The Honolulu Advertiser reports “Lingle wants Ka Iwi coast free of development,” about the Governor’s efforts “paving the way for the final step in preserving the most accessiblewild coastline on O’ahu for generations to come.”
And just how is the Governor proposing to “preserve” this privately-owned and urban-zoned land from the “threat of development,” you ask? “[B]y asking the stateLand Use Commission to reclassify the Ka Iwi shoreline from urban toconservation,” that’s how. In other words, downzone it.
As the article notes, this area has long been a battleground between the right to make reasonable use of private property and at least one segment of the public’s desire to prohibit development. Several cases have arisen from the area, the most well-known of which was the “Sandy Beach” case involving the “5” and “6” parcels down the road from the :
The land, while zoned preservation by the county, has a statedesignation of urban, which could leave room for rezoning anddevelopment. In 2006, the state completed a $5 million improvement plancreated with Ka Iwi Action Coalition support that placed utility linesunderground, created a clearly marked trail to the Makapu’u lighthouse,placed parking inside the park and barred off-road vehicles fromdriving in the shoreline park areas.
The community praised thegovernor’s efforts. At a time when a proposal to build vacation cabinson the land mauka of the Ka Iwi Scenic Shoreline is still beingconsidered by developers, the community is looking at ways to make surethe land remains undeveloped, said Greg Knudsen, Hawai’i KaiNeighborhood Board chairman.
“It is a further step in theprotection of those lands,” Knudsen said. “The reclassification makesthe state and county designations more consistent. The community couldthen be assured that the intent of the area will remain undeveloped.”
When the government desires for private property to remain undeveloped
the just compensation requirement was “designed to barGovernment from forcing some people alone to bearpublic burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne bythe public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).