Late notice sank previous effort to condemn Portlock lane

The mayor’s representative erred when he told attendees at Tuesday’s Hawaii Kai Neighborhood Board meeting that the city dropped previous efforts to condemn a certain private lane for beach access in the late 1990s after the state Supreme Court overturned the condemnation.

Circuit Court documents show the city tried to condemn the lane on the 300 block of Portlock Road, known as Lane N, but failed because the city was 15 days late in notifying Bert Dohmen-Ramirez, one of the property owners.

Residents and beachgoers raised the condemnation issue at the meeting because Dohmen-Ramirez installed a gate in May blocking beachgoers from using the corridor, which leads to a surf spot and one of the few sandy beaches in the Portlock area.

“My understanding was that the earlier condemnation ended up in the state Supreme Court and was overturned based on a technical issue,” the mayor’s representative, city Environmental Services Deputy Director Tim Houghton, told the Honolulu Star- Advertiser on Wednesday. “That was why it was not further pursued.”

Dohmen-Ramirez, who claims 75 percent ownership of Lane N, told the Star-Advertiser on Wednesday after learning about a city councilman’s promise to seek condemnation of the lane: “The city did that 20 years ago, and they lost in court.”

Former City Councilman Jon Yoshimura, in an email to the Star-Advertiser, said he did not recall the case going to the Supreme Court, and another reader asked for the Supreme Court case information.

Houghton said on Wednesday he would research the issue, but never got back to the Star-­Advertiser. On Friday, city Department of Planning and Permitting spokesman Curtis Lum said the condemnation case never went further than Circuit Court.

Court records show the city filed the condemnation case on Oct. 28, 1998.

Circuit Judge Gary Chang noted that the city ordinance authorizing the exercise of eminent domain requires notice be mailed to owners and lessees no later than the date a request is sent to the City Council for authorization.

In this case, the request was sent June 15, 1998.

But the city did not send notice to Dohmen-Ramirez until June 30, 1998, and that, the judge ruled, violated his constitutional rights.

On June 22, 2004, the judge granted Dohmen-Ramirez’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.

In a final stipulated judgment entered May 3, 2005, between Dohmen-Ramirez and the city, the city agreed to pay $65,000 for his legal expenses and to mutually and completely release any claims, causes of action and disputes arising out of the action.

Dohmen-Ramirez and his wife have complained that beachgoers and vandals litter, drink, do drugs, urinate in the area, trespass onto their property and damage their home.

Residents and beachgoers say the pathway has been a beach access for well over 50 years.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Councilman Trevor Ozawa promised to seek condemnation of the lane.