Dare I Say, this is a big one (TMT, etc)

[HiloPuna]

HB1581, read it and think about it. Not much better press coverage on it, especially in the last week (conference), so you'll have to think for yourselves. Good luck with that, and here it is....

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1581&year=2016

Enjoy !

[kalakoa]

"Protectors" have already objected to this bill:

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news...se-appeals

petitioner Kealoha Pisciotta said the Legislature should not force any judicial steps to be skipped. "They are meant to go slower than we like," she said of the courts

In other words, it's all about making sure the process is as slow and expensive as possible, so that people give up before breaking ground. (I assume they got the idea from the County process for Special Use Permits.)

[Aaron S]

HB1581 has been transmitted to the governor for his signature.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1581

5/4/2016 H Received notice of Final Reading (Sen. Com. No. 715).

5/5/2016 S Received notice of passage on Final Reading in House (Hse. Com. No. 685).

5/5/2016 H Transmitted to Governor.

The "protectors" spent much more energy in defeating SB2816

[pahoated]

Might sound like fast tracking appeal final decisions but if every land use issue has to get appealed at the supreme court level, then that will create a back up case log. This will result in the same effect, slowing decisions down, dragging out closure, piling on more legal costs. So many people working together to clog the system are going to be more than successful.

"Aloha also means goodbye. Aloha!"

[HiloPuna]

The basis for the policy that allowed the BLNR to move through the application and permitting process prior to ( but then contingent upon) contested case hearings was the historical abuse of the contested case process by the objecting parties, primarily opponents of economic growth. Objections to this policy by the aggrieved parties never survived judicial review until it became a "cultural" issue, at which point sympathetic SC justices read the underlying law and interpreted it on a plain language basis. They saw that the policy had never been vetted or incorporated into statute or rule. The kludge policy was revoked.

In terms of the TMT there was insufficient time (uhh, political will ?) to rewrite the relevant statutes and rules in this most recent session. There was time to pass this bill through that would at least cut through the judicial dams that the the "protectors" we're relying on to kill the project. They know the schedule and have already mapped out the delay and deny strategen that Wurdeman implemented with the Amano objections.

This bill has a very narrow real world application, there are not very many matters that will be affected by it. So PT's concerns are not likely to occur.
What is hopefully to happen now is that Judge Amano will proceed with alacrity, motivated by the ham-handed Wurdeman. If she can rely on the previous permitting process to act as a guide and not allow the proceeding to devolve into theatre she just might bring this in 12 months from now. Which will hopefully be sufficient to preserve the project as planned to, and for, the benefit of our community.

The Lege needs to have a review and revision of the statutes and rules concerning contested case hearings and state land use laws. In fact, we're way over due for a ConCon....

and finally, if you go the the Capitol website (above) and go to the Status page for this bill take a moment to review the testimony. In this instance the testimony AGAINST the bill is almost nonexistent. As a side note if you find the language of a bill dense or difficult to deduce its purpose you'll get your best perspectives from the preamble, the testimony and the committee reports.