Angry crowd opposes public land agency

Environmentalists, Native Hawaiian leaders and University of Hawaii students crowded a state office building conference room Wednesday night to demand the repeal of the newly created Public Land Development Corp.

"We do not believe that this act (creating PLDC) can be fixed by rules," said Jonathan Osorio, a professor of Hawaiian studies at UH who is on the executive board of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance. "We believe that the state has no business setting up an autonomous entity to make decisions about ceded (former monarchy) lands and their use."

More than 150 community members — 100 of them spilling outside the Kalanimoku Building — appeared at the hearing on PLDC’s draft administrative rules, one of several held statewide.

The PLDC was created in Act 55 by this year’s Legislature to pursue partnerships with the private sector to make better use of state property, and is an arm of the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

The PLDC has broad exemption from land use and county zoning laws and construction standards for development projects. It must, however, comply with the state’s environmental review law and the state’s historic preservation program.

Supporters of the agency said the exemption from land use and county zoning laws is necessary to give the PLDC flexibility when developing projects.

But environmentalists and some Native Hawaiian activists fear PLDC will favor development interests.

Before the start of the meeting, the hotel workers union, UNITE HERE Local 5, held a rally across Punchbowl Street from the state Capitol as a show of opposition to the PLDC.

Cade Watanabe, a community and political organizer for the union, said the real question is whether the PLDC will listen to what people have to say and rethink the existence of the PLDC.

"The community is watching, and the community has real concerns," Watanabe said. "I was at the meeting in Kona last week and 100 percent of the people who I heard spoke fervently against the PLDC, spoke against the rules. And over and over again, people were articulating: ‘We need government who works for the people, not stands in the way of the community to be able to give input.’"

In her testimony to the PLDC, Brandi Hayden said: "Obviously we understand that the vagueness of this act, the vagueness of this corporation, is frightening. There is no accountability, there is no way of knowing what they’re going to do other than guarantee that they’re going to destroy aina. … There’s people watching at home that can’t see those people outside, but there are a whole bunch of people that don’t support this and we all demand that you repeal Act 55."

The agency has strong support from Gov. Neil Abercrombie and is led by a five-member board made up of representatives from the governor’s Cabinet and appointees from the state Legislature.

The corporation’s goal is to work with the private sector to develop underutilized state property, such as small-boat harbors or land around Aloha Stadium, into recreational and leisure centers that could generate state revenue.

The concept is similar to the Agribusiness Development Corp., which was established in 1994 within the state Department of Agriculture to help agriculture diversify from sugar and pineapple.

One criticism from environmentalists of the agency’s draft administrative rules is that there is no language addressing the protection of environmental and cultural resources. The Sierra Club’s Hawaii chapter has said the rules should prevent projects that could cause significant adverse impacts from proceeding.

Robert Harris, Sierra Club Hawaii director, again raised those concerns at Wednesday’s meeting.

"There have been broad statements saying that they are going to protect the environment," he said. "We’re looking to try to make sure the rules actually incorporate that concept so that (harmful) development pro­jects don’t go forward."

Eric Gill, secretary and treasurer of UNITE HERE Local 5, said in testimony that PLDC board members shouldn’t be surprised that people seem to be more concerned about the existence of the PLDC rather than its administrative rules.

"That shouldn’t be a mystery since this act was passed very hurriedly at the end of the session with little public discussion — no public discussion that I can recall," Gill said. "This is the first opportunity anybody has had to have public discussion about whether this is a good idea or not."