Haena beach access or the lack of it

[rusty h]

From my travels is seems that the people trashing up things are mostly locals. the hikers/ tourist seem to care what they leave behind as well as take in.

if places were secret nobody would know where the secret place was! I guess if I lived in the area I would want things not to be shared but not living there makes me want to see and share it. I hope this makes a little sense.

Google maps pretty much exposes everything!

Sharing cool places is something certain people need to share with certain people that they respect and know will respect the area.

Peace

[StillHope]

quote:

---

... They said in no uncertain terms that if the County every attempted to use the law, they the developers would bring suit to force equitable enforcement on all land owners. ...

---

So,Bob,if Kimo wires forces the developers to get the access

the developers will have him put the sign "Open access to the public"

on his chain link fence?[]

[Wao nahele kane]

It’s my understanding that all shorelines and beaches are public lands within the State of Hawaii; correct or incorrect? http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/Nationa...waiipf.htm

I don’t agree with removing the rights of individual (includes families) private land owners, however, I do agree with utilizing public owned interest areas to their full potential. When such land areas are not owned by the individual but are owned by corporations/business an entire different scenario emerges. So we're not talking about walking through Mr. and Ms. Shipmans property here, the deed indicates the walk is through the Shipman Corporations land. Land owner rights were created to protect the rights of the individual not the corporations.
Let's assume Kimo were to get what he wanted.
Then let’s assume the developers tried for equitable enforcement on all land owners.
Not all land owners have their property surrounding a public beach and not all land owners are corporations... so where are the lines to be drawn, what are we really talking about here? Are we talking about the rights of the Shipmans or are we talking about the Shipman Corporation?
States are empowered to regulate business and commerce but not to regulate (beyond Constitutional reason) the individual’s rights.

I guess is what I’m pointing out here is the fact that the private individual land interest was given up by the Shipman’s to corporate land interest long ago. So this is not a tit for tat issue and we’re talking about a land poised for development and not to be used as ones own personal garden. So in that case… I hope Kimo gets what he’s after… it’s not an attack on the Shipmans it’s simply making sure that rightful public access is provided through an intended development area.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Land owner rights were created to protect the rights of the individual not the corporations.

---

Landowner rights were created to protect the rights of Landowners be it individuals, families, trust, corporations, partnership, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Then let’s assume the developers tried for equitable enforcement on all land owners.
Not all land owners have their property surrounding a public beach and not all land owners are corporations... so where are the lines to be drawn, what are we really talking about here? Are we talking about the rights of the Shipmans or are we talking about the Shipman Corporation?

---

Matters not. As stated above, landowner is landowner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

States are empowered to regulate business and commerce but not to regulate (beyond Constitutional reason) the individual’s rights.

---

But land ownership and how title is held is a separate legal issue outside the business of commerce. I’ll let the real estate experts explain this.

Now is this really about how the land is owned or is it really about the size of the land? I bet the same vein of arguments would be made using another rational if the land was owned by Joe and Jane Local.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH

Thanks Bob, that was a very interesting example of how the law can be used here.
So from what you said, I assume the County will not be forcing the Shipmans to provide access until they decide to build some more there?

---

[:p]You're not serious with that question, are you?[]

We're talking about the Hawaii County Council!
Who knows what those [:o)] will do!

[Tolleys]

Wao nahele kane

There is always an exception to the rule… I know of Hawaiian shorline land that is not public. Hawaii County has issued a letter of clarification to one HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park) oceanfront land owner which states (and I paraphrase) that because the state has not compensated the land owners in HPP for public access, the HPP sea cliffs are private property. Our survey pins go right to the sea cliff edge. It is private property and only with permission from the property owner is the public allowed.

However there are three shoreline areas of exception within HPP. HPP donated these sea cliff lands to the county for park development in the early 70’s. One is already designated a park and the other two areas are not yet parks, but county owned land. The public is encouraged to use these lands for ocean access.

Susan

[Wao nahele kane]

Yeah Bob... I know all that, keeping it in context; I was referencing when they go to put in a development. Hense the refernce to powers in regulation... then the rules change. The county cannot force them to put in a road if they are not currently developing, not without a legal fight and court order, which all people can face too, but there has to be a proof of betterment for the community. The new federal law only protects against takings for the use of private bussiness, not for public use in so much as to better a community. I'd also like to add that the the public intention by the corporation has been to develop the land and in such a scenario they stand a far less chance of winning in a takings case vs. a John Doe homeowner who has a functioning ranch in place. Owner type of the title/deed and current use of the lands indeed does have influence in a takings case.

On that note.

The Federal government and States across this nation have set aside parks and natural reserve areas. With that said, the remainder is for general infrastructure, agriculture, commerce and residential application.
One thing is for certain, development will occur whether we want it to or not.
I dislike development just as much as the next “tree hugger” and that’s one of the many reasons I’ve selected the Puna region. Because the area will not be widely invested in with regard to commerce as Kilauea scares the crap out of such big financial interest groups. Growth in this region will always be modest at best by default and no-one should fear otherwise.

Considering the above, I have to concern myself with only how this modest development will occur and to what end.
Fighting against development is a fool’s folly in most cases as it may only inevitably result in far worse consequences as the final result. Be it a place that eventually falls pray to neglect conditions (garbage piles emerge as do crimes) or a place that becomes stagnant and desolate with a few buildings standing here and there and only occupied by field mice.
With regard to Puna, we’ve only to fear that if development is not nurtured and embraced with foresight and goal, many areas will become victim of poverty stricken conditions and some areas may fall prey to abuse via neglect. These are not the sorts of things we should be leaving for the next generation to clean up and deal with. These are the sorts of things we can guide, care for and nurture today.

So, the Shipman Corporation falls under the same scenario of circumstances. They have a wonderful white sandy beach surrounded by land they intend to one day develop. They are also surrounded by people who want to visit that beach. I as an individual who have been involved in development and construction for the better part of 30 years see this as a golden opportunity for the Shipman Corporation. It’s an opportunity to bring greater awareness to this unusual gem within the region. A way to bring awareness and pre advertise their wonderful land and a way to attract potential investors. If I were making the decisions for that corporation, I would plan an access road in chip tar or some equivalent to the beach with a gate to be closed at night and a station to collect automobile fares for use of the road, but I would allow pedestrian use free of charge and put in a chip tar type trail just off the road. I would also place a parking area far removed from the beach but also a closer parking area for disabled people of whom which would receive a disabled parking pass to park in the closer lot. Such a thing would also show tourists, that indeed, the east side of Hawaii has a pretty white beach too and it would also attract tourists to drive through and experience the wonderful foliage that grows in this region.

I know this is long winded but I want to add the following so a better awareness of what many believe about Puna can be fleshed out.

I lived on the Kona side for over a year back in 2000-2001 and I never knew about what was in Puna as my only experience was down 130 to get to the Chain of Craters rd. to have a look see of the lava that covered the road and a few half buried steel fence posts. I did as many tourists do there after and residence of the Kona side, turned back around and split noticing mostly only dry parched type land along 130 and a few shacks off the road (much like Kona and nothing special), one almost feels they are in a desolate region and needs to leave quickly. Not too many people ever venture down into the Mango Grove Forest area and along the Kapoho Kalapana rd. or all the other wonderful places in Puna. Puna gets a bad wrap because very few people of the masses who come to the Big Island ever see it or experience everything that it has to offer. It’s a place unto its own on the Big Island, as are most regions, but lower Puna ranks with the Hamakua coat. I always thought of Puna as a dried up volcanic hazard area that was inundated by rain most the time and filled with undesirable hazardous cheap lots. I thought that until late 2007 when I decided to take a couple folks who were with me at the time on a tour I had yet to see. So, after we hit the Chain of Craters road block and saw the road go under the lava… I made a u-turn and hit Kapoho Kalapana road and was simply floored by what we were seeing. We eventually ended up on Government Beach Road and I was speechless thinking what an idiot I was to have never seen this area since my first 2 month visit to Hawaii back in the late 70’s to repair a Church in Pahala. I had finally found what I thought Hawaii was supposed to be and here one could get to the ocean without standing atop a 300’ plus cliff looking down at the ocean as is the case on the Hamakua Coast. I fell in love with Waa Waa back in 2007 and Leilani Estates in 2008… so now I’m hooked on the region I will call home. After re-visiting the Kona area a few weeks ago to check over my other 3 acres in laden in VOG… I wanted to get the hell out faster than I had gotten there and was happy to hit 130 on the way back to our VRBO and Waa Waa lot. I’ve lost my love for the rest of the Island with the exception of the Hamakua coast.



E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[Wao nahele kane]

Susan,

Yeah, I rather doubt Sea Cliffs are classified as “shoreline” where the region below the cliff would be designated the “shoreline” and if some venture bound individual wanted to traverse the shoreline, he or she would be within their rights to do so (I wouldn’t want to see the carnage inflicted by the waves upon their body against the rocks though .

To my knowledge shoreline has always been defined by the region at and below the high water mark (not inclusive of flood by tsunami or other odd ball event) and in some cases reflected by the natural vegetation line, if present, displaying the actual region where true land begins as defined by Mother Natures complete functioning system.


E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tolleys

There is always an exception to the rule… I know of Hawaiian shorline land that is not public. Hawaii County has issued a letter of clarification to one HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park) oceanfront land owner which states (and I paraphrase) that because the state has not compensated the land owners in HPP for public access, the HPP sea cliffs are private property. Our survey pins go right to the sea cliff edge. It is private property and only with permission from the property owner is the public allowed.

---

Susan, that's true but not the way it's being interpreted. Hawaii County saying that the property is private property is correct. It's correct because the County does not own it. They do not have to take ownership of all shoreline access routes or shoreline public transit corridors. They can be established under law without you relinquishing ownership. So in that regard it's correct. But this is their version of don't ask don't tell. They are not saying that a shoreline public transit corridor does not exist, only that you still own the property since they don’t own it.

[Wao nahele kane]

Who owns direct access to Haena beach via a 10' wide road known as Old Government Beach Road?
Download link... right mouse click on link and click "Select Target As" so you can zoom in and see. Look closely at inset in upper right corner too.
Kimo... you may already have a right to drive right to the beach with no court case incvolved.
http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/maps/tmk/1/1-6/h16001.tif



E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.