WRITTEN TESTIMONY – DRIP-25, BILL 108 (2026) – OPPOSE
Chair and Members of the DRIP:
I oppose Bill 108.
Some of you have spent decades in government. Before you repeal the 1998 Kihei-Makena Community Plan and replace it with another twenty-year plan, answer a simple question:
What happened to the last one?
What was promised? What was completed? What remains unfinished? What did it cost? Why are major infrastructure problems still unresolved?
Your own Bill 108 acknowledges continued residential, commercial, and resort development while stating that South Maui's major roads are already heavily used and at capacity and that additional development will place severe burdens on them. It also acknowledges that development impact fees will recover only part of government's growth-related costs, leaving existing residents responsible for part of the expense.
That is not sustainable planning.
Before planning more growth, determine Maui's maximum sustainable carrying capacity.
Maui is an isolated volcanic island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. There is no highway off this island. Residents cannot evacuate by road to another county during a catastrophe.
The 2023 Maui fires killed 102 people. Maui has already experienced what happens when roads, communications, utilities, water systems and emergency resources are stressed during a catastrophic event. Government should not need another disaster to understand that infrastructure and emergency capacity must come before additional growth.
Maui County tells residents to be prepared with fourteen days of emergency supplies because of Hawaiʻi's isolation and dependence on ships and aircraft. Government should apply the same standard to itself.
If residents must be Two Weeks Ready, Maui County should be Two Weeks Ready.
How many residents and visitors can Maui feed and provide with water if normal deliveries stop? How much fuel is available? How long can hospitals, water systems, wastewater systems and emergency generators operate? How many people can be moved to safety and sheltered when roads or utilities fail?
Those questions should be answered before deciding how many more people and developments Maui can accommodate.
The same standard should apply to every significant parcel change in this plan: Who requested it? What is the current designation? What additional development does the change allow? What additional infrastructure does it require? Who pays for it? What measurable public benefit does Maui receive?
And when public money is spent, make every dollar traceable. Who requested it? Who received it? Who recommended it? Who voted for it? How was the recipient selected? What relationships or conflicts were disclosed? What was promised, and what did taxpayers actually receive?
The same goes for political money. Consider how much private money is spent election after election promoting politicians. I would rather see more of that money voluntarily and lawfully invested directly into Maui—housing, infrastructure, emergency preparedness, parks and community needs.
Build something. Fix something. Help somebody.
My position is simple.
I will not support Bill 108, including a revised version, until you:
Audit the 1998 plan.
Determine Maui's maximum sustainable carrying capacity for residents and visitors under normal and emergency conditions.
Tell the public where Maui stands today compared with that maximum.
Require necessary infrastructure before or concurrently with additional growth.
Show what government promised.
Show what government completed.
Show what remains unfinished.
Show the maximum Maui can sustain.
Show what needs to be built, what it costs, who pays for it, and when it will be finished.
You have decades of government experience. You have nearly thirty years of results from the last plan. You have the lessons of the 2023 fires. And your own legislation says South Maui's roads are already heavily used and at capacity.
You should already know enough to stop making promises and start accounting for results.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY – DRIP-25, BILL 108 (2026) – OPPOSE
Chair and Members of the DRIP:
I oppose Bill 108.
Some of you have spent decades in government. Before you repeal the 1998 Kihei-Makena Community Plan and replace it with another twenty-year plan, answer a simple question:
What happened to the last one?
What was promised? What was completed? What remains unfinished? What did it cost? Why are major infrastructure problems still unresolved?
Your own Bill 108 acknowledges continued residential, commercial, and resort development while stating that South Maui's major roads are already heavily used and at capacity and that additional development will place severe burdens on them. It also acknowledges that development impact fees will recover only part of government's growth-related costs, leaving existing residents responsible for part of the expense.
That is not sustainable planning.
Before planning more growth, determine Maui's maximum sustainable carrying capacity.
Maui is an isolated volcanic island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. There is no highway off this island. Residents cannot evacuate by road to another county during a catastrophe.
The 2023 Maui fires killed 102 people. Maui has already experienced what happens when roads, communications, utilities, water systems and emergency resources are stressed during a catastrophic event. Government should not need another disaster to understand that infrastructure and emergency capacity must come before additional growth.
Maui County tells residents to be prepared with fourteen days of emergency supplies because of Hawaiʻi's isolation and dependence on ships and aircraft. Government should apply the same standard to itself.
If residents must be Two Weeks Ready, Maui County should be Two Weeks Ready.
How many residents and visitors can Maui feed and provide with water if normal deliveries stop? How much fuel is available? How long can hospitals, water systems, wastewater systems and emergency generators operate? How many people can be moved to safety and sheltered when roads or utilities fail?
Those questions should be answered before deciding how many more people and developments Maui can accommodate.
The same standard should apply to every significant parcel change in this plan: Who requested it? What is the current designation? What additional development does the change allow? What additional infrastructure does it require? Who pays for it? What measurable public benefit does Maui receive?
And when public money is spent, make every dollar traceable. Who requested it? Who received it? Who recommended it? Who voted for it? How was the recipient selected? What relationships or conflicts were disclosed? What was promised, and what did taxpayers actually receive?
The same goes for political money. Consider how much private money is spent election after election promoting politicians. I would rather see more of that money voluntarily and lawfully invested directly into Maui—housing, infrastructure, emergency preparedness, parks and community needs.
Build something. Fix something. Help somebody.
My position is simple.
I will not support Bill 108, including a revised version, until you:
Audit the 1998 plan.
Determine Maui's maximum sustainable carrying capacity for residents and visitors under normal and emergency conditions.
Tell the public where Maui stands today compared with that maximum.
Require necessary infrastructure before or concurrently with additional growth.
Show what government promised.
Show what government completed.
Show what remains unfinished.
Show the maximum Maui can sustain.
Show what needs to be built, what it costs, who pays for it, and when it will be finished.
You have decades of government experience. You have nearly thirty years of results from the last plan. You have the lessons of the 2023 fires. And your own legislation says South Maui's roads are already heavily used and at capacity.
You should already know enough to stop making promises and start accounting for results.
Until you do, I oppose Bill 108.