After living in Kaaawa for most of three decades, we watched the whole process of pseudo community consultation carried out by government planners and decision-makers time and again. Even when strong community sentiment was clearly expressed, it was more often than not ignored or minimized.
I think Lee Cataluna got it right in her Honolulu Star-Advertiser column last week.
Oh, sure, politicians and “community engagement professionals” representing various development projects will hold meetings in a school cafeteria a couple of times before the construction vehicles start rolling. They’ll have serious looking people in reverse-print aloha shirts sitting impassively through hours of testimony and earnest pleas.
They may even call these meetings “listening sessions,” which means that they won’t answer any questions, and then they’ll go ahead and do whatever they planned to do all along, though perhaps they’ll write a check to a community organization or an after-school program to try to buy some acquiescence. It’s too often about quelling the voices of opposition, not giving them credence.
But community members — moms and dads who work all day at jobs they don’t even like just to afford to live in the same town where they grew up, grandparents who worked hard all their lives thinking of the future, grandparents who are spending their retirement years raising their grandchildren, people who just want to go about their lives without undue burdens — they don’t feel heard. Listening is not hearing. Truly hearing the voices of the community means taking the messages to heart and being open to changing plans or waiting until all questions are addressed.
At the base of the problem is that it’s either a state or county agency, or a private developer, that has the resources to hire an army of planners, and then direct their plan towards their desired outcome. The community, on the other hand, usually doesn’t have a unified voice and almost certainly won’t have the resources to hire their own planners and researchers to refine and sharpen their critique.
One result is that communities are on the defensive from the start, having to find errors in what the developers propose rather than being able to shape their own plans from the beginning.
I recall a story told by friends a number of years ago. They were very proud of their son, who had a brand new law degree and was on the job market. During an interview for a local government position, the interviewer posed a hypothetical question. Something like this—“So there’s a controversial development project that has generated community protests, and you’re assigned to check out the legal issues. What would you do?”
So their son thought about it, and explained that he would interview key community members to understand what was behind their complaints, and then look at how the project could be changed to reasonably accommodate the community concerns.
Before he could elaborate, the interviewer cut him off. ”No,” he explained. “You would make it come out right.” Meaning, of course, that he would find reasons that the development as proposed was the best course of action and the community complaints unfounded.
That story is either literally true or, possibly, simply expresses a cynical view of how these planning processes really work, one based in past experience.
Now we have a number of communities up in arms, from the TMT to Kahuku, in situations where the planning process ended up obtaining all the necessary permits and approvals, but obviously failed to identify and accommate serious community concerns, leading to late-stage protests at the point where serious money has been invested and changes, even if justified, are very difficult to make.
Under current law, where an environmental impact statement is required, it is the developer or agency proposing the underlying project that hires the consultants and directs their work. Often, it could be argued, proceeding with that “make it come out right” approach.
What if the law required the affected communities to be provided the resources to hire their own planners and consultants early in the planning process?
Those agencies that have to approve permits would have the benefit of a fuller factual base to work with, communities would have a clearer voice, the likelihood of litigation would hopefully be reduced, and the public would get better results.
Of course, there would have to be criteria for determining which development plans, and which communities, would qualify to receive these planning resources, but that’s not a huge hurdle.
Looking at the costs of failed planning for Honolulu’s rail, for the TMT, for those giant wind turbines standing over 600 feet tall over Kahuku, the costs of empowering community planning seem more reasonable by comparison.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I remember being a proponent of rail when it was first being pushed by Mufi. Then I went to a bunch of City & County presentations, and realized that they had already decided how to proceed and that all the inputs gathered at those presentations went ‘in one ear and out the other.’
zzzzzz. There was a full EIS for the rail by 1979. I read it that year. That could be why it seemed to you, in Mufi’s era, that it was already a “done deal”.
What you call “serious community concerns” in the case of Mauna Kea are smokescreens for a desire to return to the mythical 19th Century Kingdom of Hawaii with the protestors becoming a reconstituted rabble aristocracy ready to divide into family factions to begin a civil war to decide after much bloodshed who will be King.
Not that it could happen in Hawaii. Except it did.
Why do you call it mythical? It definitely existed.
A desire to return to an IDEALIZED kingdom, not a mythical kingdom.
Ian has pointed out repeatedly that the real desire of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is not to return to a time before the 20th century, but to a time before the 1950s, when simple jobs were more plentiful and life was so much simpler.
There’s a lot of talk about “broken trust”, but Hawaiians did not protest against the abuses at Bishop Estate. They protest against progress.
The job of a government attorney who is “assigned to check out the legal issues” is to check out the legal issues. If the project proponents or authorities having decision-making discretion wish to accommodate community concerns, pull the plug, or damn the torpedoes, that is up to them, not the attorney. If there is inflexible opposition with no legal basis, there is no opportunity for compromise, and there is conflict and drama. And if people vote for crooks and idiots, well…
Our community association is pretty active and I have observed communities need to pay attention and get involved in matters that may affect you at the beginning. It is important to comment on the Pre-planning or pre-EA or on the EISPN and the draft environmental documents so that your comments are documented and the developer knows of your concerns. Attend meetings n testify; gather political support from both the County and State. If your Rep does not agree with you, have a community informational meeting that would rally support. Large numbers of constituents sometimes change a disagreeing politician. And if stuff dont go your way, work w/your former opponent for concessions and to improve relations to reduce the adversarial relationship that may drag the community. If you need to go to court, abide and respect the outcome. Moving the prison to Halawa and the ‘New Aloha Stadium Entertainment District,’ are two projects currently on our radar. We will see what happens…
Maybe that would work, but just as likely, after all that time and expense, someone opposed will still end up chaining themselves to a cattle gate to stop the project.
Real ‘community based planning’ means the community’s elected reps must have the final vote.
Kahuku and Waimanalo Protests show why Hawaii Needs Municipal Government
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/24345/Kahuku-and-Waimanalo-Protests-show-why-Hawaii-Needs-Municipal-Government.aspx
Add to the “two projects currently on our radar…” Ala Wai Watershed, bridge over the Ala Wai, Ala Moana Community Park playground public-private partnership, to name 3 biggies. Tomorrow, Sat 10/25 morning there’s a grassroots gathering of folks who feel like their more than ample push back not to build a children’s area and dog park at Ala Moana has been ignored by our Mayor (running, he says, for gov).
In my experience, there is not the necessary support from community members, taxpayers or elected officials to have broad based community participation in community and project planning. This is primarily because State, county and community leaders in Hawaii have never sought the level of funding and staffing needed to create such participation, establish a broad consensus, and act expeditiously to implement the projects that have widespread support.
Typically, the budget and staffing for community planning or project planning is sufficient only for the bare minimum required by law. Community outreach and consensus building is seen as nice to have, but not as critical as other components of the planning and design activities if budget choices have to be made.
In Honolulu, the Council is often reluctant to fund increases in staffing or budgets even when department responsibilities have substantially increased. Staff are urged to do more with less. Often, the result is that with less, only less can be done.
As a result, consultants, instead of government staff, are selected through competitive processes to provide the bulk of the staff who conduct community outreach and interviews, produce the plan documents and project reports and designs, and help shepherd the plan and projects through the approval process. Their incentive is to do the minimum required so as to contain costs. (Many of these government contracts are notoriously unprofitable because of delays and mission creep.
The community members also share some responsibility for the lack of outreach and consultation. Some active communities fill the gap in public outreach and consensus building by helping publicize plan and project discussions, recruit participants, and sponsor community consensus building. However, such communities are rare.
More typically, planning and project community meetings are lightly attended, involving a few regulars who rarely represent the entire range of stakeholders affected by the plan or project.
The bottom line is that you get what you pay for. Skimping on funds for staffing and outreach to build consensus on what our future should be will continue to prove to be short sighted. Communities that have successfully reinvented themselves and created livable, efficient, and environmentally sustainable neighborhoods and job centers typically have at their center a strong grass roots organization which provides the community blessing for plans and projects based on hours of discussion and consensus building involving all the major stakeholders.
In the late ’70s I joined the Makiki Community Association – mainly because they came to my door. They had organized volunteers to go door-to-door to discuss what we wanted to see in the huge space the sugar planters were giving to the city. City planners wanted to make ball fields. The community (from that survey) wanted a community garden, trees, jogging paths, picnic tables, a library … The community fought and got what they wanted.
I tell this story because the city learned something from this. By 1981 they created Neighborhood Boards – basically rubber stamps. The city learned that they did *not* want communities organizing or advocating — just “approving.”
One other story about Hawaii government limitations: In ’94 after four years in Seattle, I returned to Hawaii with experience in & knowledge of online communication. I attended a Honolulu conference that was ‘introducing the internet’ to government agencies. I was not invited, nor registered, just lurking — but I could not keep my seat. I finally stood to tell them that all their wonderful plans for using the internet to inform people were backwards; the people were going to be empowered to inform THEM of what they wanted. I advised them to prepare for that. They still don’t seem to understand that concept – except to more devise ways to prevent input.
I am now back in Seattle, and I keep up with Honolulu news even though I doubt I will be able to return. Here I watch real citizen input in government. It *is* written into law; the community *is* invited into every planning process; there *are* seats on every committee for community volunteers. Even the new ‘umbrella’ homeless group has homeless people working with them as planners and advisors! Here I almost feel spoiled by the ease of being a volunteer who can help with community planning. Here the culture of citizen responsibility – of kuleana – is respected.
I used to think the difference was economics – it is far easier to live on a limited budget in Seattle. As Lee Cataluna says, families in Hawaii are so stressed, so busy. I haven’t forgotten that. But, I still don’t think that is the only problem (and certainly not one that can’t be accommodated!).
People in Hawaii have always made time – passionately – for the things that affect their families, their lives. Sadly, it is usually to fight, not build. And those fights take their toll.
Why is there no place for people to DESIGN their future in Hawaii? A real place, not just the token workshop/conference that applauds itself and then shelves the ideas(!) People in Hawaii suffer millions of government offenses – ‘paper cuts’ – until the pain builds up into explosive anger. How does the state/city not see the high, high costs of that kind of “citizen input”??
(Sorry for the venting … it’s been 40 years in the making.)
Sus Shawhan is right on the money. The people need to be planning our future not Caldwell and the developers/political contributors. I suggest separating the DPP into the Department of Planning and Department of Permitting.
Mahalo, Mark. As a side note, I once had the opportunity as a student on a SIMCONCON panel to ask Paul Ehrlich why there should be a fourth branch of government for Planning, instead of just just agencies/departments (something I believed in – and still believe in). Planning for our future should be as instrumental in defining our Constitutional rights and as powerful as the other three branches in adjudicating on how our rights are protected. In other words, in making “Planning for the Future” a branch of Government — we are saying Future Generations belong at the table.
WELL IAN & FRIENDS,
#1
As long as the whole island of (fill in the blank) is under the municipal blanket of the City and County of (fill in the blank), “real community-based planning” will never truly be “empowered” because that’s the way the system was designed!
Sure, when it comes to festivals, parades, neighborhood restaurants, and beauty pageants different parts of each island in the state is dripping and drooling with unique cultures and perspectives. But when it comes to urban planning and development each island reverts back to one big generic City and County of (fill in the blank again).
So when a BIG development project comes forward a SMALL group of nameless, faceless, but very important group of somebody’s signs here, signs there, and rubber stamp–rubber stamp, the project is pushed through. But wait, the people object and raise concern! No problem, the people are told in legalese and urban planning fancy talk why they are wrong and there is nothing that can be done according to Code # (fill in the blank) and Judge (fill in the blank).
#2
Regarding (1) rail, (2) Condo/hotel project (fill in the blank), (3) Contentious government project (fill in the blank), talk about case-studies in using PR firms to win over hearts and minds and manipulate “community” hearings and meetings. Seriously, every PR firm in town wants a piece of that urban planning pie because it’s so lucrative.
Sorry, but I don’t see this game changing anytime soon.
PS: Ian, you and your peers have been fighting and waging epic and noble battles since the 60’s. Is it safe to say you and your peers are getting tired and burned out?
I wouldn’t blame you if you were. It’s too bad people have to fight so hard to get something done.
miss the friday felines, but really like your article, ian.