Did I hear that correctly?
The request by New Hope Leeward, a 5,000-member megachurch in Waipahu, to rezone part of a 200-acre parcel of agricultural land in Kunia to allow development of a major Christian community was miraculously resurrected after the development’s original architect took over as the city’s planning director earlier this year.
The planned development was presented to Neighborhood Board 25 late last year:
Commercial development of the land will be kept minimal with 5-acres being used for the church after BMX-1 zoning change; 48-acres for a community area including amphitheatre, school, open park space, and auditorium in AG-2 zoned land, and lastly the remaining 155-acres will remain AG-1 zoned land.
A college campus is also being planned.
KITV first flagged the potential conflict of interest earlier this year when Atta was appointed. At that time, George Atta said he would stay away from anything having to do with the project because of his prior relationship with it.
In written testimony supporting Atta’s nomination, Mike Lwin, senior pastor at New Hope Leeward, wrote that the project’s planning had proceeded “under George’s guidance….”
Under George’s guidance during his role as Partner with the design/architecture firm, Group 70, our church leadership team explored the range of possibilities for sustaining our organization within this community for decades to come, especially within the context of a sustainable location and facility. As you can imagine, this was a substantive exercise that required our team to evaluate land use, facilities design, relevant city ordinances, as well as state and federal guidelines, community impacts and opportunities, and much more.
And on Sunday, KHON reported that just weeks after Atta took the helm at DPP, the department moved to reconsider it’s rejection of the rezoning application.
When the church first presented this massive plan to the Department of Planning and Permitting in 2012 it was denied, but with the change of DPP leadership, it’s being revisited.
“Four weeks after we got the letter of rejection, we got notification that they appointed a new director at the Department of Planning and Permitting, George Atta. He’s the senior architect that envisioned our entire plan,” Lwin said to the congregation.
And following Atta’s appointment, Lwin said DPP’s negative decision is under review.
I don’t know Atta, although his nomination drew wide support from the planning community. However, the circumstances of the department’s reconsideration of the New Hope proposal need to be fully investigated for potential violations of the the “fair and equal treatment” and “conflicts of interest” provisions of the City Charter. Reversing course under these circumstances just raises too many red flags.
The City Charter provides, in part:
Section 11-104. Fair and Equal Treatment —
Elected or appointed officers or employees shall not use their official positions to secure or grant special consideration, treatment, advantage, privilege or exemption to themselves or any person beyond that which is available to every other person.
Further:
Section 11-102. Conflicts of Interest–…
2. No appointed officer shall participate in or make any decision on a city matter if:
(a) He or she was directly involved in the matter while employed with a private entity in the twelve months immediately preceding the start of the officer’s current employment with the city; and
(b) Such prior involvement on behalf of a private entity may tend to impair the independence of judgment in the performance of the officer’s official duties. The prohibition in this subsection shall apply for a period of twelve months from the start of the officer’s current employment with the city. The officer may apply for a waiver from this prohibition to the ethics commission, which shall determine, based on the relevant circumstances, whether the waiver is in the best interests of the public. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “officer” shall exclude any member of a board or commission who is not the administrative head of an agency.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At that time, George Atta said he would stay away from anything having to do with the project because of his prior relationship with it.
Well, then, I’d say he flat out lied.
Thank you, Ian, for alerting the public…I oppose any rezoning of agriculture land for any reason, particularly mega churches,
“Particularly mega churches,” ? So, we are to assume nothing could be worse?
Please thank KITV &KHON for calling attention to this. New Hope has mastered strategy of corporatocracy.
Ah, “Christian separatism.” That has a nice ring to it. Homeschooling away from the hurly-burly of secular contamination. Now live an exclusively Christian community. I guess it goes without saying, “No Jews Allowed”? Or Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, etc. Just “us and our kind.”
Ian, I have difficulty with your approach on this and other matters where you typically ask when somebody is going to stop beating their wife.
If you were writing for the Star Bulletin or the Advertiser of old, you know that your editor would require you to contact Mr. Atta and DPP for their side of the story before you published anything on this matter.
In fact, Mr. Atta has recused himself from this matter.
All DPP actions on this matter are being handled by the Deputy Director without the involvement of Mr. Atta.
In fact, there has been no reconsideration of the rejection of the church’s application. The church was informed of the reasons why their application was rejected, and the ball is in their court to respond to the issues raised in that rejection. As of this point, they have not submitted any response.
Why the minister decided to describe the situation to his congregation in such a way is something only he knows. Mr. Atta has acted honorably, and will take no role in the processing of any applications on this project.
You owe an apology to Mr. Atta for the inaccurate and incomplete reporting you have done on this matter.
You may be absolutely correct and there are no problems at all.
That would be a fine outcome.
You obviously have an insider’s access to certain information.
But these situations breed public cynicism, as you can see by other comments.
Having DPP say, “don’t worry, we’re on top of it,” isn’t reassuring to the public.
That’s why the situation–which you have to admit has many worrisome elements, at least as far as the public’s view is concerned–begs for an investigation to clear the air. I would think the ethics commission has the independence and the jurisdiction to provide this external review and assure the public that the systems are working.
What beyond saying that Director Atta has recused himself from this matter, that the application was rejected, and the ball is in the New Hope Leeward church’s court would you want from DPP.
And for your information, the Ethics Commission is investigating the situation.
These are all things that you could have determined with a couple of phone calls.
I appreciate this report as it was refreshing and somewhat amusing to see someone be so open about the way things work! The Pastor seems so nonchalant about it! Classic stuff. Director Atta can take whatever steps he needs to (and maybe they all try to get back on “script”), but at this point it sure appears the Pastor and the congregation have faith that they will get their desired result based on their use of Group 70’s planning work for the project. So much for protecting agricultural lands!
The one who is off script is the pastor who is assuring his congregation that his dream of a mega church will come true although the application was rejected.
There has been no reconsideration of that rejection. The proposed urban uses are not consistent with State Land Use Law or the City’s long range plan for the area which says the lands are to stay in agricultural use for the foreseeable future.
VERY well said.