Monday, June 9, 2014

COUNCIL TO TRY TO GUT CHARTER'S ETHICS PROVISION WITH BALLOT MEASURE

It's a little know fact: Kaua`i does, in fact, have a "Code of Ethics." But it's not for lack of trying that county officials have failed to undermine it.


And after many attempts to make a joke of our County Charter provision that simply doesn't allow an "officer or employee of the county" to "(a)ppear on behalf of private interests before any county
board, commission, or agency," Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura wants to try to gut the provision at tomorrow’s (6/10) County Council meeting.

The provision in 20.02(D) of the charter means that, for instance, the chair of the Board of Ethics (BOE) which rules on ethical issues, cannot come to the council and ask for money for the non-profit he chairs and then turn around and give a councilmember a pass on a questions about their own ethics that may come before the BOE for a ruling.

And that's not a hypothetical- it actually happened when BOE Chair Mark Hubbard came to the council for money for the Kaua`i Action and Planning Alliance. And when BOE member Judy Lenthall got cash for the Kaua`i Food Bank of which she was the executive director- and when, possibly the worst of all, when attorney Lorna Nishimitsu came to the council representing the Kikia`ola Land Corporation, developers of the humongous Kukui`ula development in Po`ipu.

Later Councilmember Mel Rapozo got a pass from the BOE on contracting with the county even though the amount of those contracts was over the legally permitted amount. And of course the BOE found nothing wrong with theie own actions.

The proposed change would eliminate all that and make the provision apply only to someone appearing before their own board or commission- or, in the case of an employee, their own "agency"- by adding "on which the officer or employee sits or is employed" to the end of the prohibition.


This means that the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your" prohibition will be dead except in the narrowest of situations.


Right now if a member of the salary commission is a lawyer for a developer, he or she could represent their client asking to rezone 1000's acres of ag land to build a resort and then turn around and give all the councilmember raises. Or a member of the Civil Service Commission could ask for $100,000 for a pet project their non-profit is pursuing and then make sure the swing vote on the council's uncle got a nice cushy county job. Or a member of the Board of Review could do the same and then rule for a councilmember's- or for that matter her family, friend or business associate- appeal of the assessment value of their home.


We could go on but you get the picture as to why this standard provision is an important part of our charter's code of ethics.


But when the resolution to put the measure on the ballot came before the council two weeks ago many councilmembers sat there nodding their heads as Yukimura decried how her mucky-muck friends were having ethical problems simply because they had a blatant conflict of interest- as if the highest an mightiest of the Kaua`i Good Old Boys and Girls were the only ones who could possibly serve on these boards and commissions.


Apparently Yukimura, the former champion of the little guy has been hanging out with the ruling elite long enough that she sees them as irreplaceable, as they flit from board to commission and back again, round and round the revolving door, while at the same time coming for a handout that they could conceivably repay with their vote the next time they need to rule on something a councilmember might want.


This goes for all the board and commission members like the planning commissioner or police commission and, conversely goes for the member's families and even friends.


Oh no" they say "these people would never abuse their positions. Why we resent the implication."


But that isn't the issue. It's the appearance of a conflict of interest that is to be avoided if government is ever to have the confidence of the electorate. It's one reason you don't see much of a turnout at the polls.


You don't need a "quid pro quo" - giving something to get something- to have an apparent or potential conflicts of interest. It's that simple.


If the council approves the resolution tomorrow it would go on the November ballot. You can send testimony to the council at counciltestimony@kauai.gov


For more read PNN's three part series
on the Board of Ethics debacle, Unethical culture- Government service with a personal “touch”


For more on the Board of Ethics click here


For more specifically on Charter Article 20.02(D) click here

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

JUST SAY YES TO NEGOTIATION

JUST SAY YES TO NEGOTIATION: Today's newspaper commentary by Kaua`i Rising regarding their charter amendment petition (see last week's article at http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2014/05/council-may-decide-if-petition-is.html ) is disappointing.


Can and should are two different things.


While any intent to reign in the chemical cartel may be laudable, if past court rulings (2012's Kaua`i Beach Villas vs Kaua`i, to correct a past citation) are any indication this "charter amendment" will be found to be an "initiative"- at least after the election... if it passes.


It would have been good to have seen KR negotiate with the county attorney and separate out what is properly a charter amendment and what is an initiative but they seem intransigent and all their efforts seem doomed to being struck down by the courts.


While the council, county clerk and county attorney seem to have no choice but to put the petition on the ballot if it has sufficient signatures it would behoove KR to listen to the county attorney and negotiate a petition that would withstand court scrutiny.


Watch what the council decides to do live tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

COUNCIL MAY DECIDE IF PETITION IS REALLY AN INITIATIVE OR A CHARTER AMENDMENT; CHAIR ASKS 'IS IT A CAT OR A DOG?'

(PNN)-- Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark told the Kaua`i County Council today (Wed 5/28) that the county clerk does not have to put a proposed charter amendment on the ballot even if it has sufficient signatures if it is determined that the "substance" of the amendment really makes it an initiative.


The amendment, being submitted by the group "Kaua`i Rising" seeks to "Protect From Hazards of GMO Agriculture, Toxins and Testing (and) Establish an Administrator of Environmental Health, and Provide for Enforcement"


Though the Kaua`i County Charter (Article XXIV) apparently denies the council the power to refuse access to the ballot if sufficient signatures are obtained for a charter amendment, a count ruling on the last petition-submitted charter amendment, Nakazawa v Baptiste, said that even if a petition claims to be a charter amendment the county should look at the substance, not the form, in determining if indeed it is a charter amendment or an initiative.


An initiative puts an ordinance or law into effect as opposed to a charter amendment which changes the overall governing document of the county, similar to changing a state or federal constitution.


Clark said she will formally address the matter in writing and the council will meet again next Wednesday to review her opinion and determine where to go from here after the council voted to receive the matter.


The number of signatures for a charter amendment is 5% of the number of registered voters while the amount for an initiative is 20%- a four-fold discrepancy the current charter commission is considering addressing with a charter amendment of their own to either raise one threshold or lower the other.


If it is determined the Kaua`i Rising petition is an initiative it would change the number of signatures required from a little over 2,000 to over 8,000.


The attorney for the petitioners submitting the charter amendment petition told the council that certainly at least some of the document qualifies as a charter amendment such as the creation of a new Department of the Environmental Health but that he wanted to wait until the signatures so far are verified so he knows how many more he might need for an intuitive or whether to modify the petition.


On the matter of sufficiency of and any changes to the petition, the charter says:


"Upon filing of such petition with the council, the county clerk shall examine it to see whether it contains a sufficient number of valid signatures of registered voters...


By petition presented to the council, signed by registered voters comprising not less than five percent (5%) of the number of voters registered in the last general election, setting forth the proposed amendments. Such petitions shall designate and authorize not less than three nor more than five of the signers thereto to approve any alteration or change in the form or language or any restatement of the text of the proposed amendments which may be made by the county attorney."


The provision does not give the county attorney, the county clerk or the council the right to unilaterally change or determine anything about the petition, notwithstanding the count ruling in Nakazawa.


The case was originally infamous because it had the county suing the county with the County Attorney, Lani Nakazawa, suing then-Mayor, Bryan Baptiste.


The amendment "is to be filed "(b)y petition presented to the council" though it does not define what that means, if anything, beyond having the county clerk verify that it has a sufficient number of signatures. The court ruling does not say how to determine what to do if the the content is that of an initiative nor who should determine that.


The attorney for the group said he is not representing the group as far as election law, just for purposes of drawing up the petition. He did say that based on today's proceedings "there will be" an attorney to represent the group. He said he welcomes advice from CA Clark as to how to address the matter in the interim between now and a special council meeting tentatively scheduled for June 4. At that time the council will meet in executive session and consider the opinion and what to do with it.


Clark said that it is up to the council to determine sufficiency but Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura, an attorney, disagreed saying all the council can do is accept it and send it to the clerk- where it should go no matter what the council says, as has been done in the past.


Council Chair Jay Furfaro repeatedly told the council that they had to determine "if it's a cat or a dog" referring to whether it's a charter amendment or an initiative. Clark says that determination should be made by the county attorney.


If it is determined that it is an initiative the matter of "sufficiency" would be referred to Charter Article XXII on Initiative and Referendum which envisions a much more complex scheme for determining content with a back and forth between the petitioners and the county's attorneys.


Councilmember Gary Hooser questioned whether the opinion would be made public to which Clark responded that it is the decision of the council what to do with it.


County Clerk Rick Watenabe said he has been meeting with the petitioners thus far solely to work on the sufficiency of the signatures as the charter commands. He said he never held up the petition for any other reason. He said that a delay today would delay the process of verifying signature.


Hooser said he would prefer the signature verification process for a charter amendment proceed while the CA opinion is drawn up. He said it could always be changed to an initiative at a later date.


Tuesday, May 27, 2014

PARENTS OUTRAGED AS MONSANTO-FUNDED, UH-DISTRIBUTED "COMIC BOOKS" TEACH KAPA`A ELEMENTARY STUDENTS THE JOYS OF GMOS

(PNN) Kapa`a (May 27)- Outrage is going viral today on Kaua`i as parents and community members perused pro-biotech, propaganda-filled comic books that were distributed to Kapa`a Elementary School kids as part of a Monsanto Foundation-funded, "GENE-ius Day" program "taught" by the "Biotechnology Outreach Program" in the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa.


Although details are still coming in the personalized "comic book" pamphlets were given to kids who were apparently took part in CTAHR Associate Professor Dr. Ania Wieczorek's, eight-year-old indoctrination program. A newer “Saturday Gene-ius” program began about two years ago, and according to an April 24 UH Professional Assembly release "(e)ach Saturday Gene-ius class has about 24 students and their parents come to the UH-Manoa campus for two hours of exciting, thought-provoking activities. The classes are also held at Kauai Community College.


According to the CTAHR/"GENE-ius Day" web site "(t)hese GENE-ius Day field trips are aligned to teach science standards and its implications in genetics, agriculture, and forensic sciences in a fun and memorable way."


The pamphlet/comic books include images of children dismayed to look in their cupboards only to find there were no more "chips" and "cookies" because there were no more farmers to grow the ingredients since apparently their job was too hard- a job now miraculously made virtually effort-free through use of GMOs and pesticides, presumably courtesy of the good folks at Monsanto.


According to the CTAHR web site "(o)ur Gene-ius Day Program is funded by various grants, organizations, and private donations. Without the generous support from our sponsors, the GENE-ius Day Program could not be possible."


So who are these generous supporters? According to a November 4, 2010 UH Foundation press release


"Monsanto Supports "Gene-ius Day" at UH Mānoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources


(Honolulu, Hawaiʻi) — The College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR), at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa has received $20,000 from the Monsanto Fund, a private foundation and the philanthropic arm of Monsanto Company, to support salaries and materials for "Gene-ius Day." Gene-ius Day is a special program that introduces students from grade 4 through 12 to basic genetics and the function of DNA.


"CTAHR is pleased to team up with the Monsanto Fund to build a shared learning experience about basic genetics," said Dr. Ania Wieczorek, founder and director of Gene-ius Day and associate specialist in Biotechnology, Biotechnology Outreach Program (CTAHR). "A primary goal of the Gene-ius Day Program is to build a strong understanding of basic genetics at the elementary school level so that teachers are able to present increasingly complex biotechnology topics in the upper grades."
"We're thrilled the Monsanto Fund is able to support Gene-ius Day, which not only teaches science, but encourages students to imagine themselves as scientists," said Dr. Fred Perlak, vice president of research and business operations for Monsanto Hawaii, and an award-winning microbiologist. "Monsanto is proud to employ thousands of scientists and other talented employees who use science and technology in their daily work. I hope many of the students who participate in Gene-ius Day will go on to pursue great careers in the sciences."


Pages of the personalized comic books with different names on the covers began to surface on social media yesterday and elicited outrage, especially among parents and community members who have tried to tech their children about the dangers of pesticides, the lack of actual data on and chemical company false claims of the safety of generically modified foods and the benefits of eating healthy, sustainably grown, chemical-free foods.


The program is headed up by "Dr. Ania" as she is "affectionately called" using a team of graduate and undergraduate students as well as "volunteers" who are listed at the web site. None are listed as geneticists or students of genetics.


The UHPA press release says:


Wieczorek's love for molecular ecology and biotechnology is clearly evident in the way she serves the community. She may even tell you it’s part her DNA.  She has led the UH Biotechnology Outreach Program since it began in 2002, sharing her expertise in numerous venues across the state, on the Mainland, and in Taiwan.

"She saw a need in the community for greater awareness and appreciation for genetics, and filled it. Dr. Wieczorek felt more individuals, both adults and children, could make sound decisions about biotechnology issues if they were informed about scientific facts. That desire led to her launch of a new field trip program for elementary school students seven years ago called “Gene-ius Day.” Dr. Wieczorek’s goal is to use DNA to inspire students...


"To date, more than 5,000 young students have participated in hands-on activities on topics such as human and plant genetic traits, forensic science, agriculture and DNA research... The Gene-ius Day became so popular that Dr. Wieczorek started another program called “Saturday Gene-ius” about two years ago.  Each Saturday Gene-ius class has about 24 students and their parents come to the UH-Manoa campus for two hours of exciting, thought-provoking activities. The classes are also held at Kauai Community College. 

"Dr. Wieczorek added that in the near future, the Saturday Gene-ius program will be expanded to middle school students, which will greatly expand the reach of this outreach program. 
The Saturday Gene-ius classes fill up quickly."


Kaua`i has nationally been called "ground zero" in the fight against the chemical companies- Syngenta, Dow and BASF after Monsanto pulled out of Kaua`i a few years back- who conduct pesticide experiments in the Westside town of Waimea.


It has been revealed through a lawsuit in federal court (Waimea vs, Pioneer et. al.), that corn, soy and other commodity foodstuffs are routinely doused 240 days a year (with multiple different pesticides routinely used on those days) with up to 18 tons a year of extra-toxic "restricted use pesticides" that have been implicated in a plethora of illnesses by local doctors and nurse practitioners as well as an unusually high number of a specific type of heart anomaly in newborns.


The state Department of Health stopped compiling data on illnesses in 2006 claiming a lack of funding.


Recently citizens recently engaged with paid biotech workers as the local county council passed a bill requiring that the companies disclose exactly what, where and when they are spraying and created buffer zones around the testing fields after years of data-request stonewalling by the chemical companies and state flouting of regulations.


A recent DOH study found pesticides present in streams and their sediment near and around the chemical testing fields but does not plan to retest.


After public outrage threatened his November reelection Governor Neil Abercrombie instituted a "voluntary" partial disclose program while the bill was being debated. Activists called the "Good Neighbor Program" too little, too late and the bill passed after an override of a veto by Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.


Carvalho also faces reelection this year and is being challenged by local surfer Dustin Barca, one of the leaders of the "Pass The Bill" movement and an organizer of a 4000-strong march on the county building. The population on Kaua`i is 61,000.

Monday, May 26, 2014

COUNCIL TO HOLD VOTE OF "NO CONFIDENCE" IN COUNTY ATTORNEY AL CASTILLO; SEEKS RESIGNATION OR DISMISSAL




(PNN) A Resolution (2014035) on Wednesday's Kauai County Council agenda from Councilmembers Gary Hooser and Mel Rapozo seeks a council vote of "no confidence" in County Attorney Al Castillo and requests his resignation.


If Castillo does not resign within 30 days of it's passage the resolution requests that Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. fire him.


The resolution says that the council "has become increasingly dissatisfied with the performance of the County Attorney and the advice provided to the Council" and "is concerned about the significantly higher legal costs that have been incurred for special counsel."


The document "requests his resignation" going on to say that "(i)f no resignation that is effective is submitted in thirty (30) days, it is hereby requested that Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., seek his immediate dismissal."


Here is the full resolution


COUNTY COUNCIL
COUNTY OF KAUA’I


RESOLUTION EXPRESSING NO CONFIDENCE IN AND REQUESTING THE RESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY


WHEREAS, Alfred B. Castillo, Jr., County Attorney, is the chief legal adviser and legal representative of all agencies, including the Council, and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties; and


WHEREAS, the Kaua’i County Council (“Council”) has become increasingly dissatisfied with the performance of the County Attorney and the advice provided to the Council; and


WHEREAS, the Council is concerned about the significantly higher legal costs that have been incurred for special counsel, now therefore,


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA’I, STATE OF HAWAI’I, THAT:


The Kaua’i County Council hereby declares a vote of no confidence in the County Attorney and requests his resignation. If no resignation that is effective is submitted in thirty (30) days, it is hereby requested that Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., seek his immediate dismissal


BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., and Alfred B. Castillo, Jr., County Attorney.
Introduced by:
GARY L. HOOSER
MEL RAPOZO

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

WE SHOULD BE TOGETHER

WE SHOULD BE TOGETHER: You've gotta be baffled at today's Civil Beat article on the Center for Food Safety's new office in Hawai`i and the tome's "Follow the Money" angle.


The point is what? That a public interest group is successfully raising money to fight the attempts by the chemical biotech industry to adulterate and control our food supply and spray it with more and more poisons?


Oh noooo- someone is challenging the pesticide purveyors and promoting sustainable agriculture and healthy food. And they're successfully raising money to do it. Katy bar the door.


Or is the point that a tiny percentage of CFS's money comes from people who are actually producing healthy foods? Perish the thought that organic farmers and stores should support organic farming. And how dare some of them get so big, because people want to eat healthy food, that they can afford to give CFS money?


Because we all know that, given the choice people eschew healthy eating for toxic "Frankenfoods."


Just why do you think it is that all these consumer protection groups are donating money? Could it be because people overwhelmingly want to eat healthier foods? Oh those evil foundations- protecting the public interest when we all know money should only be used to make more money and nothing else... what are they some kind of communists?


Sarcasm aside and pesticides and despoilment of the lands notwithstanding, no matter how many times the chemical and biotech industry repeats "the Big Lie"- that eating genetically modified foods is proven to be safe- their inability to follow basic scientific precautionary principles or produce their supposed "studies" in full (just try to find a link to one of them at Monsanto's web site) belies those claims... not to mention their well-documented revolving door control of the FDA and the massive funding of virtually all major university agricultural research.


Apparently they're not fooling anyone as evidenced by the millions raised by CSF.


To read the article you get the feeling that even the most virulent of industry shills like Jon Entine apparently accept the anti-GMO movement's characterizations except they try to play the print equivalent of scary music in the background while calling eating healthy food "elitist." Is that your best argument- "if I have to eat poison, you have to eat poison?".


The fact is that healthy, pesticide-free, heirloom, unpatented foods are not really much more expensive any more and the prices are becoming more and more the same every day. What keeps them a little more expensive is not the cost of producing them organically but industry propaganda that seeks to maintain their patents on our food supply by convincing farmers to stick with the corporate program. Just ask Wal-Mart which has recently announced that it has discovered it's more profitable to switch than fight.... and to do it at the same prices


Yes, to quote a the popular song from the 60's- "Everything that say we are, we are- and we are very proud of ourselves."

Sunday, April 20, 2014

THE ILLUSION OF SUSTAINABILITY- AT WAIPAKE IT'S 'NOW YOU SEE IT NOW YOU DON'T'

It's no secret that the "sustainability movement" on Kaua`i is being squeezed.

To the west is a experimental pesticide industry with multinational chemical companies who gobble up state land leases and land-rich legacy corporations' acreage to test how well and how much genetically modified commodities can withstand poisons.


To the east farm lands have been sliced and diced into legally-questionable luxury residences that have driven up farm land prices until crop cultivation is economically unfeasible.


Whether the fast disappearing remaining "vacant" agriculturally zoned and districted land will grow organic crops or mansions for the rich and famous is up for grabs.


But depending on who is painting the picture, the lawyers or the community, the the Kahu `Aina Plantation Subdivision in Waipake could go either way.


------


Last Wednesday a meeting of the Planning Committee of the Kaua`i County Council once again took up what appears to be the last remaining obstacle in the way of Falko Partners' owner Larry Bowman's and his manager Shawn Smith's plans for 76 "luxury residential lots" as they were at one time advertised: the final official establishment of horizontal and lateral beach access which is guaranteed in the Hawai`i State Constitution, and whether it will include an ancient lateral trail system called "The Ala Loa" that gently meanders for miles adjacent to the coast and provides many points of easy beach access as it currently runs.


Even though the state actually has fee-simple ownership in the by-way that according to elders connects the towns of Anahola and Kilauea, the landowners have been using a series of flimflams, supposed legal loopholes, threats of lawsuits, fake maps, revolving door government regulators and the political intimidation of already bought and paid for government officials to gobble up the Ala Loa and easy beach access in an attempt to create what amounts to miles of a de facto privatized coastline... all in a state where no one can own the beaches.


They've gone as far as to get the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to accept maps that show the Ala Loa to be far inland from where actually is in one of the most "are you going to believe me or your lyin' eyes" boondoggles anyone has ever seen... or not seen as the case may be.


How the battle for access turns out though seems at times to be almost (but not really) secondary for Bowman, Smith and Falko to the urgency for it to actually "turn out"- finally and permanently.


And while it remains up in the air Falko seems to be changing the the image they are selling the community, doing a 180 and now claiming that each buyer will be "an active farmer engaged in farming" according to what lead attorney for Falko, Dennis Lombardi of the powerhouse Honolulu law firm of Case, Lombardi and Pettit told the council last Wednesday.


Huh? Could this really be true? Will this agricultural subdivision- the one that was supposed to be "the last" under the 2000 Kaua`i General Plan (it wasn't)- now be re-purposed for 76 farmers to till the land on the 376 acres and build the legally required "farm dwellings?"


Well, according to testimony Wednesday there is already an eight to ten acres plot (depending on who you ask and what day you're asking) planted in "organic" ginger root and, we've heard papayas and Olena (also known as turmeric).


And an ad recently appeared in the local Kaua`i newspaper announcing:


"Attention Non-GMO Organic Farmers:


REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS


Kahu `Aina Plantation is currently seeking proposals for non GMO, non pesticide Organic Farming ventures of 1 to 10 acres size on our Waipake property


Ample land and irrigation water
Organic farming experience required


Send written proposals to
Shawn Smith, Falko Partners
PO Box 588, Kapaa Hi 96746"


Can this be? The buzz in the sustainability crowd has been, well, "Wow."


Well if you believe this subdivision will be an organic paradise and not just another bunch of typical gentleman’s estates that have been built on many thousands of North Shore Ag land, we've got some, well, organic farmland to sell you.


Stick with us here- it's not as complicated as those who want you to think it's all too much for your poor little brain to comprehend would have you to believe.


Don't think for a minute that this is going to be happening on each one of those 76 "luxury residential farm dwellings" for lack of a less schizophrenic description. Actually the subdivision, depending on who you believe and what set of paperwork you're looking at, had 80 plots when you count up both the subdivided and "condominiumized" lots.


(For the uninitiated, to be brief, in Hawai`i we have what are called "Agricultural Condominiums," a legal fiction that was "discovered" in the 1970's to get around a "one time subdivision" law... a loophole that, one discovered, became way too lucrative for the legislature to close).


Sooo... apparently and presumably the 8-10 acres of "organic" ginger root, turmeric and papayas and the 1-10 acres of "organic farm land" (assuming it's not the same acreage) are not part of the "luxury farm lots" (or whatever they're calling them today) and will really not have anything to do with the farming that it has now been guaranteed will occur on each and every one of the 76 lots via the hands (dirty hands? farm hands?- either way. this we've gotta see) of the owners... owners who are going to be paying millions for the best and biggest of the lots.


Right now the "ginger-Olena " farm is on the edge of the property down wind and far away from where the luxury farms dwellings are being sold so there'll be no need to smell fertilizer or hear tractors.


But we say "presumably" and "apparently" and seem to be hedging our words. Well yes... that's because we can only base them on reported observation because the Kaua`i Planning Department is refusing to answer any questions or provide the latest up-to date public information information regarding the true location of these house lots, according to Moloa`a farmer Hope Kallai.


Kallai has been trying to reconcile different maps and descriptions provided by Falko, the Planning Department, the attorneys and the DLNR for years and recently asked the Planning Department to straighten it all out.


We're going to leave out all the shenanigans regarding what Kallai calls the "shuffling and reshuffling" of "kuleana" lots and Shoreline Management Area (SMA) and Conservation District boundaries (until they magically disappeared) as well as possible "additional dwelling units" that could double the 76 permitted "farm dwellings." Just be aware that there's been a lot of "now you see it now you don't" going on.


But here's a recent email exchange regarding just a few of her questions for one planner when Kallai finally got fed up with being hung up on, having calls unreturned and getting different stories every time she asked.


"From: Hope Kallai
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 12:49 PM
To: Jody Galinato
Subject: Kahu`Aina

Aloha e Jody - Can you please help with the following questions about the Kahu`Aina Subdivision Phase I and Subdivision Phase II?
1.  How many total House sites and Guest House site rights are attached to this project?
2.  Has the Parking Lot site been identified?  Size?  For how many vehicles?
3. How many house sites are planned for the SMA?  The Conservation District?
4.  Who will be responsible for the Conservation District Use Application for the public access easement - grantee or grantor?
Mahalo, Hope Kallai"



Galinato's answer?


"I cannot answer these questions and would refer to Dale or Kenny by means of the OIP form (emphasis added)  Jody"


For the uninitiated what "by means of the OIP form" means is that "we aren't giving you anything unless you file a formal request with the OIP (Office of Information Practices) under the Uniform Information Practices Act (the Hawai`i version of a freedom of information request) under which we will charge you untold amounts of money to research and segregate and if necessary redact material, possibly even having our attorney's go over it at $500 an hour.


And we can also delay the process for weeks, months or even years while we battle with OIP over what we absolutely have to release."


And all this for the current public information on the subdivision and the plans for Kahu `Aina.


So what's the big deal? Well as we said the access issue is the final barrier to approval for the project and once it's final all discretionary involvement by the county council and planning commission- and the public input and scrutinization that goes with it- is over.


And once it's all "final" the question of what exactly is going to happen on those 76 plots is up to Falko and, drum roll, the same Planning Department that won't even show the public the real maps of or give out information regarding Kahu `Aina Plantation.


And perhaps we're burying the lead here but it's no secret that the Planning Department has never- not once- actually enforced a case of a violation of one of these "farm dwelling agreements" that gentleman's estate owners must sign promising to farm their land whether on subdivided or condominiumized lots.


The history has been that, as long as you put a horse or two in the yard and plant a few fruit trees, voila!- you're a farmer.


And because they have somehow interpreted the law to say that their inspectors aren't really allowed inspect the lots without permission (unless it's for a rice-cooker.. you had to be there)- or don't have enough people or that they are "complaint driven" or whatever excuse they are using today- no one is ever "busted" for violating their agreement to farm their Ag land.


That's why the access issue is so important- not just for the access itself but because it's the last place for public testimony and/or council discretion.


That may just be what's behind this sudden turn-around by Smith and Falko because the very people likely to try to block the project by insisting on the type of access that Bowman doesn’t want to give, are the same North Shore folks who tend to see the advertised "non GMO, non Pesticide, Organic Farming ventures of 1 to 10 acres size on our Waipake property" and promises that every owner will be an active a farmer" as a reason to drop opposition to the finalization of the project.


The owner-farmer promise is just that- a promise that is not worth the paper it isn't written on, especially given the Planning Department's history of non-enforcement. And the 10 or even 20 some-odd acres of organic farming off to the side where it won't muck up the aesthetics of the "luxury farms" could be just enough to buy off those who do understand the land use issues and law or don't care when they hear the words "non GMO Organic Farms."


At last Wednesday's meeting you could see the desperation and exasperation of attorney Lombardi as he actually attempted to intimidate and threaten the council into accepting the lousy beach access which also seeks to locate the parking lot a mile from the beach, even claiming it was "not in the purview of this council to consider options relative to easement- absolutely not."


That raised the dander of most councilmembers who well understood that, despite the fact that Deputy CA Jung had, as he is wont to do, done his best at legal kow-towing to Lombardi, they do have the final say over this access issue.


Jung, who "negotiated" the proposed easement, has been bending over for land developers and local land use attorneys for years, readying himself, as many think, to enter the revolving door and eventually see his own name at the end of a partners list. He's best known for the "beer-gate" scandal when he tried to influence then Councilmember Dickie Chang to vote for a developer-friendly re-interpretation of the vacation rental laws through a beer-bearing home visit.*


Barely able to contain his rage, Lombardi tried to tell the council they had to accept the easements before them claiming there had already been 26 or 28 public hearings (a number that seem suspiciously imprecise and which no one seems to be able to remember) and then listing all the taxes and parks and housing fees they had paid (as they were legally required to do) as well as all the "millions" spent on local charity- the latter sounding suspiciously like a request for a quid pro quo bribe.


"We are good corporate citizens... I don't think we deserve what's going on here" he said of the community's demands for the access the government owns and the state constitution requires.


He also insisted that "there will be no debate" between the public and himself during the three site visits scheduled for April 30, May 30, June 27 - all at 10 am. The site visits are crafted to evade the sunshine law by having only two councilmembers at a time attend each visit and also so that the public can discuss the issues and everyone can see the lay of the land for themselves.


This didn't exactly endear him to councilmembers but the message was clear- the developers have more money than god and they will use it sue you and the taxpayers to get what we want. Put that in your November election and smoke it.


The matter will return to the Council's Planning Committee on July 2.


The question here isn't whether the community can strike a blow for "diversified agriculture"- much less those "non GMO, non Pesticide Organic Farms"- by stopping the chop-shop job on another vast agricultural swath of North Shore land, preventing it from becoming another playground for the rich and famous.


That boat has sailed. It's a fight that the community has been losing- or should we say "has lost"- since the end of the sugar cane era. All that's really left is to beg for the table scraps of being able to traverse the trail we own so as get to our beaches without risking life and limb in the process.


The original plans include a heliport and a clubhouse adjacent to what was going to be an essentially private beach where residents could walk the gently sloping access to the beach and the rest of us will have to walk miles before jumping off a cliff to get there.


This fight is actually over just how stupid they think we are and whether we can be bought off for a few acres of "silver" which may actually be nothing but an illusion cooked up in attorneys' offices here and in Honolulu.

 
*(The above has been corrected to reflect that Mauna Kea Trask did not attend the "beer-gate" visit.)
*(The above has been corrected to reflect that Mauna Kea Trask did not attend the "beer-gate" visit.)