LEO 'ELELE - TRUSTEE MESSAGES

Legacy or income?

Vice-Chair Walter M. Heen Trustee, O'ahu

In this session of the Legislature, OHA is facing a question that up to now has been in the background of our attempts to get the state to formally acknowledge and pay back rent to OHA for using ceded lands. The question is, when the Legislature considers what lands to transfer to OHA, should the emphasis be on so-called "legacy" lands or income-producing lands? The question is important and the answer has a distinct effect on present transfers and such future transfers as may be undertaken when the sovereign nation is formed, or restored.

Legacy lands may be considered as parcels of whatever size and wherever situated that are important to the preservation and perpetuation of the Hawaiian culture.

In this legislative session, OHA submitted bills in both houses that would transfer ownership to OHA of lands in Kaka'ako and Hilo. Those are income-producing lands. Both the House and the Senate have removed the Hilo lands from the bills. However, the Senate bill goes a considerable distance further and adds other parcels of land, mostly on O'ahu.

Sen. Clayton Hee's Committee on Hawaiian Affairs inserted a number of parcels into the Senate bill to be transferred to OHA: Kahana Valley and Beach Park; the La Mariana restaurant and adjoining submerged lands; accreted lands forming the peninsula at the confluence of the mouths of the Moanalua and Kalihi streams; He'eia Meadowlands; Mauna Kea; and all state-owned fishponds.

Kahana Valley and Beach Park, Mauna Kea, the fishponds and perhaps parts of He'eia Meadowlands fall within the category of legacy lands. Certainly, Kahana and Mauna Kea are extremely important in the cultural heritage and history of the Hawaiian people.

The other properties involved here, Kaka'ako, La Mariana, the peninsula and perhaps part of the Meadowlands are possible income generators. However, those parcels will only generate income after OHA has been able to rehabilitate them, rid them of environmental and toxic hazards, if any, and find partners to engage with OHA in developing them. This developmental activity is extremely important and underscores all of OHA's decisions on acceptance of proffered properties.

As trustees, the OHA Board of Trustees must consider all properties with several questions in mind: "Will this acquisition serve the best interests of the trust's beneficiaries? If this is cultural land, does OHA have the resources to rehabilitate, protect and maintain it? If it is property with the potential for income production, how can we best take advantage of that potential?"

At the present time, OHA is the owner of three cultural parcels: Wao Kele O Puna, Waimea Valley and Makaweli Poi Factory. Wao Kele does not produce income and all necessary upkeep must be borne entirely by OHA's available funds. Waimea does produce some income, but it is spotty, and at the present time is not sufficient to make it truly self-sufficient. Makaweli Poi also has a spotty record of income production; there have been times when production has fallen off for one reason or another. When income falls off on Waimea and Makaweli then, of course, OHA must step in with assistance.

The point of this rather broad-ranging discussion is that OHA must carefully weigh the pros and cons of all properties that it may seek to acquire, that may be given to it by private individuals or bodies, or that may be part of a legislative enactment. OHA must be allowed to do inspection and analysis of all physical aspects of the property, to determine whether or not it can provide income for its own maintenance operation and, if not, whether OHA has the income to maintain it.