Kahana: what was, what is, what can be. - Legislative Reference ...

KAHANA: WHAT WAS, WHAT IS, WHAT CAN BE
which allegedly served as the basis for the Board's "Approved Policies for the
Implementation of the Kahana Valley State Park Development Plan." 89
The Kahana Advisory Committee's Development Plan was positively modest
when compared to previous plans: it was that of "restored trails, irrigation systems, taro
lo`i, a restored fishpond, renovated or rebuilt homes, and a canoe halau." 90 The plan
would have helped restore a modified rural lifestyle lived by its residents, eighty percent
of whom were of Hawaiian ancestry.
The report recommended establishing a private nonprofit corporation to develop
and maintain Kahana, with the central goal of developing and operating cultural,
historical, and educational types of recreational activities, and secondarily to operate
non-cultural recreational activities, such as swimming and picnicking. The nonprofit
would be funded through the Department of Land and Natural Resources as a purchase
of services, although CIP money would also be expected. 91 This nonprofit would hold
the master lease for Kahana, and would grant the lessees tenure in the valley in the
form of "cooperative long-term lease rights." 92 The DLNR would monitor the valley, the
nonprofit would monitor the people, and the people would also monitor each other. As
an additional check and balance, the master lease would have a provision allowing
DLNR to cancel the lease if the non-profit did not fulfill its commitments.
Note that here too the successorship provisions are short-sighted: a lessee
would have to be someone who has "lived in the valley continuously since November 8,
1985," a provision that is not going to hold up into the next generation. 93 There were
provisions that allowed the nonprofit to recommend a replacement to the Department of
Land and Natural Resources if a family moved out, but no specific requirements for that
recommendation.
Another ongoing issue that the report sought to address was that of housing.
DLNR had asked the Kahana Advisory Committee for three options on the housing, and
those options were: (1) Dwellings to remain in the same place but be renovated or
rebuilt up to code; (2) Dwellings moved to a new village area and rebuilt or moved and
renovated up to code; and (3) Half of the families to relocate to the new village, and the
other half to be tied to specific park projects and rebuilt or renovated where they are. 94
The committee's recommendation was option one, because of the historical and cultural
reasons for the locations, for better security, and for a reduced cost to the State. The
nonprofit and the individual families would be responsible for the costs of the dwellings,
although the State would pay for infrastructure.
The report acknowledges that integrating the Kahana residents into a cultural
living park has been "incredibly complex" and that the "process has already taken fifteen
years and the road has often been rocky." 95
The draft report was accepted for review by the BLNR but not adopted. The
Board did not make a formal statement as to the reason it was rejected. However, other
associated with Kahana indicate that one major reason it was rejected was a dislike of
20