Rudo Statement: Alan Rudo, the former Hawaiʻi County employee at the heart of a scheme to profit from the sale of housing credits, was scheduled to be sentenced in federal court on May 28.
In anticipation, he has submitted to the court his own pre-sentence statement, asking for leniency. About a dozen family members and friends, including the rector of the Episcopal church in Waimea, attested to his reformed ways and good character.
“I am truly sorry for what I did,” Rudo says in his statement. “I betrayed the trust the community placed in me and I caused harm that I can never take back.” He talks about the consequences he has already faced: “I lost my marriage, my home, and the career I spent years building. But more importantly, I had to face the kind of person I had become and I did not like what I saw.”
He concludes: “Your Honor, I am deeply remorseful. Whatever sentence the court imposes, I will continue to work to make amends and to live a life that honors the trust of my family, my community, and this court.”
His lawyer reminded the court that Rudo “voluntarily forfeited approximately $1.4 million in real estate, offsetting most of the $2.1 million loss.” This, plus three years of “flawless compliance” with court instructions and Rudo’s “extraordinary post-offense rehabilitation” justify “a sentence of probation with appropriate conditions – including a period of home confinement if the court deems it necessary,” he stated.
“The consequences Mr. Rudo has already endured are severe and life-altering. He has lost his home, his financial security, his marriage, and his professional standing. … A non-custodial sentence, with conditions, provides meaningful punishment without inflicting unnecessary harm on innocent family members who rely on him for care and support.”
Kuilima Case Hearing: A hearing in 1st Circuit Court on motions filed by both the plaintiffs and defendants in a lawsuit over development at the Turtle Bay Resort has been rescheduled from June 19 of this month to July 2 at 10 a.m.
Earthjustice filed a complaint in February on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Council for Hawaiʻi, and Kūpaʻa Kuilima against the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting and Host Hotels & Resorts, LP, regarding the 2013 supplemental environmental impact statement that the defendants were relying on for the planned development by Host of about 50-acres between Kawela Bay and Kuilima Point, known as the H-1 site.
“On January 8, 2026, the State of Hawai‘i Office of Planning and Sustainable Development published in The Environmental Notice DPP’s determination that no further environmental review would be required for development of the H-1 site and claiming that the 2013 EIS would satisfy any such requirement.
“DPP’s determination that no supplementation of the 2013 EIS is required violates [the Hawaʻi Environmental Policy Act] because ecological developments in the project area—including the newly established presence of endangered bees and native seabirds and the intensified usage of the project area by endangered monk seals—constitute ‘new information or circumstances that were not originally disclosed, not previously considered, and could have a substantial effect on the environment,’” the complaint states.
On February 23, Host filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The DPP joined that motion.
“First and foremost,” Host argued, “the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim against Host, as Host is not the owner of the H-1 Parcel. Second, the complaint should be dismissed because plaintiffs have failed to join all necessary parties. The H-1 parcel is one of several located within the ‘project area’ covered by the 2013 SEIS. While the (unnamed) H-1 owner’s rights are clearly implicated, other owners’ rights are, or will be, also necessarily be impacted if plaintiffs were to obtain the relief sought in the complaint.”
On March 27, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, pointing out that there was “no genuine issue of material fact,” and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “because DPP failed to take the legally mandated ‘hard look’ at appropriate factors before issuing its determination that the 2013 EIS remains valid.”