For nearly two decades in urban Honolulu, an ideological battle line over housing has been fixed along Ala Moana Boulevard dividing mauka and makai segments of Kakaako.

On each side of this divide, which pertains to whether housing should be allowed on the makai side comprising a man-made peninsula between Kewalo Harbor and Honolulu Harbor, stakeholders have jousted twice in the past decade. But in recent months both sides have been girding for their biggest face-off yet.

On one side, the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs wants lawmakers to end a ban on residential use in Kakaako Makai established in 2006, six years before OHA accepted a deal from the Legislature to take 31 acres of state-owned land in the area in lieu of $200 million representing a partial settlement for ceded-land revenue the state owes OHA.

On the other side, residents who helped convince lawmakers in 2006 to impose the ban to block another state agency’s effort to redevelop some of the peninsula with high-rise housing want the ban kept in place.

Perhaps the biggest past clash between the opposing positions happened in 2014 when a heavily contested bill to remove some of the restriction died in a House-Senate conference committee minutes before a deadline.

OHA backed another bill to achieve its long-simmering goal two years ago, but the legislation challenged by opponents failed to receive a hearing in the House after passing the Senate on a 19-6 vote.

Now the semi-autonomous state entity charged with bettering conditions for Native Hawaiians is making a heavy push to remove the ban with recent work that has included opinion polling, discussions with lawmakers, community meetings, TV commercials and calls for supporters to contact their representatives in the Legislature, where four bills have been introduced this year to partially repeal the ban.

“This is probably the most coordinated full-court press,” said Capsun Poe, OHA’s interim chief advocate. “We’re doing a hard push.”

The agency has not yet completed an ideal master plan for its land, but has identified three of its nine parcels as well suited for residential towers up to 400 feet. The conceptual vision also includes 10 acres of open space including a public waterfront promenade, a Hawaiian cultural center, a 3,600-stall parking garage and 250,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and other commercial space.

OHA in November named its plan Hakuone — meaning “a small land division cultivated for a chief” — and said it will create a cultural gathering place and oasis for the Hawaiian community in urban Honolulu.

Calculated debt

Casey Brown, OHA’s chief operating officer, said there are three strong reasons to reverse the ban. One is to combat Hawaii’s undersupply of housing, including affordable housing, which OHA would be required to provide. A second reason is that Hakuone can become an economic engine supporting programs for OHA beneficiaries in perpetuity. The third, and most important for OHA, is justice.

“It’s about justice for Hawaiians … because we need to be made whole,” Brown said.

OHA accepted the 31 acres with the residential restriction in 2012 as being worth roughly $200 million based in part on a professional appraisal it commissioned for the land at the time.

Brown said this appraisal was rushed under pressure of possibly losing legislative approval of a settlement, and lacked considerable details about the property. OHA has claimed previously that a more accurate value was $91 million.

This year the city, for property tax purposes, values the land at $300 million. Brown said OHA is having a new appraisal done and that preliminary findings suggest the current value is worth “way below” $200 million even after a decade of rising local real estate values.

“In our eyes we are nowhere near a $200 million value,” he said.

OHA’s new push

As part of its current campaign, OHA contends that the law against residential use is discriminatory, is opposed by most voters and is not needed to maintain public shoreline access.

OHA claims that 64% of voters responding to an opinion poll in late 2022 said they support repealing the housing restriction.

The agency also is trying to convince more residents to support its plan in other ways, including TV commercials.

In one commercial a little girl and her tutu, or grandmother, are shown walking on OHA land along the Kewalo waterfront with glass-sided towers in the mauka background. The little girl, pointing at the skyline of high-rises, asks, “Look at that, Tutu — who lives there?” and is told in response, “Mostly rich people, honey.”

Tutu goes on to explain that Kakaako was once home to Hawaiians who were forced to move and that OHA is restoring a little bit of what Hawaiians lost.

“It’s time to make things pono (right) for our people and for all of Hawaii,” the woman in the commercial says.

Another spot features renowned Hawaiian musicians Nina Keali‘iwahamana and Robert Cazimero, who say to viewers, “Tell lawmakers to lift restrictions on what we Hawaiians can do with our lands.”

Legislative wrangling

It’s uncertain what lawmakers will do this year, though it appears that pivotal support for the residential ban remains even though only nine of 76 lawmakers today were in the Legislature when the ban was enacted 16 years ago.

Rep. Daniel Holt, who introduced one of the four pending bills to pare back the ban, said OHA deserves a boost in the value of its Kakaako Makai asset given the state’s historical and continued practice of shortchanging the agency on ceded-land revenue.

“It’s our job to correct this historical wrong,” he said. “Their debt has definitely not been paid.”

Holt (D, Sand Island- Iwilei-Chinatown) is the only sponsor of House Bill 270, which is backed by OHA and proposes to allow residential use on all nine OHA parcels and to increase height and density limits on three parcels.

Another bill, HB 1228, proposes to end the residential ban on five of OHA’s parcels and raise the height limit on two. This measure was introduced by three first-term lawmakers, Reps. Kanani Souza (R, Kapolei-Makakilo), Elle Cochran (D, Waihee- Lahaina-Lahainaluna) and Elijah Pierick (R, Royal Kunia-Waipahu-Honouliuli).

Two companion bills — SB 248 and SB 736 — also are pending in the Senate, where lawmakers have been much more supportive of OHA’s objective.

Holt’s perception is that considerable resistance to repealing at least some of the ban remains in the House, though he would like to see House debate on a bill.

So far, only SB 736 has been scheduled for a hearing, on Wednesday.

House Speaker Scott Saiki (D, Ala Moana-Kakaako- Downtown) previously has been a powerful opponent of changing the ban, and proclaimed in 2014 and 2021 that pending bills at the time to let OHA develop some housing would not pass.

Saiki deferred comment on the issue Wednesday.

OHA is asking its supporters to contact lawmakers to urge them to hold a hearing on HB 270, introduced by Holt.

Prohibition protectors

Meanwhile, ban proponents are ramping up their efforts to protect the prohibition they helped establish.

This group, which includes members of an advisory council engaged to help produce a master plan for Kakaako Makai before OHA received the land as well as community organizations Save Our Kakaako and Friends of Kewalos, has drafted a conceptual vision for parts of the peninsula. The ban supporters also are lobbying lawmakers, have started an online petition and intend to organize a public rally soon and host a community meeting Feb. 13.

“They are coming back hard,” Ron Iwami, a Friends of Kewalos leader, said about OHA and its push for residential use in Kakaako Makai. “We don’t think it’s a good idea.”

On Monday, Friends of Kewalos started a change.org petition titled “Stop Residential Development in Kakaako Makai,” and about 400 backers had signed on as of Friday.

The petition states in part, “We are not against generating funds to benefit Native Hawaiians, or against Native Hawaiian self determination. There are options available that can achieve both of those goals without building residential.”

Petition supporter John Shockley of Kapolei explained his reason in a comment that said, “The last stretch of Honolulu City coastline must remain open to free public access. Private development will by its nature cut off public access to the coast.”

Another effort promoted by Friends of Kewalos are suggested development possibilities that include an aquarium, aquaculture operations, a shoreline promenade, farmers market and continued operation of a marine lab on OHA land.

“We want people to know what could be there other than high-rises,” Iwami said.

Friends of Kewalos has scheduled a community meeting for 5 p.m. Feb. 13 in the KUPU event hall at Kewalo Harbor where it will present its plan, serve food and explain the history of the residential ban.

Ban’s inception

The original movement was a reaction to a development plan selected in 2005 by the Hawaii Community Development Authority, a state agency that previously owned much of the Kakaako peninsula and aimed to turn 36.5 acres of gritty property including warehouses, base yards and ship repair facilities into more of a public gathering place with housing, retail, recreation and other uses.

A proposal from local development firm Alexander & Baldwin Inc. was selected in a competitive bid process and included three condominium towers clustered on one inland lot, a hula amphitheater, restaurants, stores, a farmers market, a public waterfront promenade and a pedestrian bridge spanning the Kewalo harbor channel.

A&B’s plan sparked public opposition over the housing component, even after A&B removed one tower. In response, the Legislature in 2006 overruled HCDA’s zoning power and blocked the project.

Only one lawmaker voted against the bill to prohibit residential use on the peninsula, which today includes the OHA parcels, the city’s Kakaako Waterfront Park, the University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine, the Children’s Discovery Center, some HCDA land, Kamehameha Schools property and other things.

Iwami said some lawmakers today, and a portion of the general public, might not know about the law and its impetus.

“It’s a concern because they don’t know the history,” he said. “They don’t know how hard people had to work for that law.”

Poe at OHA also wants lawmakers and the public to understand the agency’s point of view on the land and how lifting the ban could be good. “It’s not just this theoretical thing,” he said.