By Eloise Aguiar
Advertiser Windward Bureau
KANE‘OHE — After offering an amnesty program to bring unauthorized piers in Kane‘ohe Bay into compliance, state officials now say they may fine the owners after all.
At least one resident is criticizing the state for "going after the big bucks" in seeking to get formal leases for as many as 180 unauthorized piers at a cost of what he says could be as much as $8,000 to $10,000 for each owner.
Now, with this latest twist and continuing criticism over how the leases will be calculated, "things are ready to fall apart," said Roy Yanagihara, a pier owner and counsel for Protect Our Shoreline Ohana, a group formed to represent pier owners and obtain long-term leases. Some of the complaints were expected to arise during a meeting last night between pier owners and representatives of the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
The DLNR said the program will move forward even as it considers whether it is appropriate to fine pier owners who haven’t paid rent for the use of state land under the illegal piers.
The issue arose at a Board of Land and Natural Resources meeting on Friday, in which the board approved, as part of the amnesty program, a formula to calculate a one-time lease payment.
Three years ago the state reinstated the amnesty program, which attempts to register all piers and bring properties into conformance with state land use laws.
DLNR estimates there are more than 200 piers and shoreline structures in the bay, but fewer than 20 with DLNR permits. At the time of the announcement, DLNR said the state would waive all fines, penalties and administrative costs for those who participate.
According to a letter sent to pier owners the week of Jan. 22, they had until Feb. 22 to return a completed application form to be included in the program.
The state would not say how many pier owners have taken advantage of the amnesty program.
'Doesn't seem to be any fairness'
Alvin Maeda, president of the Ohana and one of the few who is paying rent, recommended at Friday’s meeting that in fairness to people who are paying rent, the DLNR should stop collecting rent until the amnesty program has brought all pier owners into compliance, Yanagihara said.
But a Land Board member’s response was to have its staff research whether a fine would be fairer.
The DLNR’s Dean Uchida, administrator for the Land Division, said his staff will research the possibility of a fine and make a recommendation. At this time there is no penalty for people not paying rent, Uchida said. But if people who have been paying rent stop, they can be penalized.
"(The Land Board) wants us to take a look at that because there doesn’t seem to be any fairness," he said.
Last night, pier owners and the DLNR were to discuss a Conservation District Use Application, the necessary first step to land-use compliance.
If the application is approved, then residents can begin the lease process, which includes surveying their property.
"Up until the survey, (pier owners) are not spending any money," Uchida said. "It’s all being done at taxpayers’ expense."
After Friday’s meeting, pier owners criticized the formula for calculating the leases, calling it unfair.
For one thing, the state has decided to calculate the rate of residential piers using the same formula as for commercial piers, said Maeda. Commercial users can deduct their leases from their profit, but homeowners have no deduction. Also, commercial users usually operate from a state pier where such things as water and electricity are provided by the state, but the state provides nothing to homeowners.
Pier owners are looking at paying $8,000 to $10,000 for a 55-year lease, he said. But the one-time, up-front cost for the elderly could make them decide not to participate, said Maeda, who is in his 70s and now pays $30 month for a revocable lease.
The state has said it would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 for individual pier owners to hire a consultant and obtain the proper permits on their own.
"For 30 years the state has done nothing to take care of this pier issue," said Maeda. "The state seems to be going after the big bucks."
[back to top] |
