The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0372.052 2024-2026From: Sherilyn Wells Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2025 11:05 AM To: Council Testimony Cc: CorpCounsel; Kimball, Heather, Hustace, James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kanealii- Kleinfelder, Matt; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Onishi, Dennis; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca Subject: I second the motion. Re: Reject Hawaii 2045 General Plan and Recommendations You are privileged to have the level of dissection provided by a federal afaly@, Donna Thompson. It is rare that the work of someone as competent ands X intelligent as this analyst are available to a local government, so please takeCO advantage of her expertise., - C; concur in all of her observations and recommendations and urge jjou-1er reject this General Plan as written. = o Not only are all of Ms. Thompson's points "spot on," but the proposed Plan's scientific premises and projections regarding energy were faulty, as I repeatedly outlined. As I also cited, Hawai'i statutes required a response to certain of my points and I received NOTHING in response. Category headline from my testimony: RESPONSE REQUIRED as per HRS §226-109(9). This failure to address faulty environmental suppositions lends credence to the observation that County planning and hearings are conducted pro forma, merely to state you've met the procedural (but rarely the SUBSTANTIVE) requirements. Please stop the County's descent down a slippery slope into an international control plan (the agenda Ms. Thompson has cited) and remember the values endemic to Hawaii. We are not the WHO, the WEF, the Gates Foundation... We are the state whose ALOHA could transform the world, were we to remember, preserve, and protect our unique perspective, the rights of our citizens to be sovereign, the mandate to follow our Constitution. Sherilyn Wells Waikoloa Village To the Honorable Members of the Hawaii County Council: 1 Comm. o 1-1•111- Ref. To: Ref. Date 9 2� I am in strong opposition to the adoption and implementation of the Hawai'i County General Plan 2045 (hereinafter "the Plan") in its current form and request it to be reconsidered and revised based on the numerous concerns below: I. Executive Summary The General Plan 2045 includes sweeping zoning designations, vague terminology, and proposed policy shifts that risk undermining constitutional protections, traditional land use, and community autonomy. Chief among the concerns are: • Reclassification of Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) to a vaguely defined "Natural" category. • Lack of clarity, transparency, and meaningful engagement in the planning process. • Disproportionate impacts on rural, Native Hawaiian, and small -farming communities. • Incorporation of foreign planning paradigms that are misaligned with local governance structures. • Increasing regulatory burdens that may hinder food security, economic independence, and cultural practices. • Property Rights & Land Use Designation 'II. 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 terminology—e.g., "Resilience Hubs," "Urban Containment," "Natural Resource Management Areas" —lacks precise definitions and measurable criteria. Vague language breeds arbitrary enforcement, legal uncertainty, and public confusion. Moreover, the county has failed to properly inform land owners in writing of this planning process so they can have meaningful participation. C. Cultural and Customary Rights Rezoning without rigorous community consultation jeopardizes constitutionally protected rights —particularly for Native Hawaiians who rely on land for customary practices. 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. .Y Of special concern is Pu`u `Ohau, a sacred burial site slated for residential development. The Council must not allow this Plan to move forward while it threatens irreplaceable cultural heritage. D. Overreach and Outside Influence The Plan echoes language and structure found in international policy frameworks such as UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. These top -down models do not reflect Hawai`i's 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 viable solutions. Encouraging EV adoption while downplaying documented safety concerns is unacceptable. Matson has ceased EV shipments due to fire risks from lithium -ion batteries. Major litigation —including Riley V. Tes/a—further highlights unresolved hazards. Public policy must consider both safety and practicality, especially in regions lacking infrastructure for EV use. The right to travel freely must be preserved for all. III. Community Impact and Unanswered Questions The cumulative impact of the Plan, if adopted without revision, is not theoretical: • Will property owners lose the right to house relatives or farm small plots? • Will landowners be taxed for land they can no longer use? • What remedies exist for mapping errors that have already mislabeled parcels? • How will local customs and food security be preserved if land use is redefined from above? The duration of planning does not excuse the erosion of consent. Planning should evolve with and through the community —100% of testimony has been against this plan! IV. Relief Requested I respectfully petition the Hawaii County Council to: 1. Pause the adoption of General Plan 2045 until a full legal, constitutional, and community -impact review is conducted. 2. Define terms like "Natural," "Resilience Hubs," and other policy language with legal clarity. 3. Disclose parcel -level zoning changes and potential impacts in plain language. 4. Ensure full community engagement, especially for rural and underserved populations. 5. Reject policy frameworks derived from foreign models unless adopted through informed, democratic means. 6. Safeguard traditional and subsistence uses of land for Native Hawaiian and local residents. 7. Investigate and correct all mapping errors prior to implementation. 8. Complete a Community Development Plan for Hilo before countywide changes proceed. 9. Avoid adding new regulatory burdens without proportional benefit or public support. 10. Remove language mandating or favoring electric vehicles until safety, equity, and infrastructure issues are fully addressed. 11. Include civil defense parameters and viable alternative energy solutions to encourage resilience. 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. On March 7, 2025 the United States rejected the UN Sustainable Development Goals and was described by Edward Heartney, Minister Counselor to ECOSOC at the US Mission to the United Nations "a program of soft global governance inconsistent with US sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans." The Plan must not be enacted. It is not a representation of the people of Hawaii county or in line with the United States Constitution. Respectfully, Donna Thompson Kamuela, HI Sent with Proton Mail secure email.