My column this week at Civil Beat takes another look at a proposed six-home development along Kahala Avenue, on the other end of Kahala (“Ian Lind: No, These Condos Don’t Mean The End Of Old Kahala“).
The subtitle: The old Kahala is already gone.
Some Kahala residents have opposed the proposal because, they say, it would lead to increased density in the area, drive up prices, and only benefit wealthy absentee owners.
Civil Beat columnist (and veteran reporter) Denby Fawcett highlighted the proposed development in a recent column.
Denby and I both grew up in that old Kahala, the somewhat lazy beachside community before it was discovered by the ultra rich.
From my column, which appeared today:
We share a dismay at the direction the neighborhood has taken a nostalgia for the Hawaii that we glimpsed as children and young adults.
But I doubt very much that A&B’s six luxury homes are going to have any negative impact in Kahala.
The sad fact is that the elegant, low key, beachside neighborhood we grew up in is long gone.
But I did notice one small tidbit with lots of implications.
I was trying to figure out why the property was variously reported as something just over 53,000 square feet or over 58,000 feet.
I found the answer buried in a section of the the Planning Department’s report and recommendation on the project, sent to the City Council last week. The section is titled “Shoreline and Sea Level Rise”.
“The regulatory shoreline along the rear of the site is approximately 150 feet long and follows the top of the bank….”
“The makai property line,” the report states blandly, “is in the ocean.”
Yes, you read that right. The original property line is now out in the water.
Again, according to the report: “The eroded lands seaward of the certified shoreline account for approximately eight percent, or 4,675 square feet of the property.”
They’ve lost 8 percent of the land area already, and sea level rise is just getting started.
It may be that Mother Nature could rein in speculative oceanfront development sooner that any public policy changes.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is interesting that these two articles appear at this time because I was recently contemplating exactly this issue. I had the 2:00 am to 8:00 am shift manning the Skywarn ham radio station at the National Weather Service watching the approach of hurricanes Madeline and Lester. There was no radio traffic and my partner was asleep so my brain was foggily considering the effects of hurricanes.
So, the question is, what are the owners of these multi-million dollar properties going to do as the sea erodes the shoreline and possibly threatens their multi-million dollar houses. Will they:
A. Say, oh well, that’s life? Not likely. Or.
B. Pressure the state and army corps of engineers to allow them to armor the shoreline. Hopefully that would not be allowed because it would destroy whatever beach is left. Or.
C. Pressure some branch of government (or “someone”) to compensate them for their losses. Or.
D. Sell to some poor schmuck who doesn’t have a clue?
So, I asked myself. What would I do? My solution is to take the long view. Build your future seawall now. Build it well back from the beach where you will not get embroiled in the controversy and permits associated with messing with the shoreline. But then it would be in place as beach erosion progressed. Brilliant!! I should make millions of dollars with this idea.
New construction should be prohibited on the makai side of the road. This is the law in other coastal localities around the world for good reason. North Shore and Kaawa side you can really see why this should be put in place with homes built on the sand damaged by waves and the road increasingly ruined by the ocean. You cant fight the ocean. I wont shed tears for the ghastly Kahala gates and sea walls either.
“C. Pressure some branch of government (or “someone”) to compensate them for their losses.”
Say what???
Hell no it ain’t gonna come from any branch of govt. that I pay taxes into, if I have any say in the matter. Why should I (or anybody else) have to pay for someone else’s short-sightedness and stupidity?
Allen N : I couldn’t agree more that no one should collect a dime for losses due to sea level rise. However, after being denied permits to armor the shoreline I can’t see wealthy property owners sitting idly by while their investment washes away. They’re gonna start hiring lawyers and calling their favorite legislators to remind them of where campaign contributions come from.
You can bribe politicians. But you can’t bribe the forces of nature. Building a sea wall, which encourages nearby neighbors to respond likewise, will result in the local beaches all but disappearing, which will result in decreased property values anyway. Once all the sand is completely gone, what once might have been built as an “impregnable” sea wall could become vulnerable later as the effects of erosion is intensified, the sea levels continues rising ever higher, and the winter swells become more devastating. It would be nice to think that the brand spanking new sea wall you built will protect you for decades to come, but no one can really predict the exact impact and speed of climate change.