honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Thursday, March 20, 2008

Senate fumbled duty on ceded land accord

StoryChat: Comment on this story

There are roughly 200,000 beneficiaries of the Native Hawaiian Trust living in the state, and not one of them benefited from the actions of the state Senate this week.

On Monday, following a long hearing, three Senate committees voted to kill a bill that would enact a negotiated settlement of the disputed revenues owed to the trust from ceded lands, property once owned by the kingdom.

Courts have ruled that the settlement requires legislative action, so the Senate owed the public more than simply rejecting the deal and delaying resolution. That's not leadership: It's just politics.

The notion that Hawaiians are due a share of ceded revenue is enshrined in state and federal law. Just how much money has been a legal question fought in the courts for 30 years. So the Senate figured: What's one more year?

Opponents raised fears that the deal closed off all future claims to the land and other legal points that were all answered. Others believed the agency could have won more.

But in a failing economy, the chances of a better settlement are remote. The settlement negotiated by the Lingle administration and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs would have brought $200 million in cash and property into the trust, enriching it by 50 percent.

Now, because the bill was killed — to spend the better part of another year hearing from the community — that new wealth won't come in. No interest will accrue, no extra money for Hawaiian programs. No plans can be made for using the land.

If the point was to give Hawaiians a chance to weigh in, that was already happening: The Senate had passed a resolution directing OHA to hold community meetings and report back March 26. More than 50 briefings have been held, written comments collected, polls taken.

What was the point of ordering all that public comment, at beneficiary expense, if it was going to be ignored?

The House is working, as it should, to resurrect the bill. Let's hope our elected leaders can work to produce a solution rather than prolong the problem.

• • •

StoryChat

From the editor: StoryChat was designed to promote and encourage healthy comment and debate. We encourage you to respect the views of others and refrain from personal attacks or using obscenities.

By clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator.