For my Civil Beat column this week, I took another swing at the Kahala Hotel’s pending request for a nonexclusive easement covering just under three acres of state-owned oceanfront property fronting the hotel (“Ian Lind: The Kahala Hotel’s New Shoreline Plan Could Reduce Public Beach Access“).
Most concerns that I’ve heard involve whether public access to the beach and shoreline areas will be adequately protected now and into the future, or whether this will end up becoming a case of creeping privatization as landscaping and use patterns discourage the public from using the shoreline.
As one person I spoke with noted, people in Hawaii tend to be polite, and don’t barge in where they appear to be out of place. And that’s an attitude that, in this particular context, could inhibit public use of the public beach and shoreline.
The hotel’s draft environmental assessment did not contain enough detail or substantive discussion of the public access issue to feel comfortable that the public will be protected into the future.
For those who are interested, the issue is expected to be on the agenda for the Waialae-Kahala Neighborhood Board next week (details at the end of the column).
In any case, I would welcome additional comments on the column.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What does the DEA say about the impact of sea level rise on coastal flooding and erosion of the site?
Authoritative international and national assessments are nearly unanimous that Honolulu sea level will be at least two feet higher in 2100, and that there is a significant chance (17%) that sea level will exceed four feet higher, especially if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchanged.
Studies also indicate that even a slight increase in sea level will greatly increase the frequency of disruptive and damaging wave events, like the recent king tide event. A view of what a three foot increase in sea level would due to coastal erosion and flooding can be seen in a fly around video posted on the UH School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology site (http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/sealevel/Oahu2100.mp4 ) The Kahala site appears at 5:24.
The red line shows the extent of potential beach erosion, the green spots are areas that would be below sea level which would turn into marshes if water was not pumped out, and the blue areas are areas that would be permanently flooded.
Episodic disruptive and damaging flooding would affect areas on beyond those subject to permanent flooding.
The State should get 50% of all revenue generated on beach events and 10% of all hotel revenues since the hotel would be useless without the beach.
In a way that is exactly what the existing Transient Accommodation Tax is, the state already gets a healthy cut. Thus the usually accommodating (pun intended) treatment hotels get when using the beaches.
The DEA can be found at http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2017-04-23-OA-DEA-Kahala-Hotel-Beach-Enhancements.pdf
I think there is room for constructive dialog between the hotel and the community on this. The hotel has a vested interest in maintaining the cleanliness and attractiveness of the beach. As long as the community can access this beach, the community benefits. Of course, community access is the rub.
IIRC, the hotel is on leasehold land. Is this KS land like the condos next door? Maybe bring the fee owner into the discussion?
Yes, the entire stretch beyond the beach park is owned by Kamehameha Schools, leased to the Waialae Country Club, the Kahala Beach Apartments, and the hotel.
I do agree with this comment.
I have to take issue with Andrew Cooper’s assertion that the fact that hotels pay the TAT to the State justifies allowing them to use public beach land without paying the same far market value rent that they would have to pay if they were using adjoining private land. Although the EA doesn’t seem to address the issue (though the Land Board certainly will when the proposal is submitted to it for approval), the State lands at issue are almost certainly assets of the public land trust established in Section 5(f) the Hawaii Admission Act, which limits the uses to which these lands can be put to 5 specified uses, NONE of which include providing a subsidy to a private for-profit enterprise. The Hawaii State Supreme Court has held that in its management of these public lands the State is held to the same high standard as a private fiduciary. This means that any disposition of these lands to a private entity such as the hotel must be based on payment of a fair market value rent; the State can’t subsidize politically favored private entities by giving them cut-rate access to public land. A private landowner wouldn’t give the hotel below-market access to prime beachfront land without charging a fair market price for that use, and neither can the State.
So, do y’all feel differently about Kam Schools land with income-generating uses on it?
Or how about the Queen Emma Land Trust that has income-generating properties in Waikiki that help support Queen’s Health System? Or how about the Queen Liliuokalani Trust which also exists to support Hawaiian beneficiaries?
My challenge is for everyone who says they oppose development but support causes that benefit the Hawaiian people to recognize the complexity of the history and relationships. Then raise concerns and discuss thoughtfully and remind others, especially those who are unfamiliar or ignorant, to do same.