Save Punaluu.org Press Release

NEW COMMENTS ON SEA MOUNTAIN DEIS

December 22, 2006

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Office of Hawaiian Affairs: "DEIS is Offensive and Insulting"

-- Development is Unconstitutional

-- County Councilman Bob Jacobson: "Hold Public Meetings"

-- Comments to be Uploaded on www.savepunaluu.org

Hundreds of citizens and organizations have delivered additional comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed luxury housing development at Punalu`u.

These comments provide additional reasons why the Hawaii County Public Planning Dept. should reject the DEIS and stop the proposed development.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs: "DEIS is Offensive and Insulting"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In their comments on the DEIS, The Office of Hawaiian Affairs states, "OHA objects to the proposed development at Punalu`u and it is our position that the project will have great adverse impacts on the natural, cultural, aesthetic and visual resources of Punalu`u."

"...the whole ahupua`a should be treated as a revered ancestor, not simply as an area imbued with mana and history..." "...OHA asks that the applicant honor the intent of the South Kona-Ka`u Coastal Land Conservation Land Task Force, including that of a "no build area" within 1.5 miles of the coastline for the entirety of the Ka`u coast."

Learn More About OHA

Development is Unconstitutional

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many comments submitted reference Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution that "reaffirms and shall protect all rights, traditionally and customarily practiced for subsistence, cultural and religous purposes and possessed by ahupua`a tenants." This constitutional directive has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii in a series of landmark decisions.

According to comments made by OHA, "the complete disregard for listing known and potential adverse impacts to cultural resources... violates the Constitutional intent to protect and perpetuate Native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights." OHA concludes their comments with the painful reality if the development is allowed to be built at Punaluu, "...the DEIS does a poor job of representing the importance of Punalu`u, namely its significance for the survival of Native Hawaiian culture in the district of Ka`u."

Learn More About the Hawaii State Constitution

County Councilman Bob Jacobson: "Hold Public Meetings"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Having attended the private "members only" meeting of the developer's lobbying group O Kau Kakou (OKK) on Dec. 7th, where a Ka`u Preservation member was asked to leave, Councilman Jacobson commented on the importance of the developer hearing from the people of Ka`u, instead of only hearing from members of their group OKK: "I would suggest that Group 70 hold an informational meeting open to all Ka‘u residents rather than catering to a specific group for specific reasons." Danny Miller, a member of Ka`u Preservation and a resident of Ka`u was asked to leave the OKK meeting on Dec. 7th. According to Miller, "When I tried to attend the meeting, I was asked to leave. Even after I signed up as a member's guest, I was told I had to leave. Then I was forced to join the developer's club and pay $1 and become a member if I wanted to stay. Then they warned me that if I asked questions, or said anything during the meeting, it would not be tolerated and it was very threatening. I felt like my rights as a citizen had been stripped away. How can OKK, that is financed by the developer "negotiate" with the developer? This is ridiculous and a clear conflict of interest as everyone knows OKK has recieved funding guarantees totaling $50,000 from the developer! The public should be allowed to participate in decisions that will impact our lives."

Councilman, Jacobson also commented on the developers offer to give 1 million dollars to the Ka`u Hospital: "$1 million to a hospital is like “spitting into the wind.” The hospital is barely sufficient to care for the existing residents. A significant population increase will require major increases in staffing and equipment, expenses which far outpace a $1 million donation."