EDITORIAL
Hanauma fees valid — but not as cash cow
We're gratified with the ruling by federal Judge Alan Kay on the constitutionality of a $3 fee charged to nonresidents to visit Hanauma Bay.
A California woman who had challenged the fee said it violated the state Constitution's freedom to beach access for everyone, and it violated the U.S. Constitution in discriminating between visitors and "kama'aina," meaning state residents.
Kay found the fee reasonable insofar as its object was not to make a profit from its operation of one of the premier snorkling spots in Hawai'i, but to help defray the expenses it incurs.
Kay ruled that because Hawai'i residents essentially underwrite the costs of operating the park in the form of taxes, "it is appropriate to exempt or preclude them from being charged an admission fee."
That's what we've been saying since the fee was first instituted in 1995. But we also agree with Kay that the proceeds must be used only for Hanauma Bay.
Hanauma Bay is a splendid visitor destination. We fully expect that tourists will be happy to shell out $3 to climb down to the beach and spend the day snorkling, just as O'ahu residents should not object to paying $1 to park there.
As long as these are user fees, they are entirely reasonable. From Day 1, however, we have fully expected the money to go back into operating, maintaining and improving a magnificent asset that simply must not be allowed to deteriorate.
Indeed, as we have understood the law, excess collections are not supposed to find their way into the city's operating budget. Use of Hanauma Bay fees to pay for, say, pothole repairs in Waipahu would constitute an unauthorized tax.
Some City Council members were tempted to use Hanauma in just that way, as a "cash cow." Judge Kay now makes clear that is a temptation that must be resisted.
Kay now wants the city to return Hanauma money allotted to other parks, such as the Koko Head Shooting Complex and the Koko Head Botanical Gardens, to the Hanauma operation.
That's as it should be.
