DRIP-25 / Bill 108 (2026) — Verification of Historical Land Ownership and Property Rights
Chair and Members of the DRIP Committee:
As the Committee considers the South Maui Growth Framework, I ask that it address a fundamental question concerning the lands being designated for future development.
If historical Land Commission Awards, Royal Patents, and surviving ownership interests establish that the persons currently identified as property owners do not possess lawful title, what responsibility does Maui County have to investigate and correct those discrepancies before adopting land-use designations affecting those properties?
The consequences could extend beyond the Community Plan itself. They could involve the validity of ownership representations, prior development applications, required owner authorizations, notification of affected parties, and the protection of legally recognized property and Native Hawaiian rights.
I respectfully request that the Committee direct the Planning Department and Corporation Counsel to:
1. Identify the current parcels associated with the historical Land Commission Awards and Royal Patents raised in the public record.
2. Determine whether the County has verified the ownership information on which proposed Growth Framework designations are based.
3. Identify any documented unresolved ownership interests, title disputes, or legally protected rights affecting those parcels.
4. Explain what procedures exist to notify affected parties and address material discrepancies.
5. Advise whether decisions involving disputed parcels should be deferred until the necessary legal and factual review is completed.
The Committee is not being asked to adjudicate ownership. It is being asked to determine whether the County possesses sufficiently reliable information to make decisions affecting these lands.
If the allegations of incorrect ownership are substantiated, proceeding without addressing them could create additional disputes and expose the County and affected parties to substantial consequences.
Before the County establishes new development potential, it should establish that its planning decisions are based on accurate property records and that legally protected interests have been appropriately considered.
I respectfully request a response from Corporation Counsel and the Planning Department before the Committee finalizes its recommendations on affected parcels.
Myself along with over 20 different ohana highly oppose this. The lands you have been discussing in this meetings about south/south east Maui have incorrect information, because the supposed "owners" you guys have been talking about are the incorrect and illegal owners. The OWNERS of those lands ARE THE ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDERS from the mahele made by the Hawaiian Kingdom from Kamehameha 3 & By GOD that belongs to the ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDERS & their descendants FOREVER!!
Not only these plans are a state violation from HRS but is a violation on an interernational level being hawaiian kingdom lands!!!! RETURN THE LANDS TO THE ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDER and descendants BY LAW!!!
Allodial Titles are Forever for kanaka maoli/Kanaka Hawaii Maoli, and Fee Simple or Lease (only 30 years) are for Aliens. The Aliens can never own Allodial Titles which is exclusively for kanaka maoli/Kanaka Hawaii Maoli only.
The Usurpers moved to promote Fraud, Deceit, Criminal Malfeasance, piracy, pillaging, racketeering, privateering, Genocide to criminally claim what they could never own. Allodial lands are forever, and forever lands which are the Paramount, Superior Titles deeded to kanaka maoli Kamehameha III & By GOD- Kauikeaouli.
A small list naming a few of original title holders/owners of those lands and if developed( to name only a portion of the families) you will be misplacing the families of-
Kukaheku-Helu: 1495
Maaweiki-Helu: 1483:1
Kaleo-1484:2
Nahualalaau Helu:-1482
Manu-Helu: 1498:2
Kenui-Helu: 1476
Paaluhi-Helu: 1479
Kalili-Helu: 1499:1
Maaweiki-Helu: 1483:2
Kaku-Helu: 1481
Nawaiki-Helu: 1497
Nana-Helu: 1496
Maluai-Helu: 1500:2
Claimant: Malihini-Helu: 1987
Claimant: Kukahiko-Helu: 3362
Kahaleokaia-Helu: 2623:1
Kanakahou-Helu: 3088
Kohilae-Helu: 2401:4
Kiniakua-Helu: 2658:1
Mahoe-Helu: 835
Halaau-Helu 1291
Mahiai-Helu: 1477
Haakaloa-Helu: 1292:1
Samuela-Helu: 2914
Koeaa-Helu: 1232
Pinea- Helu: 1228:2
Piho- Helu: 1287
Kenui&Kalaluhim: Helu-1490
Napua- Helu: 1489:1
Kinolua- Helu: 2398:5
Kiha- Helu 2431:3
Hoomilanuhi- Helu: 2200
Kaianui- Helu: 1425:1
Kapilima- Helu: 2202
+More who have never been even compensated, CONTACTED or involved with this!!! No matter if sold which the original title holders would LEASE, THEY OWN THE LANDS NOW AND FOREVER
The original title holder from the mahele and their descendants own them FOREVER thats what ano alodio is ALLODIAL TITLE meaning FOREVER and sense the state of hawaii based 172-11 off of hawaiian kingdom law, the word inure is supposed to be ENURE because Kamehameha 3 DID NOT use the blackstone legal dictionary with the word inure, Kamehameha 3 used the word "ENURE" which Kamehameha 3 used from the french law book!!!!!! TWO COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT MEANINGS!! SO THAT MEANS ALL THE ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDERS ALL THE ROYAL PATTENTED LANDS and sense ALL HAWAII is royal pattented the descendants of the original royal pattent holders IN FACT DO OWN ALL THOSE LANDS NO MATTER IF you assume they SOLD& NO MATTER WHAT!!!! 99% of the illegal owners who developed that area are NOT descendants of the original title holders which makes them being there illegal because the lands were supposed to revert back to then original title holder and their descendant's FOREVER Ano alodio ALLODIAL TITLED BY KAMEHAMEHA 3 & GOD
Chair and Members of the DRIP Committee:
As the Committee reviews the Growth Framework and evaluates South Maui's existing and future housing supply, I would like to raise a related implementation question.
How does the South Maui Community Plan account for existing residential units that may be physically present and counted as housing inventory but are subject to unresolved County permitting, SMA, enforcement, infrastructure, title, or compliance issues that prevent or materially impair their sale, refinancing, rental, occupancy, or improvement?
Bill 108 is attempting to establish a long-term framework for housing, population and future development. That analysis should distinguish between the number of residential units that exist on paper and the number that are actually available and legally functional as housing.
This also raises a broader question about existing development.
If a County department has previously determined that work affecting an existing residential property requires an SMA permit, other authorization, corrective action, or enforcement, what process ensures that the determination is actually resolved? Who is responsible for bringing the property into compliance, and what assistance is provided to an affected property owner who is attempting to correct the condition?
A Community Plan should not focus exclusively on creating additional housing opportunities while existing housing is effectively removed from normal use because of unresolved County regulatory or enforcement matters.
I therefore ask the Committee to consider whether Bill 108's implementation provisions should include a policy requiring the appropriate County departments to:
1. timely resolve outstanding County permitting and enforcement matters affecting existing residential housing;
2. provide affected property owners with a clear written path to compliance;
3. identify the responsible department and required corrective actions; and
4. distinguish between nominal housing inventory and housing that is actually legally available for residential use when evaluating South Maui's housing supply.
This does not require the DRIP Committee to decide individual permitting or property disputes. It asks the County to ensure that its planning assumptions about existing housing correspond to conditions on the ground.
Before identifying the need for thousands of additional potential units, the County should also understand whether existing South Maui housing is being lost or rendered unusable because unresolved governmental, permitting, infrastructure, or enforcement issues have not been addressed.
Aloha, Chair Paltin, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Frank Wanca. I have lived at 355 South Kihei Road since 2001, and I own two of the four units at Alii Beach Residential Condominium. I am testifying as an individual on the Growth Framework.
My ask is one sentence: that the Growth Framework, or this committee's report on it, say in plain words that the County will enforce its own SMA determinations on existing housing, and that Departments will answer owners who ask how to comply. Here is why that sentence matters to a plan that counts South Maui's housing supply.
I am not here to fight anyone. For nine years, since the day the County set those meters, I have been trying not to fight anyone. I am trying to sell one house and refinance the other, keep this from getting worse, and fix what is there so I can. Today there is a cloud on the title to all four units at Alii Beach, mine included. A three-bedroom house across the road from the beach cannot be sold, refinanced or rented. My own home cannot be refinanced; I am a veteran, and I cannot use my VA home loan benefit on it while this stands. One South Maui housing unit gone from the supply this plan is measuring, and a second one frozen.
The cause is the County's. In November 2017 the Department of Water Supply set two extra water meters on our condominium's common land with no SMA permit. On November 24, 2020 the Planning Department put in writing that the work "is not covered by any SMA exemption or permit," closed the application, and said the Department "will initiate enforcement against the unpermitted work." That was almost six years ago. There has been no enforcement, no permit, and no change. The letter went only to the applicants; I own half the land it sits on, and I first saw it in the County's own records this May. In 2025, service lines were run from those meters under an exemption the Planning Department issued without the owner authorizations its own file says are required.
Yesterday I filed a formal complaint with the Planning Director, and I sent the Planning Director and the Water Supply Director a letter asking five things in writing within thirty days: enforce the 2020 decision and say when; lift the cloud, by removing the 2017 work or legalizing it; name who the County holds responsible; revoke the 2024 exemption; and if the County will do none of these, say so in writing.
So, again, the one thing I ask of this committee: put it in the plan that the County enforces its own SMA decisions on existing housing and answers owners who ask how to comply. Mahalo.
Frank Wanca, 355 South Kihei Road, Kihei. The letter referred to above was emailed to DRIP Committee staff on October 6, 2026.
DRIP-25 / Bill 108 (2026) — Verification of Historical Land Ownership and Property Rights
Chair and Members of the DRIP Committee:
As the Committee considers the South Maui Growth Framework, I ask that it address a fundamental question concerning the lands being designated for future development.
If historical Land Commission Awards, Royal Patents, and surviving ownership interests establish that the persons currently identified as property owners do not possess lawful title, what responsibility does Maui County have to investigate and correct those discrepancies before adopting land-use designations affecting those properties?
The consequences could extend beyond the Community Plan itself. They could involve the validity of ownership representations, prior development applications, required owner authorizations, notification of affected parties, and the protection of legally recognized property and Native Hawaiian rights.
I respectfully request that the Committee direct the Planning Department and Corporation Counsel to:
1. Identify the current parcels associated with the historical Land Commission Awards and Royal Patents raised in the public record.
2. Determine whether the County has verified the ownership information on which proposed Growth Framework designations are based.
3. Identify any documented unresolved ownership interests, title disputes, or legally protected rights affecting those parcels.
4. Explain what procedures exist to notify affected parties and address material discrepancies.
5. Advise whether decisions involving disputed parcels should be deferred until the necessary legal and factual review is completed.
The Committee is not being asked to adjudicate ownership. It is being asked to determine whether the County possesses sufficiently reliable information to make decisions affecting these lands.
If the allegations of incorrect ownership are substantiated, proceeding without addressing them could create additional disputes and expose the County and affected parties to substantial consequences.
Before the County establishes new development potential, it should establish that its planning decisions are based on accurate property records and that legally protected interests have been appropriately considered.
I respectfully request a response from Corporation Counsel and the Planning Department before the Committee finalizes its recommendations on affected parcels.
Dale Finkle
Maui Resident
Myself along with over 20 different ohana highly oppose this. The lands you have been discussing in this meetings about south/south east Maui have incorrect information, because the supposed "owners" you guys have been talking about are the incorrect and illegal owners. The OWNERS of those lands ARE THE ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDERS from the mahele made by the Hawaiian Kingdom from Kamehameha 3 & By GOD that belongs to the ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDERS & their descendants FOREVER!!
Not only these plans are a state violation from HRS but is a violation on an interernational level being hawaiian kingdom lands!!!! RETURN THE LANDS TO THE ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDER and descendants BY LAW!!!
Allodial Titles are Forever for kanaka maoli/Kanaka Hawaii Maoli, and Fee Simple or Lease (only 30 years) are for Aliens. The Aliens can never own Allodial Titles which is exclusively for kanaka maoli/Kanaka Hawaii Maoli only.
The Usurpers moved to promote Fraud, Deceit, Criminal Malfeasance, piracy, pillaging, racketeering, privateering, Genocide to criminally claim what they could never own. Allodial lands are forever, and forever lands which are the Paramount, Superior Titles deeded to kanaka maoli Kamehameha III & By GOD- Kauikeaouli.
A small list naming a few of original title holders/owners of those lands and if developed( to name only a portion of the families) you will be misplacing the families of-
Kukaheku-Helu: 1495
Maaweiki-Helu: 1483:1
Kaleo-1484:2
Nahualalaau Helu:-1482
Manu-Helu: 1498:2
Kenui-Helu: 1476
Paaluhi-Helu: 1479
Kalili-Helu: 1499:1
Maaweiki-Helu: 1483:2
Kaku-Helu: 1481
Nawaiki-Helu: 1497
Nana-Helu: 1496
Maluai-Helu: 1500:2
Claimant: Malihini-Helu: 1987
Claimant: Kukahiko-Helu: 3362
Kahaleokaia-Helu: 2623:1
Kanakahou-Helu: 3088
Kohilae-Helu: 2401:4
Kiniakua-Helu: 2658:1
Mahoe-Helu: 835
Halaau-Helu 1291
Mahiai-Helu: 1477
Haakaloa-Helu: 1292:1
Samuela-Helu: 2914
Koeaa-Helu: 1232
Pinea- Helu: 1228:2
Piho- Helu: 1287
Kenui&Kalaluhim: Helu-1490
Napua- Helu: 1489:1
Kinolua- Helu: 2398:5
Kiha- Helu 2431:3
Hoomilanuhi- Helu: 2200
Kaianui- Helu: 1425:1
Kapilima- Helu: 2202
+More who have never been even compensated, CONTACTED or involved with this!!! No matter if sold which the original title holders would LEASE, THEY OWN THE LANDS NOW AND FOREVER
The original title holder from the mahele and their descendants own them FOREVER thats what ano alodio is ALLODIAL TITLE meaning FOREVER and sense the state of hawaii based 172-11 off of hawaiian kingdom law, the word inure is supposed to be ENURE because Kamehameha 3 DID NOT use the blackstone legal dictionary with the word inure, Kamehameha 3 used the word "ENURE" which Kamehameha 3 used from the french law book!!!!!! TWO COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT MEANINGS!! SO THAT MEANS ALL THE ORIGINAL TITLE HOLDERS ALL THE ROYAL PATTENTED LANDS and sense ALL HAWAII is royal pattented the descendants of the original royal pattent holders IN FACT DO OWN ALL THOSE LANDS NO MATTER IF you assume they SOLD& NO MATTER WHAT!!!! 99% of the illegal owners who developed that area are NOT descendants of the original title holders which makes them being there illegal because the lands were supposed to revert back to then original title holder and their descendant's FOREVER Ano alodio ALLODIAL TITLED BY KAMEHAMEHA 3 & GOD
Chair and Members of the DRIP Committee:
As the Committee reviews the Growth Framework and evaluates South Maui's existing and future housing supply, I would like to raise a related implementation question.
How does the South Maui Community Plan account for existing residential units that may be physically present and counted as housing inventory but are subject to unresolved County permitting, SMA, enforcement, infrastructure, title, or compliance issues that prevent or materially impair their sale, refinancing, rental, occupancy, or improvement?
Bill 108 is attempting to establish a long-term framework for housing, population and future development. That analysis should distinguish between the number of residential units that exist on paper and the number that are actually available and legally functional as housing.
This also raises a broader question about existing development.
If a County department has previously determined that work affecting an existing residential property requires an SMA permit, other authorization, corrective action, or enforcement, what process ensures that the determination is actually resolved? Who is responsible for bringing the property into compliance, and what assistance is provided to an affected property owner who is attempting to correct the condition?
A Community Plan should not focus exclusively on creating additional housing opportunities while existing housing is effectively removed from normal use because of unresolved County regulatory or enforcement matters.
I therefore ask the Committee to consider whether Bill 108's implementation provisions should include a policy requiring the appropriate County departments to:
1. timely resolve outstanding County permitting and enforcement matters affecting existing residential housing;
2. provide affected property owners with a clear written path to compliance;
3. identify the responsible department and required corrective actions; and
4. distinguish between nominal housing inventory and housing that is actually legally available for residential use when evaluating South Maui's housing supply.
This does not require the DRIP Committee to decide individual permitting or property disputes. It asks the County to ensure that its planning assumptions about existing housing correspond to conditions on the ground.
Before identifying the need for thousands of additional potential units, the County should also understand whether existing South Maui housing is being lost or rendered unusable because unresolved governmental, permitting, infrastructure, or enforcement issues have not been addressed.
Jolee Bindo, Waikapu
Aloha, Chair Paltin, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Frank Wanca. I have lived at 355 South Kihei Road since 2001, and I own two of the four units at Alii Beach Residential Condominium. I am testifying as an individual on the Growth Framework.
My ask is one sentence: that the Growth Framework, or this committee's report on it, say in plain words that the County will enforce its own SMA determinations on existing housing, and that Departments will answer owners who ask how to comply. Here is why that sentence matters to a plan that counts South Maui's housing supply.
I am not here to fight anyone. For nine years, since the day the County set those meters, I have been trying not to fight anyone. I am trying to sell one house and refinance the other, keep this from getting worse, and fix what is there so I can. Today there is a cloud on the title to all four units at Alii Beach, mine included. A three-bedroom house across the road from the beach cannot be sold, refinanced or rented. My own home cannot be refinanced; I am a veteran, and I cannot use my VA home loan benefit on it while this stands. One South Maui housing unit gone from the supply this plan is measuring, and a second one frozen.
The cause is the County's. In November 2017 the Department of Water Supply set two extra water meters on our condominium's common land with no SMA permit. On November 24, 2020 the Planning Department put in writing that the work "is not covered by any SMA exemption or permit," closed the application, and said the Department "will initiate enforcement against the unpermitted work." That was almost six years ago. There has been no enforcement, no permit, and no change. The letter went only to the applicants; I own half the land it sits on, and I first saw it in the County's own records this May. In 2025, service lines were run from those meters under an exemption the Planning Department issued without the owner authorizations its own file says are required.
Yesterday I filed a formal complaint with the Planning Director, and I sent the Planning Director and the Water Supply Director a letter asking five things in writing within thirty days: enforce the 2020 decision and say when; lift the cloud, by removing the 2017 work or legalizing it; name who the County holds responsible; revoke the 2024 exemption; and if the County will do none of these, say so in writing.
So, again, the one thing I ask of this committee: put it in the plan that the County enforces its own SMA decisions on existing housing and answers owners who ask how to comply. Mahalo.
Frank Wanca, 355 South Kihei Road, Kihei. The letter referred to above was emailed to DRIP Committee staff on October 6, 2026.
test test