Quantcast
  

Thursday, April 17, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 13 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Group sues in attempt to block city sale of Haleiwa land

By Star-Advertiser staff

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 03:11 a.m. HST, Jul 17, 2012


A lawsuit was filed Monday against the city to stop the sale of vacant parcels in Haleiwa.

The complaint was filed on behalf of longtime North Shore resident Cora Sanchez, stand-up paddler Steve Baldonado and members of the Save Haleiwa Beach Park Coalition.

The lawsuit contends the city has failed to follow the law in its plan to close and sell more than three acres of land in Haleiwa. Under the law, the city is require to obtain a special management area permit “whenever it plans an action that will reduce the public’s ability to use the shoreline,” according to Jim Bickerton, one of the attorneys who is representing the plaintiffs.

In a news release, Bickerton said, “Three acres of prime oceanfront land in Haleiwa is not a small deal. We’ve never seen this sort of concerted effort to privatize and sell of our public beach park land.”

City spokeswoman Louise Kim McCoy said they have not seen the lawsuit.

Last month, the city deferred action on a resolution to approve the sale of eight vacant parcels in Haleiwa due to questions raised by many community members about the sale process and value of the parcels. City Council Chairman Ernie Martin, who represents the Haleiwa area, had introduced the resolution at the request of the mayor’s office to sell the preservation land.

The mayor’s office had recommended a bid process between the adjacent landowners, developer D.G. “Andy” Anderson and Kamehameha Schools. Anderson expressed interested in acquiring the land to develop a boutique hotel. Kamehameha Schools also expressed interest in the land for a cultural park.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 13 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(13)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
false wrote:
The land needs to be given back to whom it was taken from. In this case, Kamehameha Schools. Simple as that.
on July 16,2012 | 01:28PM
mellishi wrote:
Exactly!
on July 16,2012 | 04:02PM
serfboy wrote:
What leads you to believe that KS/BE will keep it as is? They can choose to lease, sell, or develop it.
on July 16,2012 | 07:39PM
svkamahoi wrote:
Extremely fishy how a parcel once valued in the millions is now conveniently worth only 300k.
on July 16,2012 | 02:02PM
Knudsen wrote:
Good for Haleiwa! The whole City argument that this is surplus land that can be sold to one of two privileged buyers has ignored the public's interest and the City's responsibility as stewards of our public land.
on July 16,2012 | 02:14PM
islandsun wrote:
Seems to me they have a case and Bickerton would be the guy for the job.
on July 16,2012 | 04:45PM
SteveToo wrote:
Hey reporter. HOW ABOUT A MAP?
on July 16,2012 | 09:18PM
Naloboy wrote:
Selling park land is just plain idiotic. Even if we don't need it now or can't afford to develop it now....doesn't mean we won't be able t to do so in the future. And we certainly will need it in the future as recreation pressures on the North Shore grow. It is completely short sighted to sell the land.....ever.
on July 16,2012 | 09:28PM
from_da_cheapseats wrote:
this ain't beach, ain't ocean front, ain't loved, ain't productive...but it is a liablility and it is costly to insure and maintain...
on July 17,2012 | 12:26AM
bender wrote:
True it isn't directly on the beach but it was obtained to support the park that is on the beach. So it's part of that park, even though the city never fulfilled its development plans. It could become very productive if the city were to move forward with the original intent. It could become Haleiwa Beach Park Mauka. It could provide camp sites or overflow parking to name but a couple of uses.
on July 17,2012 | 05:46AM
bikemom wrote:
Typo? ". . . the city deferred action. . . " City council deferred action on the resolution.
on July 17,2012 | 12:42AM
bender wrote:
I think this lawsuit was probably neccessary. It was only a resolution the City Council deferred so it had no force of law either way. It's not clear if the Mayor needed the City Council to pass the resolution before he could act. And since the City Council only deferred action, that doesn't mean it could not be resurrected at a later date.
on July 17,2012 | 05:49AM
gsr wrote:
I think statute requires approval by the city council. As you say it will come up again.
on July 17,2012 | 06:54AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News