Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0853.008 2010-2012 TESTIMONY OF ALBERT A. NAKAJI IN RE. RESOLUTION 308-12, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN PAPAIKOU, HAWAII HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING October 2, 2012 Chairpersons Yagong and Ford, and Members of the Hawaii County Council Finance Committee, my name is Albert Nakaji and I speak today with regard to Resolution 308-12. I speak neither in favor of, nor in opposition to, the subject resolution, but ask that members of the Finance Committee consider issues relating to the proposed acquisition, and public use, of the trail and beach that has become the subject of considerable controversy. Most importantly, Committee members should realize that the issue before you is an out-of-control example of a fundamental lack of communication between the property owners and property uses. It is an entirely civil matter that has not been subjected to the customary course of resolving disputes, specifically, through informal discussions, then through formalized mediation, then through the judicial system. At no time that I'm aware of, have the property owners and "complainants" (for lack of a better descriptor), ever had an effectively facilitated meeting (or series of meetings) to fully understand and appreciate the issues that are faced by both parties in order that they work together to come up with a solution to the perceived problems. Meetings that have been held have not been productive, resulting instead in shouting and name calling, and emotional contests. Productive discussions have not been held but there is already an attempt to use the legislative process to resolve a civil dispute through very ornrn. C�p C3. p O' 1 Ref. To: r/�� Ref. Date OCT 0 2 2012 Testimony Of Albert A. Nakaji Hawaii County Council Finance Committee October 2, 2012 Page 2 drastic actions. This, honorable members, is very premature and ill advised. Better to guide the parties to participate in good faith mediation and mutual problem solving processes that allows them to make the decisions that will guide the use of the property and maintain property rights, than it is to take away all the rights of those involved by turning it over to the County. This not only applies to the issue of access, but also to the associated "rules of use" which will clearly be required if condemnation is undertaken. Why involve all property owners when the issue is simply between two property owners and some users? Recall, Members, that even the courts would very likely refer this matter to mediation as the first step towards conflict resolution if it were to come before them. Why not use the same approach and wisdom at this time before taking any drastic action. In this particular case, time in not of the essence, and a lasting a mutually beneficial solution crafted by the involved parties is much more important than expediency. I am a life-long resident of Papaikou, and have visited not only the subject properties, including the trail and beach, but have driven and walked along the Mill Road. Consequently, I am somewhat familiar with the trail, beach, and access to the proposed acquisition areas. My other concerns are as follows: 1. Access to the identified trail and beach is along the Mill Road and if it is the Council's intent to acquire property along Mill Road, all 2 Testimony Of Albert A. Nakaji Hawaii County Council Finance Committee October 2, 2012 Page 3 of the road must be notified, individually, so that they are aware that their properties may be affected. The Resolution cited "Exhibit 1" and Exhibit to show the intended acquisition areas, but neither were attached/provided so what those exhibits shows are unknown to me. 2. If it is the Council's intent to acquire only footpath access along Mill Road, that should be specified. If it is the intent to allow vehicular access, then the County must also acquire the Mill Road so that existing property owners do not assume any liability for events on that roadway. The County must clearly assume all liability associated with such access. The County must also assume the cost associated with any existing electrical and other utility provisions along the roadway. 3. Not only must access be provided, vehicular parking must also be provided so as not to adversely affect existing property owners along Mill Road or others in Papaikou. If public parking is provided, the County must also insure that such a location is then not used as a convenient spot for loitering, nuisance, and illegal activities. If such parking is provided for along Mill Road, then the residents must be protected/insured from personal injury and 3 • Testimony Of Albert A. Nakaji Hawaii County Council Finance Committee October 2, 2012 Page 4 property damage caused by increased traffic and visitors to the area. 4. Access along the existing trail for general public use must be carefully considered, as the trail was never meant to accommodate a very large number of people. If the existing trail is to be used, a regular inspection and maintenance program must first be developed to handle increased traffic, and so that it becomes clear what such costs will be. 5. Since the use of the property is for park use, the Council should also consider the installation of all facilities typically provided for County parks. Such facilities may include rubbish containers for recyclables and trash, restrooms, etc. Support for these ancillary facilities must also be provided, as it will be a County responsibility and liability. The County cannot take the position that the "community" will provide the needed maintenance services, as there are no examples that I'm aware of that this type of arrangement is successful. 6. Since the use of the property is for beach use, the Council should also consider the provision of all support typical of beach parks, specifically, a lifeguard during all operating hours. 4 Testimony Of Albert A. Nakaji Hawaii County Council Finance Committee October 2, 2012 Page 5 7. Page 2As a matter of safety, an emergency phone should also be installed at the site. 8. As a matter of taxpayers' interests, the Council should, prior to approving this action, advise the public how much the initial total acquisition cost will be, as well as the annual services and maintenance costs. What will the increase to individual property owners be? What will the property tax increases from the addition of such a beach park be to the adjacent property owners? Again, I speak neither for nor against the Resolution, but ask that very careful consideration be given to this matter. Eminent domain takings are never trivial, and this particular case includes many other related issues that need a great deal of thinking and study before a reasoned decision can be reached. With that goal in mind, I also suggest that the full Council make a site visit from where any proposed parking area will be, all the way to the beach. It is important that this Council be fully aware of, and appreciate, all of the issues related to this matter. Albert A. Nakaji 27-319 Kaieie Road Papaikou, HI 96781 808 964-5039 5