HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.12.17 Tina Holt Testimony
From:Tina Holt
To:Planning Internet Mail; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Onishi, Dennis
Subject:Written Testimony about Banyan Drive
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:21:22 AM
Bill: Establishing the Banyan Drive Community Development District
Position: OPPOSE
From: Cristina Holt, Hilo Resident & Community Organizer
Committee: BANYAN DRIVE HAWAI‘I REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Date: 12/17/2025
Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee,
My name is Cristina Holt, a resident of East Hawaii and a long-time community organizer
and volunteer in local governance, cultural advocacy, and civic engagement. I am testifying
today in strong opposition to this bill.
I oppose this measure because it accelerates the kind of extractive tourism, state-controlled redevelopment, and
climate-vulnerable shoreline building that has already harmed many communities across Hawaii.
This bill moves Banyan Drive in the wrong direction — toward a top-down, development-first
approach at a time when we should be rethinking our relationship with land, water, and
tourism in the face of rising seas and intensifying climate impacts.
1. HCDA-led redevelopment is a model built for growth, not protection
HCDA was designed to spur large-scale economic development. Its track record shows:
prioritization of private investment over community needs,
displacement and gentrification in existing districts,
reduced local democratic oversight, and
a tendency to “revitalize” in ways that expand tourism and real estate profits.
Bringing this model to Banyan Drive invites:
hotel-driven redevelopment,
increased tourism pressure,
private partnerships that monetize public shoreline,
elimination of small businesses that give Hilo its character, and
decisions being made in Honolulu rather than Hilo.
This bill transfers power from local hands to a centralized authority whose mission is
development, not stewardship.
2. The Waikea Peninsula is one of the most climate-vulnerable areas in the state
Waikea sits at extremely low elevation, is already experiencing king tides, and is identified in
climate models as a high-risk inundation zone within the next several decades.
The bill encourages long-term redevelopment investments — hotels, commercial spaces, new
infrastructure — in an area that may not remain viable. It is fiscally irresponsible and
environmentally dangerous to push new development into a shoreline zone that:
will flood regularly,
may become partially submerged,
requires retreat and adaptation strategies, not new capital investment, and
will burden taxpayers with future mitigation, repair, and disaster costs.
We should not repeat the mistakes of developing in areas we already know will not withstand
future conditions.
3. This bill expands tourism at a moment when Hawaii needs to reduce dependency on it
Extractive tourism has already:
strained local housing markets,
stressed infrastructure designed for residents,
compromised cultural sites,
contributed to waste and water overuse, and
replaced local economies with visitor-centered ones.
Hilo is not Waikk, nor should it become a diluted version of it.
Visitors are welcome, but not at the cost of local quality of life, cultural integrity, or ecological
health. True revitalization should come through:
community-led planning,
restoration of natural systems,
diversification of our economic base, and
strengthening local ownership and control.
This bill does none of that.
4. The bill reduces local authority at a time when we need more local accountability, not less
Hilo residents have repeatedly expressed their desire for:
safer shoreline areas,
maintained parks,
better lighting,
cultural preservation,
responsible stewardship of the banyan trees, and
sustainable, small-scale local business development.
We do not need:
hotel expansion,
a tourism corridor,
an imported vision of “revitalization,”
or a distant governing body making decisions for us.
By shifting control from County to State via HCDA, this bill:
removes democratic accountability,
minimizes community voice,
allows for statewide political and private interests to override local priorities, and
bypasses the principle of community self-determination.
East Hawaii deserves governance that is done with us, not to us.
5. There are alternatives that do not require creating a new HCDA district
Instead of creating a special development district, the State could:
return management authority to the County,
improve coordination with DLNR,
invest directly in climate adaptation infrastructure,
restore and preserve the natural environment,
focus on coastal retreat planning,
rehabilitate existing park facilities, and
support local-owned businesses rather than hotel interests.
Revitalization does not require a new quasi-autonomous authority with sweeping development
powers.
Conclusion
Banyan Drive does need care, investment, and thoughtful planning.
But this bill chooses the wrong tools for the wrong future.
We cannot continue building tourism infrastructure in flood zones while claiming to be
preparing for climate change.
We cannot claim to value local voice while transferring authority to an agency based on
Oahu.
We cannot claim to pursue sustainability while doubling down on an economic model that
harms our community and our environment.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to hold this bill.
Mahalo for your consideration and for your dedication to the people of Hawaii.
Respectfully submitted,
Cristina Holt
Hilo Resident