be taxed for land they are prohibited from using?
• Will mapping errors be corrected that have already mislabeled parcels?
• How will local customs and food security be preserved if land use is being determined by people in offices?
IV. I respectfully petition Hawaii County Council to:
1. Pause the adoption of General Plan 2045 until a full legal, constitutional, and community -impact review
is conducted.
2. Complete a Community Development Plan for Hilo before countywide changes proceed.
3. Follow suggestions of rural people and cultural practitioners.
4. Reject foreign policy ideas that are not appropriate for our island.
5. Safeguard traditional and subsistence uses of land for Native Hawaiian and local residents.
6. Define with legal clarity terms like "Natural," "Resilience Hubs," and others in the proposed Plan.
7. Disclose parcel -level zoning changes and potential impacts in plain language.
8. Investigate and correct all mapping errors prior to implementation.
9. Avoid adding new permitting and reporting costs that do not have public support.
10. Remove language mandating or favoring electric vehicles until safety, equity, and infrastructure issues
are fully addressed.
V. Accountability & Reminder of Public Trust
If this Plan proceeds in its current form, Council members may face legal challenges and ethical
consequences. Public office is a trust, not a title. Disregarding clearly stated constitutional objections
could expose officials to personal liability, ethical investigation, and loss of public confidence.
Please take note: On March 7, 2025 the United States rejected the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Edward
Heartney, Minister Counselor to ECOSOC at the US Mission to the United Nations, called these "a program of soft
global governance inconsistent with US sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans."
Respectfully, a me ha`a ha`a,
Kana Leohano