EDITORIAL
Prudence is the key to land use changes
A couple of Circuit Court decisions adverse to development interests this month have prompted a renewed assault on the procedures that protect agricultural lands in this state.
Abolish land-use decisions at the state level, they say, or failing that, mount a massive reclassification of currently unused or "inferior" ag land.
But neither of this month's court decisions, in our judgment, does much to advance this argument.
In the first case, Judge Ronald Ibarra ordered work on Hokuli'a, a luxury resort residential project on the south Kona coast, halted until its developer obtains either reclassification of its ag lands from the state Land Use Commission, or an LUC declaration that reclassification isn't needed.
The ruling is understandably devastating to the developer, because some 190 lots have been sold, and millions of dollars have been poured into grading and infrastructure.
Judge Ibarra's ruling, however, makes it quite clear that the developer failed to heed numerous warnings that LUC review was needed.
Koa Ridge snag
Then last week, O'ahu Judge Eden Hifo said the LUC had failed to order Castle & Cooke Homes Hawai'i Inc. to submit an environmental assessment for its Koa Ridge subdivision in Waiawa when the company filed its request to reclassify the land from ag to urban use.
Hifo's ruling is a procedural glitch in the admittedly long road to development in Hawai'i. It seems rather a longshot that there would be something in the environmental assessment that would convince the LUC to reverse itself on Koa Ridge.
We've been critical of the process of approval for Koa Ridge, both as a departure from the city's General Plan, which had wisely intended that future growth be channeled toward the island's "second city," and because we don't think the project should proceed until there is assurance that schools and roads will follow in a timely manner.
But because both the City Council and the LUC seem solidly behind it, Koa Ridge is a train that has all but left the station.
Developers have cited the two cases as reasons either to abolish the state level of land reclassification, or to begin a massive conversion of vacant or inferior ag lands to some other, more easily developable, category.
But neither case serves to advance their argument.
Hokuli'a case
The Hokuli'a case showed that at least one of the counties is not ready to assume sole stewardship of ag lands. Judge Ibarra pointed out that Hawai'i County was obligated "at a minimum to objectively investigate and enforce compliance" with state land use law, and instead it approved a plan intended to circumvent the law.
The Castle & Cooke case shows the system works, even in controversial instances. What once was prime ag land, the state and city authorities are now coming to agree, is required to fill out existing urban use.
The proposal for wholesale reclassification of vacant ag lands also fails to make sense. If a developer decides that use of some of those lands will pencil out, there's an existing procedure to reclassify that land.
But arbitrary reclassification means that ag lands, because their value will automatically increase with a higher classification, can never be farmed again — even if developers aren't interested in them.
