The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0063.006 2012-2014 � '. °'& ,+R° �5.. r,. � [ tea n !Y " "� .x-`'+ } v '+ ,, w 2 �.y 'i 3r` _ S -; r>_�` -M -: � � rti '` COUNTY OF RAw 'Z :* RECEIVED Time 1.'cb p� gp " . Testimony of Jane Hedtke Date ....... _ `` x;5' 14-4088 Old Railroad Ave. -'; P.O. Box 937 Pahoa, Hi. 96778 x° .",'S:',,-' In Opposition to the Public Land Development Corporation Legislation '..-c".;.„.".,"" 24, , Land has always been one of the most contentious issues in Hawaii; on an island " -, chain it is a precious and finite resource. Almost all aspects of social and economic x `` activity in the state can be linked back to the control of land,thus it is of utmost importance to preserve the ability of the general public to freely access and benefit from i ' remaining p • the remaininublic lands. Over the decades there have been numerous attempts by }, politicians and corporate interests to weaken or destroy public land protections in order to ' �, allow the development of industrial and commercial enterprises on public land. The latest . _r attempt takes the form of Hawaii State Legislature Act 55: Public Land Development 4` Corporation(PLDC). - f. The PLDC is an unprecedented approach to management of public lands, with the �r goal of establishing public-private development partnerships on public lands in order to ` . generate maximum revenue for the Department of Land and Natural Resources(DLNR) -Ae i and the private partner. A portion of this revenue can be used for a wide array of purposes ,' } ` such as capital improvements,purchases of private lands, and further development of "k public lands. At first glance this may seem like a reasonable arrangement that holds the • potential to mutually benefit both public and private interests,however the broad • language of act 55 holds the true danger for our public land protections. Much of the i details surrounding important aspects of the law are missing from the legislation itself, , P/PG Ref.To: JAN 0 8 2013 , - ‘SPF F :, - ,z, c, .,. . u c :. S .. R E �+ x ';'''.7 „ ^ gym" 7 8 ..'..F.,,..` '''',".f.„,,,.2_,;,,, ,x , "�f;r` ,. „, �, a �".`., "`- -,,,,f-,,,,..";,*,...,,,,-,°� .,- t'*^ '4' , '�,, ,� a� ' ,.risk- ` A:'-';'-'14'" y" r r Ap. Vii. and instead intended to be s elled out later by an administrative rule-makin process that �� P Y g P �' � - is controlled by appointees to the five member governing board of the PLDC. Those ,1- powers that are explicitly granted to the board by the legislation are too vaguely worded, s allowing for very liberal interpretations to be made in a manner so that projects may not � #" be subject to mandatory enforcement of relevant regulations. Act 55 is a very broad p iece a t ti tt . ` of legislation granting the PLDC numerous powers that are dubious in nature. The s i:-''''''''''''' --' f following aspects that pose the greatest possible danger to our public land protections: 0 • Permissible Uses of Public Land • . According to Act 55,the"Permissible uses of public land...shall include but not '; • be limited to office space; vehicular parking;commercial uses;hotel,residential, and 1 1 timeshare uses; fueling facilities..."the key phrase opponents focus on is `shall include ass ` t' but not be limited to'. The various types of enterprises listed within that passage of the . e 4 bill are merely examples of the many possible ventures allowed on public land under mm * ; PLDC development and are not in anyway expressed limitations. Since no explicit p _ limitations are given,the door is left wide open for the approval of pretty much any type , of development on any given parcel of public land. Exemptions } " Section 19 of Act 55 states that all projects undertaken by the PLDC "shall be 4. exempt from all statutes,ordinances, charter provisions, and rules of any government • agency relating to...land use,zoning,and construction standards..." While there is an ' attempt in the bill to make some sort of reassurance that PLDC activities will"be �' coordinated with the county planning departments and the county land use plans,policies, _ , t ,, , :.. %, �, and ordinances",this can be deceiving in that the phrase `be coordinated' does not in any ''''-'-',',''',:f.:- ' ' tkr , ,_ ,,,„.' ,,,,,, � , � , .�'�. :-��` '�'a . ,f �. -,,,-,1,,,,,,,,,, ',� -fi '� : -<'x- .•r ',71-;:';%;.:'''';'4; way ensure that a'PLDC project is required to conform to county policies and ordinances. '1J 11 ,:: As the language is written now the PLDC is allowed to cut out the county and all other = . ; ' s._ .yam_ -��-��-;> state agencies from the decision-making and regulatory permitting processes, if it so . RAH , ' • chooses to. x ; No-Bid Contracting 5_ There are no requirements that projects under PLDC management be subjected to � A. w - ', a competitive bid process. In fact the publicly stated intent of the governing board is to k ' ti x cherry-pick contractors,as quoted from the State of Hawaii website: , `,"''-'"7,1'40-...00",,1,'; "By not requiring a full competitive bid process,the title agency has flexibility to choose ` , w , projects that more comprehensively represent the values of the community and the state 5 .4 • than may be available through a purely competitive bidding process.11 ;Ls„ If this provision is allowed to stand,it could lead to corrupt deals between bureaucrats, r , { politicians, and the special interest groups that fund their campaigns. Selling of Public Lands } In response to public out cry the State of Hawaii issued a message of reassurance ,,;:,f1:0 .' on its website meant to clarify the capabilities of the PLDC,in regards to selling public ' land to private interests: "The initial premise is that title will remain with the respective • agency and only the development rights will transfer over to the PLDC;therefore, the a *Y - PLDC cannot sell the fee title to any of the lands."At first reading the statement seems to place an obstacle to public land sales within the legislation. But the statement continues ; *-- �` ' on, and the second portion does not instill much confidence in the merits of the first half , 3 '* of the statement: "If the respective title agency transfers the fee title to the PLDC,the PLDC may sell title, subject to the same restrictions as other state agencies." So in other b ... . y ,_ ,sY - X , ? M ''M .,S >✓ Zr !g k iz -`v+��-�?r�"c�a'- �.,,.� om' t y �� Yom, words, only a relatively simple administrative procedure is required to render any given parcel of public land vulnerable to sale by the PLDC. Financial Instruments Act 55 grants the PLDC access to a wide range of financial instruments that it can utilize to assist in funding the development of public lands and the generation of revenue, A such as the ability to negotiate leases of public lands by private entities,the details and limitations of which are not clearly spelled out within the legislation but instead left to be defined by the current administrative rule-making process. The corporation can also issue revenue bonds to help fund the construction,acquisition and renovation of public facilities, and to purchase non-public lands as a speculative investment. The issuance of revenue bonds to fund project development means that, should a PLDC investment venture fail, it is ultimately the taxpayers that could be left exposed to the losses on the investments of those bonds. "The draft rules include provisions that authorize the PLDC to make investments in securities includin g providing seed capital even when no other professional investor is involved. Any provision authorizing investments should be eliminated, as it is fiscally irresponsible to allow the PLDC to use state funds to engage in speculative trading" (Laura Thielen, Chairperson of the DLNR from July 2007 to December 2010) Act 55 was originally introduced as Senate Bill 1555 on Jan. 26, 2011 and focused mainly on issues surrounding Ala wai and Keehi harbors. It contained none of the controversial provisions that are currently present in Act 55. It was then was taken up by the House Water/Land/Ocean affairs Committee on March 18, 2011. Many dramatic 44 "+' !2 ex a far ' ,x r, x4 ' a "7�r - ?. ass- i.:„.3 41U1`,: KJ» tea` 1 '{..,� k. ? d A'4 g t'b �''� .,i % ny+- F. 'k lfl.Rfii VS;�y�3w - YP"� 3I, ]. -,0,-..Y 3L.,_ ' ,r, 4 it' � changes were made to the House drafts of the bill, including the addition of the provision granting exemption from county permitting and zoning, as well as eliminating the requirement that the governing board have neighbor island representation. On April 7, 2011 the House Finance Committee held a public hearing on revised SB1555-HD2 and gave the general public no more than atwo-hour advance notice for the meeting in an apparent attempt to exclude public testimony. Finally it entered the Conference Committee, where there is no further public testimony or ,input allowed, and the bill underwent further drastic changes to become what is Act 55 today. Statewide public hearings held throughout the month of August 2012 attracted thousands of citizens that were almost unanimously united in their opposition to the PLDC. Perhaps the most convincing repudiation of Act 55 and the PLDC comes from the Hawaii State Association of Counties(HSAC), which voted on October 12, 2012 to approve a statewide resolution requesting the repeal of Act 55. Amending the bill is not an option; only total repeal of Act 55 will ensure that the fate of our public lands remain -:-, under the oversight and control of the greater public. T 'w �1 � ',.. .. , .F r '-a -x t"w.$ ' - fi ;x` im�3 "k `t +* - ?3,;k -N,