Even lipstick can’t disguise PLDC look-alike proposals

As it turns out, the much-despised PLDC, the Public Land Development Corp., is not as disliked as you might imagine.

In the last week, the law that would allow the state to transfer property to developers in order to raise money for state programs was rejected in both the House and Senate.

It had originally been sold as a way to encourage the developers to partner with the state; the projects would be allowed to skip many zoning and environmental laws.

That many exemptions had environmentalists fuming. It also had county officials thinking that the state was dissing the county laws. And there were significant numbers of Native Hawaiian groups fearing that the exemptions would allow development of land they wanted preserved.

Because what you see is not always what you get at the Legislature, the legislators’ action to repeal the PLDC does not prevent new PLDC-like bills from springing up.

For instance there is Senate Bill 215, which creates the Public-Private Partnership Authority, the PPPA. This bill wants to create "a partnership agency to collaborate with all state agencies and private sector entities" to deliver services "more effectively."

The good works to be done would include "energy generation."

The hook to getting county support was to say that counties would be allowed to "waive zoning, land use and permitting requirements on any project."

It appears the bill would also encourage the development of a film studio on Maui and an unspecified project in Wahiawa. Critics immediately said the state was actually just "putting lipstick on the PLDC."

In committee, Democratic Sen. Laura Thielen voted against the bill. Afterward, she said she is still concerned that "every conversation seems to be a race to develop state land to generate revenue."

She fears that the drive to raise money by pushing development on state land "may be a toxic combination."

If that bill smacks of lipstick on the pig, another one, SB 168, is like the PLDC on steroids.

It is another measure that starts out bemoaning our lack of money, and would allow the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to enter into a public-private partnership with individuals or private entity "to create revenue for the department."

Critics fear the partnership created would result in a casino, even though the words gambling or gaming never appear in the bill.

Here is the line that set off alarms: It would allow "development of any concept proposed by an applicant that would result in revenue for the department, even if the concept requires legislative changes to existing statutes or regulations."

The Rev. Bob Nakata said that means it would allow development of something that is not now legal, like gambling.

"That strange phrase … means it would allow or encourage something beyond the law. I can’t think of any other subject other than gambling," said Nakata, who is against legalizing gambling.

Republican Sen. Sam Slom also said the bill is actually talking about gambling.

"I see that as a not-so-subtle back-door attempt to get gambling in," said Slom, who cast the only "no" vote against the bill in committee last week.

Both measures have a complicated and bumpy path ahead before passage into law.

But — just like the joke about fearing the fellow who announces he’s from the government and is here to help — any bill that starts out by saying it wants government to make more money should be viewed with caution.

—————
Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.