HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0853.025 2010-2012 I have been on island since early June and know the Papaikou trail and beach well. My background
includes over 25 years of commercial real estate/land development experience on the mainland,
including a number of experiences with condemnation proceedings, from both "sides." I will be off
island and not able to testify at the public meeting, and hope you'll consider my comments in your
considerations of Councilman Yagong's resolution for a public easement over the Prickett/Waugh
property through condemnation.
1. Although the current access doesn't meet everybody's wants and wishes,there is no access
"emergency" which would justify the abusive means and manner by which Councilman Yagong
proposes stripping Charlene's and Jim's private property rights. Access is in place as it has-been
for many years, and judging by its use,the trail is enjoyed by many—there appears to be no rationale to
push through this shockingly abusive "taking," which punishes one landowner only,when other wimps
better long term solutions are evident,other than the timeline proposed gets it done before Counman
Yagong's term ends. Further,this "taking" is abusive on two fronts:
First, Councilman Yagong's proposal is to take an easement only, leaving the landowners full exposure
for a public thoroughfare across their private property, apparently without compensation for their
investments, which, ironically,were made for the public good. What a chilling precedent that would set
for private property owners.
Secondly, my understanding is that Councilman Yagong has been meeting with the group that has this
condemnation agenda for a number of months, and did not even attempt to bring the owners into the
discussion until he provided them and the press a copy of the proposed resolution, less than five days
before the first public meeting. Why is this?The story is these landowners were excluded from the
process,because they apparently had their one chance, way back when, and they said no,they do not
want to sell their property for public access. As someone asked in the last public meeting,where's the
aloha in that? Is that how long term land owners should be treated, especially ones who have gone to
great expense and personal burden to allow people to cross their land safely,twelve hours a day, for all
these years,when they could have done what others did and shut it down.
2. It is deeply disturbing to me that Councilman Yagong published and publicly distributed, on
official County letterhead,false and misleading statements. As Jim Waugh mentioned in his
testimony in front of the Finance Committee, statements such as the continued insinuation that the trail
is an historic trail -- DESPITE Na Ala Hele's determination otherwise -- are just false, and continue to
confuse the public on an already complicated issue. Another of too many to note instances: the
resolution's WHEREAS, a"fact and finding" that unmanaged,unrestricted public access across their
private property would have no detrimental effect on their rights of private enjoyment—just on its face
that is simply ludicrous as I can tell you from watching the trail these past few months.
As it turns out, I understand the entire resolution,including these and other made up "facts and
findings" were prepared by private citizens with an acknowledged agenda. If it's accepted Council
policy to permit Council members,to distribute as "official Council facts and findings" information that
is false and misleads the public, in my opinion, such a policy should be reviewed and addressed--the
public relies on"official" documents to be true and credible,unless otherwise CLEARLY qualified.
I ask that the Council vote this ill-conceived resolution down,and begins a dialogue to find the best
long term solution.
� � ' � � /6/6/
Linda Sasenick, Papaikou HI
Comm. No. S S3• z c
Ref.To:
Ref. Dote OCT 1 6 2012