07-16-2009, 03:15 AM
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.
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.