Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron S
I hope they issue a decision soon regarding the TMT CDUP appeal though. There needs to be some sort of closure if the project's permitting is upheld, or isn't.
During that same session, the court said the permits are legal and TMT corp. could proceed with construction. Not sure what is wrong with people but it is back to TMT corp. It is their contract with the construction, BLNR opened the road back up a couple months ago. This is really funny around here, any issue and everybody wants to point fingers wille-nille without looking at the basic facts. UHH has astronomy conservation land for lease, TMT corp. wants to lease. All that was approved years ago. This appeal is on a technicality that UHH didn't have legal right to lease the land in the first place, therefore everything that followed, including permits were also illegal. You know the basic reason why UHH didn't have the legal right to lease crown lands. Regardless, the court has said all the permits are legal and TMT corp. can resume construction. What it is this rock-head Punatic bunch seems to want is a pule from Ige. Don't think that is in the job decription. If there is upset now on impatient Punatics, then it should be directed to TMT corp.
"Aloha also means goodbye. Aloha!"
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
quote:
Originally posted by pahoated
During that same session, the court said the permits are legal and TMT corp. could proceed with construction.
I don't recall the Hawaii Supreme Court justices stating this. If you can't cite where you heard this, it would be much appreciated. I don't think its good risk to take even if they did say this. The TMT Corp. would be responsible to restoring the site if they invalidated the CDUP.
quote:
Originally posted by pahoated
This appeal is on a technicality that UHH didn't have legal right to lease the land in the first place, therefore everything that followed, including permits were also illegal.
Please refer to this webpage to see what this appeal covered. It has nothing to do the legality of the lease to the TMT, but has everything to do with how the BLNR issued their conservation district use permit. See, its not as cut and dry as TMT could magically start construction now.
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/ora...4_873.html
(1) the trial court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the BLNR's approval of CDUP HA-3568 prior to the contested case hearing did not warrant reversal;
(2) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred by affirming the BLNR's approval of UHH's CDUA and the reliable, probative and substantial evidence failed to support the findings and conclusions that the eight criteria of HAR [Hawai`i Administrative Rules] ' 13-5-30© were met and such conclusions were wrong;
(3) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the CDUP was subject to a sufficient management plan; and
(4) the circuit court was wrong and the Board of Land and Natural Resources failed to meet its legal and constitutional obligations in properly identifying and determining the scope of the valued, cultural, historical and natural resources in the petition area; in determining the impact on these resources by the proposed land use in the conservation district; and in failing to take feasible actions to protect such resources by improperly delegating its duties and obligations.
I strongly believe the project will remain in limbo until the Hawaii Supreme Court issues their decision on this appeal. There is nothing
the TMT Corp, or the governor can do. The balls in the Supreme Court's court.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
Aaron S, stated/asked:
I don't know where you get your 60 day time frame for a decision from, but its my understanding there is no set timeframe for them to issue a decision.
From a seasoned lawyer, who happens to be on the Best Lawyers in America list for a couple decades, and a few others close to the case. Not that it makes a difference, but the "no set timeframe" is true, however, just shared what was stated to me, as his opinion on this particular case (TMT). FWIW.
Yeah, Kilakila 'O Haleakala is another hot mess. Thanks to BLNR/DLNR and the State that doesn't follow their own laws, and rules. When a Supreme Court Justice asks, "Do you want me to read your own rules to you?" (during the TMT hearing) it's pretty damn shameful. Wouldn't be surprised if both cases were ruled on at the same time, quite frankly.
Even Ige stated, "Promises made should have been kept", when asked about the decision made by Judge Ibarra.
Pahoated, agreed. The State and BLNR/DLNR screwed up (again), and we may be on the verge of a major lawsuit from TMT. Thanks alot, again, BLNR/DLNR, UH, Ige, et al.
JMO.
Posts: 14,079
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Ige stated, "Promises made should have been kept"
Not to beat the dead horse, but my subdivision (and others like it) were promised paved roads. That promise was not kept; it's quite the track record.
This appeal is on a technicality that UHH didn't have legal right to lease the land in the first place
If this appeal should somehow succeed, it would create a precedent that unravels everything since Statehood. I can hardly wait.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2014
"Thanks alot, again, BLNR/DLNR, UH, Ige, et al."
Not surprisingly you forgot to include the Taro Caliphate (protestors) first and foremost on your stooge list.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
FYI: DLNR has put out a statement (Re: Emergency Rules Decision):
http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/blog/2015/10/10/nr15-156/
If the State, BLNR/DLNR/UH, et al, had all their ducks in a row, followed their own laws, and enforced them, the protestors/protectors wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Instead, the State/BLNR/DLNR/UH, et al., gave them a mountain to stand on!
With this ruling invalidating the emergency rules, the entities in charge of this State (and our resources) have been dealt an embarrassing, well deserved, slap of reality. Thank you, Judge Ibarra. Now, let's see how well they handle the rules already in place (*see DLNR statement above).
Given this ruling, and the Supreme Court decision looming, when it comes, the State/BLNR/DLNR/UH, et al, are really going to have their hands full. Add to that, the Pohakuloa case isn't going very well for the State either. It was another quite embarrassing moment (or two) given the testimony.
The State, overall, is responsible for this chaos. As usual, politics combined with ineptitude is costly. SMH.
Adding BLNR/DLNR to the DHHL/OHA "wish list" to be dissolved.
Useless.
JMO.
ETA: Dakine: [  ] EO!
Posts: 14,079
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Now, let's see how well they handle the rules already in place
The ones they didn't bother to enforce?
Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
I hate to turn this into a echo chamber, but the current appeal with the Hawaii Supreme Court deals with the BLNR's issuance of TMT's Conservation District Use Permit, not the lease between the UH and the TMT.
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/ora...4_873.html
(1) the trial court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the BLNR's approval of CDUP HA-3568 prior to the contested case hearing did not warrant reversal;
(2) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred by affirming the BLNR's approval of UHH's CDUA and the reliable, probative and substantial evidence failed to support the findings and conclusions that the eight criteria of HAR [Hawai`i Administrative Rules] ' 13-5-30© were met and such conclusions were wrong;
(3) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the CDUP was subject to a sufficient management plan; and
(4) the circuit court was wrong and the Board of Land and Natural Resources failed to meet its legal and constitutional obligations in properly identifying and determining the scope of the valued, cultural, historical and natural resources in the petition area; in determining the impact on these resources by the proposed land use in the conservation district; and in failing to take feasible actions to protect such resources by improperly delegating its duties and obligations.
Posts: 820
Threads: 106
Joined: Mar 2006
quote:
Originally posted by opihikao
From a seasoned lawyer, who happens to be on the Best Lawyers in America list for a couple decades, and a few others close to the case. Not that it makes a difference, but the "no set timeframe" is true, however, just shared what was stated to me, as his opinion on this particular case (TMT). FWIW.
If that timeline holds, then the court should be issuing a decision within the next two weeks or so. However, I would be highly surprised if this does materialize. The Court will decide this case on their own schedule.
quote:
Originally posted by opihikao
Yeah, Kilakila 'O Haleakala is another hot mess. Thanks to BLNR/DLNR we may be on the verge of a major lawsuit from TMT. Thanks alot, again, BLNR/DLNR, UH, Ige, et al.
I highly doubt the TMT Corp. would sue the State of Hawaii if the CDUP is invalidated. Yes, they've started construction on the physical parts of the telescope, but actual construction on the ground hasn't started.
The same can't be said for the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope. The facility is about 80-90% complete. I'm really concerned they'll have to tear down their facility if the courts issue an unfavorable ruling. In short, I believe the developers of the DKIST have a stronger leg to sue for this reason.
Posts: 10,147
Threads: 343
Joined: Apr 2009
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
Now, let's see how well they handle the rules already in place
The ones they didn't bother to enforce?
Good call. Groundhog Day is on its way.
|
