Posts: 68
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2020
Disagree. Visitors are traversing through private property in both cases; there are safety and environmental impact issues in both cases. County sees fit to regulate one, but not the other. It's all just another permutation of the "private road follies".
Compare/contrast: if County forbids pedestrians on Waipio Valley Road, then shouldn't the same thing happen for Government Beach Road? Are there additional criteria beyond "privately owned", "safety" and "environmental impact"?
This legislation is a red herring for the real intention, which is to limit the amount of visitors coming into the valley. These visitors illegally trespass on private property. In addition, there is no public toilets in the valley. The latter poses health risks for both residents and visitors. The real solution is creating global sustainability plan for the valley instead of arbitrarily restricting access.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
This legislation is a red herring for the real intention
Exactly: and this kind of crap needs to stop.
Posts: 632
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2020
(11-06-2020, 09:08 PM)AaronS Wrote: This legislation is a red herring for the real intention, which is to limit the amount of visitors coming into the valley...
It's probably worth noting that Valerie Poindexter, the council woman that tabled this ill-fated bill, is a lame duck. Val, is term limited and has announced her intention of withdrawing from public life altogether after the end of her term next month.
It should also be noted that Jim Cain, a recent, new, Waipio Valley taro farmer, who is aggressive and talks up a storm, is good friends with Ms Poindexter. Jim has been pushing for the closure to all but residence of the valley for a number of years already. Mr Cain's testimony on this bill can be read, along with all other testimony submitted, here:
https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=1006511&cr=1
Of interest to those reading all the testimony available on that site is the submission from DLNR voicing their strong opposition to the bill, and the one from Kam Schools supporting it. Of course, Kam Schools has private property in the valley and would love to have their assets protected for their private use, verses being forced by law to acknowledge the right of ways across their properties. To their displeasure they have property across which trails that are protected by the Highways Act of 1892 cross. One road is the only access to the beach from the bottom of the road in question in this bill. Kam schools has always been trying to limit the public's right to traverse this road to get to the beach. Their true nature as an Hawaiian concern that cares little for the rights of the public is graphically exemplified by their shameful attempts to keep people from using the portion of the King's Trail that crosses their land leading to the beach fronting the valley.
The State's submission is an important read. DLNR points out that it is not only the public's right of way, but that many, not just the private land owners in the valley but also many beyond the valley, would be adversely effected by this poorly thought out piece of legislation. They also discuss the historic nature of this road, and provide copies of maps to support their points.
All told, based upon the long historic and prehistoric used of this thoroughfare, I believe this bill is dead in the water. But hey, if the council moves forward with this bill I am sure it will be vigorously litigated.
Posts: 11,033
Threads: 751
Joined: Sep 2012
... protected by the Highways Act of 1892 cross.
Kam schools has always been trying to limit the public's right to traverse this road to get to the beach.
... the rights of the public... leading to the beach fronting the valley.
We have rights granted by the Hawaiian Kingdom before the overthrow of 1893, the State of Hawaii law which provides citizens with public beach and oceanfront access, and then we have Kam Schools and others advocating the override of those rights by a new County of Hawaii regulation.
Strange bedfellows. None of which include the average citizen.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
trails that are protected by the Highways Act of 1892
By one interpretation of said Act, the "grandfathered" nature of the trail includes traffic of the types which were common prior to the Act: if the trail was not used for "vehicular" traffic before 1892, then it cannot be used for vehicular traffic today.
This would seem to intersect with the prohibition on land subdivision which creates "landlocked" lots. Look carefully along the Volcano Trail; there are some subdivision lots which are only accessible via the Volcano Trail, which is mostly considered a "road in limbo". If the Trail is not a "road", these lots are landlocked.
Samuel Clemens took the Volcano Trail to see the volcano at some point. If he rode in a horse-drawn wagon, then the Volcano Trail is open to vehicular traffic today. Not that anyone will ever address the issue.
Posts: 11,033
Threads: 751
Joined: Sep 2012
And while one hand of the county tries to restrict beach access, the other hand uses eminent domain to allow resident’s beach access:
HILO, Hawaii (AP) — The Hawaii County Council has passed a resolution approving a private property seizure through eminent domain to provide public access to a beach.
A previous lawsuit failed to seize a trail providing access to Mill Beach in Papaikou. Nearby residents claimed the property owners illegally restrict beach access.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/11/09...ch-access/
Posts: 1,572
Threads: 102
Joined: Sep 2017
I think the key difference here is that one would allow residents access and the other restricts (mostly) visitors. Whether that should make a difference is a big can o' worms, especially if a resident needs to walk up/down to Waipio. I think restricting vehicle traffic to residents only makes a whole lot more sense.
Certainty will be the death of us.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
restricting vehicle traffic to residents only makes a whole lot more sense
Establish that precedent and everyone will want "their" road to be "locals only".
