HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0372.064 2024-2026AFFIDAVIT/PETITION TO REVISE THE HAWAI'I COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2045
STATE OF HAWAI'1
COUNTY OF HAWAN
The Honorable Members of the Hawaii County Council:
Heather L. Kimball
oCD
Jennifer "Jenn" Kaglwada
={
Dennis "Fresh" Onishi
—
�—
Ashley Lehualan! Kierklewicz
o�
Matt Kaneali'!-Kleinfelder
s
-
Michelle Galimba
Rebecca Villegas
y
Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba
o"'
James E. Hustace
I Jocina Alan! , the undersigned, being first duly swom, hereby respectfully submit
this a ffidavit/petition in strong opposition to the adoption and implementation of the Hawai'i
County General Plan 2045 (hereinafter "the Plan") in its current form. I am a Hawaiian who
was born and raised here in rural South Kona on our family or ancestral lands on the Island
of Hawaii. Native Hawaiian families like mine depend on the land to provide food for their
families and community and provide a safe place for us to be self -sustainable. This bill
violates our rights of self sustainability, gathering rights, and cultural practices. I absolutely do
not agree with the County or State taking any family andlor agricultural lands to make it a
Conservation/Natural land as we need the land to live and I do not want any family especially
Native Hawaiian families to be displaced and not be able to provide food for their family or
communities. I do not see how proposed Bill 66 will help our future generations and
communities here on the Big Island of Hawaii. I urge the county council to involve the
community into these decision making and to provide more clarity/transparency on the
proposed bill.
This Is not an abstract political objection. It is a grounded, heartfelt call to protect the land,
values, and people of this island from unintended consequences and systemic overreach
embedded in the Plan's current structure. We ask that you approach this petition not as a
disruption, but as a vital check -in —a moment to pause and consider whether the direction being
charted truly reflects the will, rights, and welfare of those you were elected to serve.
1. 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
IM
f 1'fo:b: "u —
a.
�f rintn i 9 11, 7ng;
structures.
• Increasing regulatory burdens that may hinder food security, economic independence,
and cultural practices.
We ask that you delay adoption of the Plan pending independent legal and community review,
and make substantive revisions to protect our rights and ensure lawful, equitable development.
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 Plari'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 planning platform
used (Konveio) has reportedly excluded large segments of our community, especially kupuna
and rural residents unfamiliar with digital systems.
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.
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. While sustainability is an admirable goal, these top -down models
do not reflect HawaiTs unique legal traditions or cultural context. Several states —including
Tennessee and Maine —have taken steps to prevent foreign influence on domestic policy. We
urge Hawaii County to do the same.
Partnerships with non -elected stakeholders, NGOs, and corporations should not override public
oversight. The erosion of public consent, even when unintentional, cannot be brushed aside in a
democracy.
E. Energy Policy and Electric Vehicles (EVs)
The Plan includes provisions encouraging mandatory EV adoption while downplaying
documented safety concerns. Maritime carriers have ceased EV shipments due to fire risks from
lithium -ion batteries. Major litigation —including Riley v. Testa —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, not just those who
can afford adaptation.
Ill. 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?
This Plan was over a decade in the making, but the duration of planning does not excuse the
erosion of consent. Planning should evolve with and through the community —not simply over it.
IV. Relief Requested
We therefore 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.
V. Accountability & Reminder of Public Trust
While this affidavittpetition is respectful, it is also urgent. 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.
We invite you to prove that local governance still works —that when people raise valid concerns,
their representatives listen. Because in the end, it is not the process that justifies the
outcome —it is the integrity of those who steer it.
Let's get this right.
Me Ke Aloha and Civic Resolve,
Jocina Alani
PO Box 1981
Kealakekua Hi 96750
kehaulaninapua@gmail.com
Signature:
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Executed on this Iq day of y .S' 2025,
in the County of Hawai'i, State of Hawaii.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
1'U11LlU _
Carlhf. No.
'i 05-371
OF IrOl
q -I,-
expires: 4? a,
�— day of�s� .2025.
tttll111Ft/��'`
NOT
4 /
y�.•y,,,,o
NOTARY '.
Notary Name
PUBLIC —_
commission
Cu try, No.
a5-.-7t
Note St na
Notary 9
..'•
OFF
State of Hawaii )
) SS.
County of Hawaii )
TION