(Posted 5/1/09)
When it comes to meetings of the state Land Use Commission, high drama is in short supply. More often than not, you need to mainline caffeine to stay awake through the tedious witnesses and cross-examination.
But the meeting of April 30, when the commission was considering its show-cause order to Bridge `Aina Le`a, owner of 3,000 acres of land just upland of the Mauna Lani resort in South Kohala, was nothing if not a nail-biter.
When it comes to meetings of the state Land Use Commission, high drama is in short supply. More often than not, you need to mainline caffeine to stay awake through the tedious witnesses and cross-examination.
But the meeting of April 30, when the commission was considering its show-cause order to Bridge `Aina Le`a, owner of 3,000 acres of land just upland of the Mauna Lani resort in South Kohala, was nothing if not a nail-biter.
Nearly two decades after the LUC gave approval to upzone 1,060 acres of the land into the Urban District, and more than ten years after Bridge took ownership of the property, development of the land in accordance with plans submitted to Hawai`i County and the LUC had barely begun.
And so, last September, the commission voted to issue to Bridge an order for it to show cause why the commission should not revert the Urban land to Agricultural.
The April meeting was the second on the show-cause order. (The first hearing, in January, was the subject of a report in our March 2009 edition.) After five hours, interrupted by two executive sessions, a lunch break, and a couple of courtesy breaks to allow Bridge’s attorney to huddle with his clients, the commission voted unanimously to revert the land to the state Agricultural District.
It was the first time in nearly five decades that the commission had ordered a reversion against the will of the landowner.
But given the high stakes, the commission’s reversion order will probably be challenged in court. Michael C. Carroll, Bridge’s attorney, when given a chance to comment on the motion for reversion, registered his strong objections and said that procedurally, a vote was improper. “We’ve got vested rights. We’ve spent $20 million” on the project to date, he said. “We haven’t had an opportunity to make our case.”
A fuller report on the LUC’s precedent-making vote will appear in our June issue.
Leave a Reply