Yagong's bill 132 for land sale transparency delay

[oink]

Hunter?

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[mikewj]

I also wrote to Emily regarding this bill. For the first time EVER, I got a reply! It was the same form letter Frankie got. I agree. I don't think Ms. Naeole actually composed the letter, I feel it was written by the faction to whom she has given her vote on this measure. Having watched Ms. Naeole on BigIsland Video, most recently about her experiences at the beach park with a 'Quad' rider, this is far from her vernacular. 132 removes the ability to say 'I didn't know what was happening' by Council members when a land sale causes controversy. As for Ms. Naeole's statement that the buyer 'can do anything he/she wants with the land' after purchase, does Hawaii have a system of CC & R's which could put conditions on land use in perpetuity? I understand the zoning restrictions, but too often zoning can be changed with the judicious application of $$ by a determined owner.

[wax]

Most politicians and many leaders of other organizations have writers who craft for them. This is obviously true of Obama, for instance. The point is not who may write for Emily but what it is that is written and that it captures the pricipal's (in this case Emily's) thought process.

As to the bill itself, Emily is right. Transparency is already in place. Any land transaction is captured in public records so we can all look up the amounts and buyers. Yagong knows this as do most other people. This is all about slowing down or stopping the sale and moving authority to the Council. Further the declared purpose of the buyer is also a sham. A buyer can say whatever he/she wishes and then either change his/her mind or resell the property. So what did declaring the purpose achieve? Really nothing.

I am surprised that so many appear to be buying the sham. It would be more intellectually honest to simply state the real situation - which is these folks do not want to see the sale and anything that can slow or stop it is favorable. Ok, that is fine - state it and move on.

[Rob Tucker]

Wax, Let me ask you this....

Under what circumstances would you personally sell land without reviewing the price and terms of sale prior to closing?

[wax]

No circumstances. The question is not whether there will be a review but how many bodies do the review. In the current case it is the job of the Administration to review - and we have no reason to believe that the Council adds anything other than additional time to the review. In fact the addition of the Council will both slow down the transaction (needlessly) and politicize the process.

[Rob Tucker]

In this current instance - Hamakua Lands - I am confident that the council is very able to vote in favor of any sale at any price.

The primary issue is will the owners (the public) be entitled to know the terms of sale before closing.

If there was another method to make the information subject to public testimony then that would be great.

The current situation calls for the owners (us) to hand the sale to a real estate agent (county administration) with little experience and no references. The current instructions to the agent are to sell the land for what you can get for it to whomever you can and tell us how it worked out when it's over. It's called a Distress Sale.

Neither you or I would ever, ever, ever to that in private business.

So it makes one wonder.... if the most basic of business principles are offensive to the CoH what other due diligence is to be avoided?

[wax]

The contention that the current administration has no experience is not accurate. The responsibility falls primarily to Nancy Crawford and Bill Takaba. Nancy has been in the Finance Department for years and overseen land sales in that responsibility. Bill has been Finance Director under two administrations for a total of more than 10 years before becoming Managing Director. He is very capable and very sharp. Both know how much the County needs and understand the value of the land. If you ever deal with these people you will see their integrity, intelligence and commitment to the citizens of the County. They are experienced in land sales.

If the argument that Yagong makes held water, it would have been introduced decades ago. For that matter the same could be said for State Land sales (i.e. should they be overseen by the House/Senate of the Administration) and the Federal Government (i.e. same as the State). Neither is done for the simple reason that it is not only redundant and not necessary - it is wasteful and inefficient. Further, when politicians become involved in transactions through legislation - we politicize events that then result too frequently in very poor decision making, pontificating and the like - who needs it. If there is reason to believe that a side deal or poor sale is made there are many avenues to check it out and to prosecute the offender.

The same argument - oversight of transactions - could be made in every transaction the County, State or Federal Government makes. That is that the Public (who owns the governments and all that they own)should have transparency in all that is done. This would make for worse rather than better government. In those cases of fraud or bad decision making - the Public Official and Private Organization involved had best watch out as there are many out there who will work to catch up to them.

[Rob Tucker]

I won't argue or contend your opinion of Nancy Crawford and Bill Takaba. I don't know them. However, nothing that has taken place nationally this year of a financial nature enhances my general trust of "professionals".

Part of my general opinion is based on watching what I consider to be poor management of these properties over the past fifteen years - combined with the fact that the exact manner of sale for the current situation - despite all the news and brouhaha - aren't clear to me.

I agree that Bill 132 could have and very likely would have been passed in the past. Before the current budget battles with Yagong and Kenoi. The base issues have been clouded by current events.

If Bill 132 had been proposed in 2007 I bet it would have passed quietly.

The current situation - aside from Yagong/Kenoi - is that a large number of citizens perceive this as bad business - sell in a down market. Bad business perceptions beget suspicions of secret motives. Whether this is justified or not the impression has been created by the Mayor and it could have (perhaps) been avoided with smarter political handling of the 2% Land Fund.

Correct me if I am wrong but.... doesn't every other type of land transaction- rezoning, SMA, subdivision creations etc. come back to council for approval?

[Dave Smith]

Rob, it's not clear what you mean by "come back," but the council has jurisdiction in only one of those actions you mention Ð rezoning. The other two are handled administratively. The planning commissions issue major SMA permits (values over $125,000) while minor ones and subdivision applications are processed by the Planning Department.