The story you are about to read is rapidly approaching a climax that could profoundly affect Kakaako and possibly other neighborhoods in Hawaii.

It takes place in the urban block dominated for years by the News Building at South and King streets. A local developer, Downtown Capital LLC, has already demolished the press structures behind the newspaper building and started construction on a 46-story, 635-unit "workforce" condo building (Tower A). The project was approved by the Hawaii Community Development Authority, the state agency in charge of revitalizing Kakaako.

Last month, Downtown Capital formally asked HCDA for approval to construct a second workforce condo structure (Tower B), also 46 stories and with 410 condo units, on the Diamond Head side of the News Building. HCDA has scheduled an Oct. 2 hearing for public input, then a decision-making hearing in early December.

But there are serious problems, not only with the proposed project but, more fundamentally, with the way HCDA does business. Its appointed board is mandated to oversee development in Kakaako; to do that, it works closely with developers. But HCDA also serves as judge and jury when it’s time to decide whether the very same projects that it has already helped design should be built.

The authority is run by a board with close business, social and political ties to the leading bankers, property and construction executives in town. That’s a natural alliance, but a formidable network for individual condo owners without such connections.

Until late August, neither the developer nor HCDA bothered to ask people in the neighborhood if they had concerns about the project. But it’s easy to understand why nearby residents are worried: they fear that the block, with four high-rises a short distance apart, will eventually resemble a complex of shadowed, congested military barracks or a federal penitentiary — not at all the cozy "live, work and play" community pictured by HCDA in its promotional material for Kaka-ako.

Oddly, the procedural rules written by HCDA don’t require public discussion until a project is just a few months from startup. The law requires an impact assessment for the district as a whole, which was done three years ago, but not for individual projects, as is usual for proposals outside HCDA jurisdiction.

But state law does require HCDA to "engage the community" by posting project plans, hearing notices and "any other information that the public may find useful so that it may meaningfully participate in the authority’s decision-making processes."

Apparently, HCDA feels that five weeks, or even the three months until decision-making, is plenty of time for concerned citizens to review thousands of pages of statutes, rules and studies, plus reams of news reports and related correspondence — not to mention consulting experts on issues like traffic congestion, sewer and water, schools, noise abatement and health and safety matters.

Backers of big projects like this one generally get lots of time, certainly more than a year, and plenty of paid staff and expensive advice from attorneys, architects, PR people and other experts to organize project plans. So, why can’t HCDA give neighbors at least a year to prepare for meaningful participation in decision-making processes that will sharply affect their lives?

There are many other concerns about the HCDA, especially its highly touted "work- force housing" policy.

We urge the governor and the Legislature to defer permission to start Tower B sales and bring in an independent expert, someone like former state Auditor Marion Higa, to examine how this complicated new policy has worked in Tower A.

An impartial investigation would help clear up the mystery of why a developer gets to double the density of a project but still sell the condos very close to market prices, and how HCDA keeps speculators and flippers from exploiting the development.