05-23-2017, 03:07 PM
I am aware that native Hawaiians heavily populate DHHL and that there have been a wide range of problems with that dept. (and OHA as well). And given this dysfunction, I understand people opposing the idea of native Hawaiians tapping more money from their lands.
But there is justification, IMO. One reason is to help keep pace with the rising living costs (from land speculation). And you appear to acknowledge that “They are hamstrung for funds to provide infrastructure for the beneficiaries...”
Native Hawaiians appear to be of mixed mind on leasing trust lands. There might have been individual parcels that should not have been leased or inadequate lease returns because of sweetheart deals. I agree the money from the trust land leases is key to funding benefits/services to Hawaiians. Regarding leasing ceded lands, I did not advocate “turning over all ceded lands...” But there might be justification for leases on some ceded lands. No doubt that many Hawaiians support this.
I am not part-Hawaiian nor do I desire to directly involve in their campaigns. I just express views here, and they relate to my stronger opinions on land speculation in Hawaii and its impacts.
Some interesting reading in UH Law Professor Chang’s 2014 paper on ceded lands. He states the state’s Leasehold Conversion Law cost Bishop Estate and other estates “billions of dollars” and he cites the role of “the richest in Honolulu---the people of Kahala, Portlock and East Honolulu...”
Chang presents a rather extreme interpretation (about 1/2 way down document). I do not know whether it stands up to veracity, but I find this comment potent: “...the leasehold system in Hawaii kept housing prices lower than under a fee system. The Estate had no interest in charging the highest rents the market could bear. Why should it do that? Why should it destabilize Honolulu? Why deny to Hawaiians, Japanese and others of modest means the ability to live in Honolulu?
Today’s big money players could not give a rip if working poor people cannot find affordable housing in Hawaii. Everything is about them, their profits.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bi...ct2014.pdf
But there is justification, IMO. One reason is to help keep pace with the rising living costs (from land speculation). And you appear to acknowledge that “They are hamstrung for funds to provide infrastructure for the beneficiaries...”
Native Hawaiians appear to be of mixed mind on leasing trust lands. There might have been individual parcels that should not have been leased or inadequate lease returns because of sweetheart deals. I agree the money from the trust land leases is key to funding benefits/services to Hawaiians. Regarding leasing ceded lands, I did not advocate “turning over all ceded lands...” But there might be justification for leases on some ceded lands. No doubt that many Hawaiians support this.
I am not part-Hawaiian nor do I desire to directly involve in their campaigns. I just express views here, and they relate to my stronger opinions on land speculation in Hawaii and its impacts.
Some interesting reading in UH Law Professor Chang’s 2014 paper on ceded lands. He states the state’s Leasehold Conversion Law cost Bishop Estate and other estates “billions of dollars” and he cites the role of “the richest in Honolulu---the people of Kahala, Portlock and East Honolulu...”
Chang presents a rather extreme interpretation (about 1/2 way down document). I do not know whether it stands up to veracity, but I find this comment potent: “...the leasehold system in Hawaii kept housing prices lower than under a fee system. The Estate had no interest in charging the highest rents the market could bear. Why should it do that? Why should it destabilize Honolulu? Why deny to Hawaiians, Japanese and others of modest means the ability to live in Honolulu?
Today’s big money players could not give a rip if working poor people cannot find affordable housing in Hawaii. Everything is about them, their profits.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bi...ct2014.pdf