Public land development should have public involved

Few things aggravate the masters of wealth and power in Hawaii more than allowing land, harbors and coastlines to lie unproductive, meaning not generating hard cash in some way or another.

This displeasure becomes more piercing when the properties belong to the state and its taxpayers, and cost money to keep in good condition for public use, conservation or preservation. After all, there’s only so much to go around to maintain the state Capitol and its air conditioning, and to dole out to the tourism industry via government bureaus assigned to its feeding and care.

Put that land to work, the overlords of the islands said, and thus was born a supreme body of state government called the Public Land Development Corp.

I say "supreme" because this group of five political appointees led by an executive director with deep ties to development interests does not have to adhere to land use and zoning regulations, can demand that county governments bend to its will for costly infrastructure and services, and has no rules by which to designate properties for development.

Now that public attention is focused on the "no rules" part, the agency has decided it should at least put some guidelines on paper, and so will bounce from island to island for the next couple of weeks to hold perfunctory hearings on them.

Among the rules are a procedure for the corporation to "initiate, by itself or with qualified persons, or enter into cooperative agreements with qualified persons for the development or financing of projects that make optimal use of public land."

The rule leaves arbitrary the judgments on who is and isn’t qualified, what public-owned properties can be developed and the measures for so-called optimal use. Optimal use can slide from an open shoreline for recreation to time-sharing condos with no access for non-condo residents.

Another proposal allows the corporation to determine financing of projects and making deals and agreements with private enterprises, which cuts out legislative oversight and more important, taxpayers themselves.

The proposed rules are peppered with many instances when the corporation’s director and members can use their "discretion" — from limiting public testimony and challenges to their decisions to establishing levels of financial returns.

The corporation last month put forward its first three proposals for development. All met some degree of resistance.

One would let the owner of Olomana Golf Links try to recapture its investment for improving the course by extending a Department of Land and Natural Resources lease set to expire in 20 years. The corporation would not have to stick to DLNR rules for the lease and could allow the owner to bump up green fees, which did not sit well with local golfers.

Another plan was to expand from nine to 545 acres an exclusive lease for a beekeeper who sells honey, which seemed to other honey producers a very sweet deal.

The third would open 169 acres now being farmed to be developed for housing and a movie studio. Because the land is next to the Ho’opili project, the idea brought out its opponents. Said one, "We don’t trust what you guys are up to."

Indeed. If landowners — Hawaii’s people — are to be assured that the agency will not become a way to grease the skids for political cronies and moneyed insiders, the corporation must be structured for maximum public participation.

If not, lawmakers and the Abercrombie administration should look for another strategy for a better payoff, not necessarily in dollars and cents, from public land assets.

Cynthia Oi can be reached at coi@staradvertiser.com.