Turtle Bay deal must be secured

In a state with such astronomical land values, achieving a public-private accord to preserve scenic resources in the middle of a resort development is a rare achievement.

For everyone who treasures the vistas and shoreline access possible near Turtle Bay, it simply won’t do to allow such a deal to die this week in a legislative committee.

And yet that is what the House could do, unless Senate Bill 284 picks up steam and progresses for further discussion and refinement.

This measure has sunk below the horizon of public awareness because it’s so much less sexy than the original agreement. Passed in a late flurry of legislative excitement last session, this was a deal for the state to spend $40 million on a conservation easement that bars resort expansion from overtaking the North Shore’s lovely Kawela Bay. And that would keep the expansion of Turtle Bay Resort within a smaller, more desirable footprint than was initially proposed.

An easement means the developer, Replay Resorts, would retain ownership but forgo developing to the limits of its zoning allowance, granted by the City Council three decades ago. The investment is sizable, but it’s much less costly than an outright purchase of the entitled development.

Last year’s legislation provided that $40 million would be secured through revenue bonds the state would issue, and an allotment of $3 million in transient accommodations tax (TAT) revenues would cover the loan servicing costs.

The bill seeks to correct certain flaws in last year’s legislation, which was championed by Gov. David Ige — then the Senate Ways and Means chairman with a gubernatorial campaign against sitting Gov. Neil Abercrombie just around the bend. Politics was part of what propelled that measure to its 2014 photo-finish, but the end result was the framework of a land-conservation plan that is clearly in the public interest.

Among other things, SB 284 would transfer management of the easement from the state budget office to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, which is appropriate. It would also extend the deadline for finalizing the deal, which seems prudent as well.

These changes are considered technical fixes, but without them, proponents of the plan fear the whole deal could fall apart.

The bill was heard last week in the House Tourism Committee, but the chairman, Rep. Tom Brower, said he deferred it, with the support of some members. However, following protests by the Trust for Public Land and the North Shore Community Land Trust, it’s moving again, this time through the Finance and Water and Land committees. The House should promptly usher it through to make a Friday deadline.

The draft now in the House still needs further review.

In the March 18 hearing, issues were raised by two state agencies, as well as a nonprofit advocacy group.

None of the problems should be deal breakers, but should be hashed out nonetheless.

Among them:

» The Hawaii Tourism Authority expressed concern about the priorities for the allocation of the TAT revenues.

» DLNR officials testified that the bill should restore language that protects money set aside for parks and trails.

» The League of Women Voters suggested that the way last year’s bill was passed puts its constitutionality on thin ice: It might be safer to replace last year’s bill entirely, rather than amending it. More clarity is needed on what public uses of the easement would be permitted, the group added.

Conservation of Hawaii’s scenic resources — particularly the few unspoiled places left on crowded, urbanized Oahu — is essential.

It can happen through public purchases of land, as is proposed in another scheme, the preservation of the Ka Iwi Coast on the island’s eastern shore.

But the state should use all the appropriate tools at its disposal.

With reasonable revisions, SB 284 could be the right tool to protect a priceless natural treasure in perpetuity.