Posted on: Friday, November 19, 2004
Big Island developer appeals stop-work
By B.J. Reyes
Associated Press
Attorneys for a luxury subdivision on the Big Island yesterday asked the state Supreme Court to dismiss a lower court's decision that halted construction of the multimillion dollar project last year.
If the lower court's ruling is struck down, the Hokulia development on 1,540 acres of agriculturally zoned land above Kealakekua Bay in South Kona would be allowed to move forward.
Attorneys for developer 1250 Oceanside Partners and individuals who purchased lots at Hokulia contend the lower court's ruling threatens future development and would deprive Big Island residents of the economic benefits that the project would create.
"The ruling has raised problems and concerns in many segments of the community," Bert Kobayashi, an attorney for Oceanside, said at a news conference announcing the court filings.
Big Island attorney Robert D.S. Kim, who represents four Kona landowners who sued in 2000 to stop the project, said the developers were simply waging a "public relations dog and pony show" and flexing their financial muscle to try and sway the Supreme Court.
Kim declined comment on the specific motions filed yesterday, saying he had not yet been served with the documents.
"Big money doesn't buy justice in the state of Hawai'i," Kim said. "I guess they have the money to buy the most expensive attorneys in Honolulu, to hold a press conference and buy newspaper ads, but I don't think that's going to work on our Supreme Court members."
Developers took out half-page ads in the two daily newspapers in Honolulu and also the two newspapers on the Big Island to support their case.
They were joined at their news conference by prominent Honolulu attorneys William McCorriston and Jeffrey Watanabe, who are representing Hokulia lot owners.
The Hokulia project includes plans for 750 home lots ranging from $1 million to $8 million, a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course, a spa, tennis courts, a beach house and a club.
Construction began in early 1998 but was halted in September 2003 after Third Circuit Judge Ronald Ibarra ruled the project violated state laws on agricultural land use. Ibarra also found that the county government was in conflict of interest because it had entered into a development agreement with Oceanside.
Attempts to mediate a settlement failed, and Ibarra's decision was finalized in September.
Kobayashi argued the lower court does not have the authority to rule on permits and approvals that were granted under the county's land-use and permitting process.
Oceanside Chief Executive John DeFries said all permits were properly obtained through the process that included 30 public hearings over seven years, culminating in a development agreement with the county in 1998. Oceanside noted that the four landowners had not challenged the development during the permitting process.
DeFries said Ibarra's ruling, "raises the question of: At what point does an approval become final?"
Oceanside filed a separate motion asking that if the request to dismiss Ibarra's ruling is declined, that the Supreme Court expedite the developer's appeal.
In a news release, Hawai'i County officials said they filed their own motion seeking an expedited hearing of the appeal because Ibarra's ruling "resulted in great uncertainty and confusion for the County Planning Department and the public concerning subdivision in the state land use agricultural district."
McCorriston and Watanabe, representing 91 individuals who purchased lots at Hokulia, said they are seeking to have Ibarra's ruling dismissed because it negatively affected their clients' property rights even though they were not part of the lawsuit filed by the four landowners.
