COMMENTARY
Author's Hokuli'a stance no surprise
By Jeff Mikulina
David Callies' strident defense of the Hokuli'a developers is not surprising. After all, Callies argued against extending Native Hawaiian gathering rights in the PASH case, opposed the Supreme Court's upholding of the public-trust doctrine in the Waiahole water case, and has called for abolishing the state Land Use Commission.
Callies calls on Advertiser readers to judge the facts, but then fails to provide a balanced presentation of the issues at hand.
Callies argues that Hokuli'a is not a beachfront development and that it somehow preserves our coastal environment. He conveniently ignores the tons of mud that flowed from the Hokuli'a project into the coastal waters, smothering the reef. The developer's failure to properly contain the mud led to the death of corals and devastation of marine habitat. The state's own biologists concluded that an average of 5.5 percent of living corals were killed by the sedimentation in one heavily studied cove. Now, a court-appointed, independent water-quality monitor has concluded that Hokuli'a continues to degrade water quality. Is the Hokuli'a project good for our coasts? You be the judge.
Callies argues that the Hokuli'a developer "conscientiously" followed the law. He fails to mention that an Arizona town sued this same developer (Lyle Anderson) over his broken promise to build a water pipeline. The town claimed Anderson's company committed fraud and that the agreement was a sham perpetrated by Lyle Anderson. In March 1991, Judge Colin Campbell of Maricopa County Superior Court found that Anderson's company breached its agreement with the town.
The Hokuli'a developer demonstrated similar contempt here. According to Judge Ibarra, the developer destroyed a public trail, desecrated Hawaiian burials and ignored repeated warnings that the development needed the approval of the Land Use Commission.
Given this context, it is not hard to imagine why the developer went so far as to give a $1,000 to a state burials official for his church — while the state official was "regulating" the project. Conscientious and law-abiding? You be the judge.
Callies argues that the Hokuli'a developer did not try to circumvent the state land-use law. Yet the developer argued that its 1,540-acre private luxury resort was an "agricultural" development. In a public offering statement, the developer stated "buyers should not expect material financial benefits from agricultural activities." Million-dollar mansions as third homes for Mainland business executives are farmhouses? You be the judge.
Callies argues that the land where the project sits is "useless." In doing so, he callously disregards the cultural and environmental importance of the area.
He argues that only prime farmland should be classified as agricultural. True, some agricultural lands may be better suited in another classification, such as conservation. But before urbanizing other lands that are currently in the agricultural district, the Land Use Commission is required by law to ask some tough questions: What efforts will be made to protect natural and cultural resources? What kind of infrastructure will the developer build so that taxpayers are not left holding the bag? Citizens can intervene before the commission to ask developers these same questions, to cross-examine the developer's experts and to present their own expert evidence. Citizens do not have these rights when county councils make the decisions.
The developer of Hokuli'a has polluted coastal waters, destroyed a public trail and desecrated Hawaiian burials. The developer ignored the advice of his own attorneys and state officials — as well as common sense.
Defensible? You be the judge.
Jeff Mikulina is director of the Sierra Club Hawai'i Chapter.
