To the Housing and Land Use Committee,
I am submitting this testimony to document and highlight the procedural and substantive concerns surrounding the Wailea 670 amendments. The decisions being made here will not only have a long-lasting negative impact on Maui but could also result in significant legal consequences for the council, committee, and individual members involved.
Procedural and Substantive Concerns:
1. Overwhelming Public Opposition Ignored:
o The committee received approximately 125-150 testimonies, with an overwhelming majority opposing the amendments. Despite this, the amendments continue to move forward, suggesting that public input is being disregarded.
2. Rushed Approval Process:
o The attempt to finalize these amendments before year-end is questionable given:
A pending Hawaiʻi Supreme Court decision regarding Councilmember Tom Cook, which could alter the council's composition.
The potential for a leadership change in the Housing and Land Use Committee, possibly introducing resistance to the amendments.
3. Affordable Housing Reduced:
o A motion to hold the developer accountable for providing 450 affordable units was rejected, and instead, the requirement was reduced to 288 units—despite the ongoing housing crisis in Maui.
4. Unfulfilled Developer Obligations:
o The developer has failed to meet key conditions from the 2008 project approval, including a $5,000,000 deposit to the County of Maui and road widening requirements. Now, these obligations are being renegotiated, raising concerns about favoritism and a lack of accountability.
5. Infrastructure and Long-Term Island Impact:
o The infrastructure improvements needed to support this development, particularly road widening, have become necessary at a broader regional level due to increased development in Wailea and Makena. Relying on the developer to address these systemic issues is both unrealistic and inadequate.
Potential Legal Consequences:
The council, committee, and its members risk exposure to legal challenges if these decisions continue to favor the developer at the expense of the public interest. Potential legal ramifications include:
1. Violation of Public Trust Doctrine:
o Approving projects that fail to protect Maui’s natural resources or public welfare may lead to lawsuits under the Hawaiʻi State Constitution’s public trust doctrine, which mandates responsible management of resources for current and future generations.
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty:
o Council members and committees are legally obligated to act in the best interests of their constituents. Prioritizing developer interests over public needs could be construed as a breach of this duty, resulting in legal action.
3. Administrative Lawsuits:
o Procedural irregularities, such as rushing approvals or ignoring public testimony, may result in administrative appeals or lawsuits against the county for failing to follow due process.
4. State Ethics Violations:
o The perceived favoritism toward developers and the renegotiation of conditions could prompt investigations into potential conflicts of interest or violations of Hawaiʻi’s ethics laws.
Conclusion:
The committee’s actions will have far-reaching consequences for Maui. Moving forward with these amendments will exacerbate the island’s housing crisis, strain infrastructure, and deepen public distrust in government institutions. Furthermore, the committee’s decisions open the door to legal challenges that could stall progress and damage the credibility of Maui County governance.
I strongly urge the committee to reject these amendments, enforce the original conditions of the 2008 project approval, and prioritize the long-term welfare of Maui residents.
Edward Codelia
To the Housing and Land Use Committee,
I am submitting this testimony to document and highlight the procedural and substantive concerns surrounding the Wailea 670 amendments. The decisions being made here will not only have a long-lasting negative impact on Maui but could also result in significant legal consequences for the council, committee, and individual members involved.
Procedural and Substantive Concerns:
1. Overwhelming Public Opposition Ignored:
o The committee received approximately 125-150 testimonies, with an overwhelming majority opposing the amendments. Despite this, the amendments continue to move forward, suggesting that public input is being disregarded.
2. Rushed Approval Process:
o The attempt to finalize these amendments before year-end is questionable given:
A pending Hawaiʻi Supreme Court decision regarding Councilmember Tom Cook, which could alter the council's composition.
The potential for a leadership change in the Housing and Land Use Committee, possibly introducing resistance to the amendments.
3. Affordable Housing Reduced:
o A motion to hold the developer accountable for providing 450 affordable units was rejected, and instead, the requirement was reduced to 288 units—despite the ongoing housing crisis in Maui.
4. Unfulfilled Developer Obligations:
o The developer has failed to meet key conditions from the 2008 project approval, including a $5,000,000 deposit to the County of Maui and road widening requirements. Now, these obligations are being renegotiated, raising concerns about favoritism and a lack of accountability.
5. Infrastructure and Long-Term Island Impact:
o The infrastructure improvements needed to support this development, particularly road widening, have become necessary at a broader regional level due to increased development in Wailea and Makena. Relying on the developer to address these systemic issues is both unrealistic and inadequate.
Potential Legal Consequences:
The council, committee, and its members risk exposure to legal challenges if these decisions continue to favor the developer at the expense of the public interest. Potential legal ramifications include:
1. Violation of Public Trust Doctrine:
o Approving projects that fail to protect Maui’s natural resources or public welfare may lead to lawsuits under the Hawaiʻi State Constitution’s public trust doctrine, which mandates responsible management of resources for current and future generations.
2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty:
o Council members and committees are legally obligated to act in the best interests of their constituents. Prioritizing developer interests over public needs could be construed as a breach of this duty, resulting in legal action.
3. Administrative Lawsuits:
o Procedural irregularities, such as rushing approvals or ignoring public testimony, may result in administrative appeals or lawsuits against the county for failing to follow due process.
4. State Ethics Violations:
o The perceived favoritism toward developers and the renegotiation of conditions could prompt investigations into potential conflicts of interest or violations of Hawaiʻi’s ethics laws.
Conclusion:
The committee’s actions will have far-reaching consequences for Maui. Moving forward with these amendments will exacerbate the island’s housing crisis, strain infrastructure, and deepen public distrust in government institutions. Furthermore, the committee’s decisions open the door to legal challenges that could stall progress and damage the credibility of Maui County governance.
I strongly urge the committee to reject these amendments, enforce the original conditions of the 2008 project approval, and prioritize the long-term welfare of Maui residents.
Edward Codelia