In 2012, the state transferred 30 acres of prime real estate in Kakaako to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), in a long-awaited settlement of the state’s outstanding debt to Native Hawaiians.

At the time of the transfer, it appeared that the Legislature understood that OHA would conduct its own assessment of the value of the lands and, if necessary, OHA would return to the Legislature in order to realize the full benefit of the settlement for Hawaii’s native people.

After conducting its own independent assessment of the transferred lands, OHA has said it concluded that in order to obtain fair returns for the Native Hawaiian people and balance its cultural commitments, it must be able to consider residential development on its inland parcels.

In seeking the authorization to develop the inland parcels for residential use, OHA has acknowledged the concerns of the community and made a firm commitment that it will not seek to develop the shoreline parcels beyond existing limits. The only parcels that OHA has projected for residential development are the inland parcels. I support this position. Keeping the shoreline parcels at the current limits will allow OHA to honor and respect the expressed sentiments of the Kakaako community and those who have a connection to the shoreline and marine resources.

OHA has also said that it agrees with the Kakaako community that ocean access should not be obstructed. I believe that OHA is committed to being a good neighbor to the residents of Kakaako and will provide a shoreline promenade and free public parking on selected shoreline parcels.

In fact, appropriate customary ahupua a access to the resources of the community is a policy that I know OHA has consistently advocated for across Hawaii and has sought to uphold on the lands that it has acquired in other areas, such as at Waimea Valley on Oahu and Wao Kele O Puna on Hawaii island.

Let us recall that Kakaako Makai was a densely populated community of 700 squatters in the early 20th century, concentrated in two historic settlements called Ka’akaukukui and Kukuluaeo. These settlements, which included many Native Hawaiians, afforded access to the ocean for fishing, a pleasant climate, and proximity to intermittent day labor along the docks.

The ecosystem was seriously altered after the government evicted the people in 1926 to make way for Hawaii Tuna Packers and an industrial plant for county maintenance crews for wood work, plumbing and painting projects.

As OHA approaches the restoration of a residential community in the Kakaako Makai lands, my understanding is that it is the intent of the agency to integrate Hawaiian planning and values, including an ahupua a planning approach for the benefit of the neighborhood as a whole.

I sincerely hope that the Legislature will choose to honor its obligation to our Native Hawaiian community by doing two things: 1) Continuing the discussion initiated in the 2012 settlement, regarding residential entitlements associated with OHA’s Kakaako lands; and 2) Not limiting what OHA can do with its lands as it works to restore a viable residential community for the Kakaako makai lands. Aloha Aloha aina.