Editorial: Weigh options for Kakaako Makai

Work has been underway for decades to remake Kakaako, a district that is a crucial piece of Honolulu’s waterfront, hugely valuable for development as well as a public asset. Balanced against the economic interest is the desire to keep a focus on shoreline recreational and cultural resources, enhancing the so-called “lei of green” envisioned to soften the skyline in this part of urban Oahu.

The road toward achieving this balance has been a rocky one, especially because among the beneficiaries of development here is the financial trust for Native Hawaiians that’s managed by the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The contentious testimony aired last week at the state Legislature shows that more negotiating is necessary to achieve it.

On Kakaako’s economic front, there’s been considerable construction of high-rises and commercial vitality. In defense of the public asset, a community push to protect the shoreline led to a state ban in 2006 on residential land-use within Kakaako’s development zone seaward of Ala Moana Boulevard.

OHA’s proposed development at Kakaako Makai, a complex called Hakuone, would require lifting that ban in the area. This then would accommodate a plan for 400-foot residential towers as well as a complex of Hawaiian-centered activities and attractions.

Ending the ban is something that, rightly, many state lawmakers are hesitant to do, for valid policy reasons, including the real concern that high-rises could proliferate makai of Ala Moana.

But OHA, which has made several requests to lift the ban, this year is making a full-court press for the change.

Last week state senators heard passionate testimony, for and against, a strong signal that the conflict is at an impasse. It may be time to reopen the settlement talks and examine whether there is a compromise possible.

Lifting the ban is the crux of Senate Bill 736, which was heard Wednesday by two Senate panels, the Hawaiian Affairs and Water and Land committees. The hearing was continued for a week and will resume Thursday, so there will be no movement on the bill at least until then.

However, there is movement toward a new settlement, or at least taking steps in that direction. State Rep. Scott Saiki and state Sen. Sharon Moriwaki penned an op-ed column on the issue that appears today (see Page E1). Both are representatives of the Kakaako district; their constituents include those who lobbied hard for the ban nearly two decades ago.

However, it’s Saiki’s position as House speaker that gives this most recent proposal particular weight.

It’s an idea that deserves serious consideration. Saiki and Moriwaki point out that OHA is requesting an end to the ban on residential development as well as allowances to go up to 400 feet on specific parcels.

This amounts to “spot zoning,” they correctly note, and would set a bad precedent, potentially unraveling land-use development restrictions elsewhere in the state. The allowance also would extend to other developers in the Kakaako Makai district.

Of course, OHA is not a standard, private development entity. It is an agency enshrined in the state Constitution more than 40 years ago as a trust to manage Native Hawaiians’ share of income from the state’s “ceded lands” — the former Hawaiian kingdom government and crown lands.

And it is state policy to support OHA’s mission of serving its beneficiaries. Officials must admit, though, that policy aspirations can conflict with implementation and other directives, which is why the Legislature is now in this position.

The waterfront residential development ban was already in place in 2012 when OHA agreed to accept nine parcels in Kakaako Makai as settlement for past debts, then estimated at $200 million. The money owed was the state’s lagging payment for ceded lands revenues.

Saiki and Moriwaki acknowledge that more recently, OHA explored its options and ultimately concluded the settlement was unsatisfactory, the land value compromised by limits on its use, the threat of sea-level rise and other factors.

While lawmakers could reasonably see this as cause to explore adjusting terms of the settlement through a reopening of talks, taking action to lift the ban now would be premature.

In a separate column appearing in this section, former Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who presided over the 2012 settlement, maintains that the pact was struck after consultation with all parties and had “broad-based community support.” The record bears him out on that.

Lawmakers do need to hear from other advocates. One who has spoken out, OHA Trustee Mililani Trask, wrote in a January commentary in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that lifting the ban “would be a tangible demonstration of good faith toward the indigenous people of these islands.”

But OHA also should be open to other potential solutions — perhaps high-rise development elsewhere, as well as its regulated use of Hakuone land — that talks could illuminate.

Ideally, the end result would be fairness, as well as a well-managed shoreline to leave as a legacy for future generations.