TMT Construction Can Proceed

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

If we use construction of the solar telescope on Haleakala as a guide, protests on Maui were somewhat tolerated, but that changed after the Hawaii Supreme Court decision:

... opponents said the solar telescope's construction shouldn't be allowed to move forward when challenges to the project's permit were still under deliberation at the state Supreme Court. However, in October of 2016, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its ruling in support of continued construction after finding that the management plan for the Haleakala summit provided a sufficient assessment of potential environmental impacts.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3602...haleakala/

I believe there was one final protest blocking the road after the Supreme Court ruling, with one or two opponents crawling under the trailer in an attempt to wedge their 300 pound frame into the works somehow. Police pulled them out, made other arrests, and I believe that was the last gathering of opponents on Maui. With consistent enforcement of the law on Mauna Kea, protestors here may also realize they’ve done all they can. We’ll see. There are after all some similarities between Haleakala and Mauna Kea as pointed out by Maui protestor Joseph Henderson when he spoke of Haleakala:

"I was willing to lay down my life to protect one of our most sacred mountains. I'm fighting for our people. If we can't protect one of our most sacred mountains, then how can we protect anything else we call sacred?

[rainyjim]

I don’t think there is a law that abrogates other laws for native Hawaiians, but if there are any please share at least the HRS #(s)...thanks

[kalakoa]

a law that abrogates other laws for native Hawaiians

HRS 7-1. Anyone see the can of worms here?

Where the landlords have obtained, or may hereafter obtain, allodial titles to their lands, the people on each of their lands shall not be deprived of the right to take firewood, house-timber, aho cord, thatch, or ki leaf, from the land on which they live, for their own private use, but they shall not have a right to take such articles to sell for profit. The people shall also have a right to drinking water, and running water, and the right of way. The springs of water, running water, and roads shall be free to all, on all lands granted in fee simple; provided that this shall not be applicable to wells and watercourses, which individuals have made for their own use.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution.

"The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights."

In determining whether rights have been customarily and traditionally exercised, the court looks to kama‘aina (native-born) testimony and affadavits describing the history and traditional practices of Native Hawaiians living in that geographic area.

Big proviso in bold. State regulations for Mauna Kea are clearly spelled out. Also, no one lived anywhere near the summit prior to 1778.

[rainyjim]

There are no longer ahupua’a, ergo no ahupua’a tenants. Language matters.

Also, HOTPE, not sure if you did copy pasta or not, but should the n in Native Hawaiians in your second paragraph be n or N? Also a big difference legally.

I don’t see that either of those HRS really give any rights not already afforded to every US citizen and/or they are so outdated that they don’t really apply to today’s society - granted, possible exception being the closing the mountain down and ‘cultural practitioners’ allowed access.

Kalakoa, I don’t see any mention of natives in your 7-1, maybe it is implied somehow earlier in a bit you didn’t c/p?

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

rainyjim,
I cut & paste so small/capital letters are as written in the State Constitution:

https://law-hawaii.libguides.com/c.php?g=125434&p=1438801

[glinda]

Also, no one lived anywhere near the summit prior to 1778.

Another assumption HOTPE?

[kalakoa]

don't see any mention of natives

Correct: HRS 7-1 would apply to anyone who lived here pre-Statehood.

they are so outdated that they don't really apply to today's society

That is for a judge to decide, and it's pretty clear nobody wants to go there. Prosecuting the "protectors" would give them standing to have these issues heard.

The issues are so convoluted that the specific type of land ownership is relevant; rights and standing would change if State sold the land outright instead of holding it and granting use rights and/or leases.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Also, no one lived anywhere near the summit prior to 1778.
Another assumption HOTPE?

Perhaps.
But a pretty good five star assumption given the evidence.
Unless you’d like to show me the foundations from an ancient Hawaiian village at high elevations, the food they grew, harvested and hunted in that area, written records, or oral traditions. There were the adze quarries, but given winter temps and lack of parkas they were likely temporary summer camps, and probably kapu for the common folk who were not workers.

There’s a reason the early Hawaiians lived near the seashore. Food availability & a warm climate. But I’d be interested in your summit residence theories and research glinda.

[glinda]

Yes HOTPE, perhaps you might consider qualifying your statements. You know, with words like, "I believe", or "I assume", or any other phrase that admits your assumptions and doesn't leave you open to being seen as another one of those that can't humble themselves to the fact that in most cases all we have is our opinions, our beliefs. Our truths. And our truths are far from fact.

What do you know, what could you know, about the history of man on Mauna Kea? Nothing? From what I can tell, your assumptions have all to do with your world view. Not those of another race, who lived in an entirely different world than yours. You make assumptions about how people can or can not cope with a cold climate that could not help but be subjective to your experiences. And, seemingly absent of fact entirely.

Remember the tale of the people of Tierra del Fuego? How when the western world made first contact they found a people who often were seen, in freezing conditions, not wearing cloth? Living out their lives close to naked in freezing temperatures.

Well I'll tell you.. I wouldn't be able to survive, I'd die, in conditions like that. And, from my perspective it would be easy to assume the same of all people. But hey, another people in another time. Though as you say, nobody ever lived on Mauna Kea, right?

Is it a haole trait, or a human trait, or what, to assume others see things the way we ourselves do? I don't know its origin, or how universal it is, but it is a strong force in keeping people from truly understanding each other. Especially when crossing diverse cultural grounds. Unfortunealy we do not recognize this enough to work around our assumptions and achieve true empathy.