THE TUG OF WAR OVER WATERFRONT PROPERTY IN KAKAAKO MAKAI IS SUSPENDED, FOR NOW.

OWNED BY THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, THE AGENCY WANTS TO DEVELOP THE AREA TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, WHICH IS CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED, BUT COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS SAY THE COASTLINE SHOULD BE PRESERVED.

THE ISSUE WAS KILLED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, BUT OHA SAYS IT WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH THE EFFORT.

TONIGHT’S LIVE BROADCAST AND LIVE STREAM OF INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII START NOW.

ALOHA AND WELCOME TO INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII.

I'M LARA YAMADA.

IN 2012, 30 ACRES OF MOSTLY WATERFRONT PROPERTY IN KAKAAKO MAKAI WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS BY THE STATE.

IT WAS A SETTLEMENT FOR OVERDUE REVENUES OWED TO OHA THAT STEMMED FROM THE PUBLIC LAND TRUST.

THE VALUE OF THE LAND, WHICH IS ON THE MAKAI SIDE OF ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, IS ESTIMATED AT $200 MILLION.

OHA WANTS TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AS PART OF ITS MASTER PLAN TO GENERATE AS MUCH REVENUE AS POSSIBLE FOR BENEFICIARIES, BUT STATE LAWMAKERS BANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE LAND BACK IN 2006.

A BILL TO ALLOW IT MADE ITS WAY THROUGH THE STATE SENATE THIS YEAR, BUT HOUSE SPEAKER SCOTT SAIKI KILLED THE MEASURE LAST WEEK, WHEN HE TOLD OPPONENTS OF THE BILL THAT HE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO ADVANCE IN THE HOUSE, BUT THE ISSUE IS NOT GOING AWAY.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN TONIGHT'S SHOW.

YOU CAN EMAIL, CALL OR TWEET YOUR QUESTIONS.

AND YOU’LL FIND A LIVE STREAM OF THIS PROGRAM AT PBSHAWAII.ORG AND THE PBS HAWAII FACEBOOK PAGE.

NOW, TO OUR GUESTS.

CARMEN HULU LINDSEY HAS SERVED AS MAUI TRUSTEE FOR THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS SINCE 2012.

SHE IS CURRENTLY THE BOARD CHAIR.

SHE IS THE FORMER ADMINISTRATOR OF MAUI COUNTY’S LAND USE AND CODES DIVISION AND IS ALSO THE FORMER PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATOR OF MAUI LAND AND PINEAPPLE.

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR JARRETT KEOHOKALOLE REPRESENTS PARTS OF WINDWARD OAHU, INCLUDING KANEOHE, KAILUA AND 'AHUIMANU.

HE IS THE VICE‑CHAIR OF THE HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE CO‑CHAIR FOR THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS CAUCUS.

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SHARON MORIWAKI WAS ELECTED IN 2018.

HER DISTRICT INCLUDES WAIKIKI, ALA MOANA, KAKAAKO AND MOILIILI.

SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE AND ALSO THE FOUNDER OF THE NON‑PROFIT VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION, KAKAAKO UNITED.

AND RON IWAMI HAS BEEN THE PRESIDENT OF FRIENDS OF KEWALOS SINCE 2005.

THE NON‑PROFIT WAS FORMED BY RECREATIONAL USERS OF THE KEWALO BASIN PARK AREA.

THE GROUP’S MISSION IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE PARK AND THE SURROUNDING SHORELINE.

THE RETIRED HONOLULU FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPTAIN LOVES TO SURF IN HIS FREE TIME.

YOU CAN TELL BY HIS SHIRT IS THERE I THINK.

BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS, WE WANTED TO SHOW A MAP OF THE AREA THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REFERRING TO HERE.

TAKE A LOOK.

OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS HAS HIGHLIGHT THE PARCELS IN LIGHT GREEN FOR COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, AND PARCELS IN BLUE AS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SIDES.

WE'LL PROBABLY TAKE A LOOK AT THIS MAP A COUPLE OF TIMES THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR.

LET ME START WITH YOU.

WHEN OHA ACCEPTED THE LAND FROM THE STATE, BAN ON THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE, CORRECT?

SO THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT LAWMAKERS HAVE REJECTED OHA HOUSING PROPOSAL, SO THE THOUGHT, IS IT TIME TO START DEVELOPING THE AREA WITHOUT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AT THIS POINT?

>> WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S RESIDENTIAL PROHIBITION ESTABLISHED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN 2006 WAS INTENDED TO FURTHER PROTECT CERTAIN PUBLIC INTERESTS PURPOSES.

INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE AND OCEAN VIEWS FOR THE BROADER PUBLIC.

WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE KAKAAKO COMMUNITY INCLUDED THESE PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONSER IN PLANS FOR THE AREA.

HOWEVER, THE LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY PIVOTED ON ITS POLICY FOR KAKAAKO MAKAI.

WHEN THEY TRANSFERRED THESE LANDS TO OHA.

WHICH AGAIN, DIVESTED THEM OF THEIR PUBLIC CHARACTER.

NOWHERE IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ACT 15 IS ANY MENTION THAT THESE NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRUST LANDS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE USED TO PROTECT THE OCEAN VIEWS OF AND OPEN SPACE FOR AREA RESIDENTS OR USERS.

IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

COMMITTEE REPORT FOR ACT 15 SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OHA KAKAAKO MAKAI LANDS ARE VIRTUALLY CONTIGUOUS.

SUITED FOR MASTER PLANNING, AND LOCATED IN AREA OF HONOLULU ALREADY EXPERIENCING SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT.

LEGISLATURE DID NOT TRANSFER THESE KAKAAKO MAKAI LANDS FOR OHA TO PROTECT THE BROADER PUBLIC'S INTERESTS IN THE AREA.

LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY TRANSFERRED THESE LANDS TO OHA TO SETTLE OBLIGATION TO THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE WITH THE NECESSARY UNDERSTANDING THAT OHA WOULD BE ABLE TO EXERCISE ITS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE SELF‑DETERMINATION CONSTITUTIONALLY ENVISIONED FOR OHA AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN BENEFICIARIES.

IF THE LEGISLATURE WON'T ALLOW NATIVE HAWAIIANS TO BUILD HOUSING ON A FORMER LAND FILL, IN THE MIDDLE OF A PORTION OF URBAN HONOLULU, EXPERIENCING MASSIVE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHERE WILL THE STATE ALLOW NATIVE HAWAIIANS TO EXERCISE SELF‑DETERMINATION OVER OUR ANCESTRAL LANDS?

NATIVE HAWAIIANS ARE BEING PUSHED TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN CORE WHERE ANOTHER COMMUNITER CORE OPPOSE PROPOSED LAND USES INTENDED TO BENEFIT OUR PEOPLE.

>>Lara: I'M SO SORRY.

I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE TIME FOR EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET A CHANCE TO GET BACK TO WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT TO SHARE.

BUT I DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT I SPREAD THE LOVE AS FAR AS THE TIME FOR EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND.

I THINK YOU'VE BEEN TOUCHING ON A NUMBER OF THINGS.

QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS.

I'M GOING TO DIVE INTO SOME OF THOSE.

ONE I HAVE HERE IS FOR YOU.

KINDED ON THIS AS FAR AS CONFUSION OVER FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE PUBLIC LANDS OR NOT.

THE QUESTION IS, FROM VIEWER, WHY DO THE MEMBERS OF FRIENDS OF KEWALOS WHERE REDSHIRTS AT THE RALLY THAT SAID, QUOTE, SAVE PUBLIC LANDS WHEN THESE ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS BUT BECAME NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRUST LAND WHEN THE STATE CONVEYED THESE ACRES 30 ACRES TO THE STATE IN 2012?

THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WHO EMAILED SAYING THEY FELT ON THE PART OF THOSE, THIS IS SOMETHING OTHERWISE.

WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?

>> WELL, I JUST ‑‑ I THINK IT'S TECHNICALLY TRUST LANDS.

BUT I VIEW, MANY OTHER PEOPLE FEEL THE SAME WAY, IT IS PUBLIC LANDS BECAUSE OHA IS A PUBLIC ENTITY.

ELECTED BY ALL THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII.

HAWAIIANS AND NONHAWAIIANS AND THE LIKE.

ALSO, I CAN RUN FOR OHA TRUSTEE IF I WANTED TO.

SO ALSO, OHA IS BEING FUNDED BY THE STATE.

WHICH IS STATE GOVERNMENT.

SO IN OUR EYES, THE LAND IS STILL PUBLIC.

PLUS WE FOUGHT FOR THE EXACT SAME LAND IN 2005 AND '6.

EXCEPT IT WAS A DIFFERENT ENTITY WE'RE FIGHTING AGAINST.

IT WAS ALEXANDER & BALDWIN.

BUT THAT ACTUALLY OHA WAS AT OUR SIDE FIGHTING THIS DEVELOPMENT DO PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING THAT OHA WANTS DO TODAY.

SAME PUBLIC LAND.

THAT'S WHY WE USE OUR SAME SHIRT THAT SAYS, PUBLIC LAND NOT FOR SALE.

>>Lara: I WANT TO GET ONE MORE OPINION HERE.

MAYBE YOU CAN DO JAN KEN PO.

YOUR OPINION, YOUR VIEW ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS SHOULD BE, PUBLIC LAND OR NOT.

>> YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HISTORY, BECAUSE I ACKNOWLEDGE 15 YEARS AGO, THE COMMUNITY CAME TOGETHER, AND FOUGHT THE DEVELOPMENT.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE HISTORY, BECAUSE THE BEGINNING OF TIME IN KAKAAKO, DIDN'T START IN 2005, THIS AREA WAS ORIGINALLY HAWAIIAN FISHING VILLAGE THAT WAS WIPED OUT BY DISEASE EPIDEMIC.

EVENTUALLY, IT BECAME A SHANTY TOWN FOR DISPLACED HAWAIIANS MANY OF WHOM MOVED ON ANCESTRAL LANDS BY THE SUGAR PLANTATION.

SHANTY TOWN RAZED TO MAKE WAY FOR MODERN COMMUNITY WE HAVE IN KAKAAKO TODAY.

KIND OF IRONIC WE ARE HERE AGAIN SAYING WE DON'T WANT HAWAIIANS LIVING HERE.

FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY FAIR TO LUMP OHA IN WITH THE REEFS ACROSS THE STREET WHO ARE BUILDING THESE EGREGIOUS LUXURY UNITS AND OFFSHORE PROFITS.

THIS IS ABOUT BUILDING HOUSING FOR HAWAIIANS.

>>Lara: DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?

>> OKAY.

I'LL TAKE A STAB.

THE QUESTION WAS, IS IT PUBLIC LANDS OR NOT.

AND I THINK THAT IT IS PUBLIC LANDS.

PUBLIC LAND IS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION, CEDED LAND.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENTIATION NEED WITH PUBLIC LANDS.

NEVERTHELESS, EVEN WITH THE SETTLEMENT IN 2012, OHA HAD EYES WIDE OPEN.

THEY IT CAME IN AND THEY WERE ASKED WILL YOU TAKE THIS LAND.

AS IS, WHERE IS.

AND IT CAME WITH RESTRICTIONS.

IN FACT, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE LAW, IN 2012, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THEY WERE TAKING IT WITH IT'S RESTRICTIONS.

NO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED.

THERE WERE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

SO I JUST GO BACK AND AS LEGISLATOR, WE LOOK AT THE LAW.

WE SAY, WHAT WAS THERE AND IT CAME OUT WITH 2012, THEY WERE ASKED AND TWO BILLS.

ONE WAS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAND.

AND THAT WAS PUBLIC LAND.

AND THE OTHER WAS TO ALLOW THEM TO RESIDENTIAL.

ONE THAT ALLOWED THEM TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL DIED AND THEY COULD HAVE AT THAT TIME, SAID, THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEAL.

BUT THEY TOOK THE LAND AS IS AND WHERE IS AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.

SO I GO BACK TO ‑‑ AS A LEGISLATOR, GOING BACK TO THE LAW.

WE MADE THE LAW.

IF WE DON'T LIKE THE LAW AND IT'S OUT LIVED ITS USEFULNESS, REPEAL THE LAW.

THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE.

THIS IS ALL PUBLIC BROADEST STATE, PUBLIC LAND, GOVERNMENT LAND, THAT IS USED FOR PURPOSES AS DEFINED BY LAW.

>> MAY I RESPOND?

GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

QUICK FOLLOW‑UP QUESTION.

A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

ALSO, SENATOR YOU CAN ALSO RESPOND AS WELL.

QUESTION IS FROM JOYCELYN.

ARE YOU OKAY THEN WITH OHA BUILDING ON WHAT IS ALREADY ALLOWED TO BE BUILT UNDER EXISTING LAW?

THAT INCLUDES UP TO 200 FEET, APPROXIMATELY 20 FLOORS.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT PART ABOUT THE PLANS WITH THE BASE, OTHER COMMERCIAL USES, WHATEVER ELSE THEY MAY WANT TO DO.

>> IS IT JUST WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AND ABOVE, THE 200 FEET THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, SENATOR?

>> YES.

THINK THAT IS WHAT THE LAW IS.

THE LAW IS THAT THERE ARE HAWAII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACTUALLY SETS THE LAW.

WHEN OHA TOOK THE PROPERTIES, THEY WERE RESTRICTED TO FOLLOW THE ZONING AND THE RULES LAND USE, AND SET BY HCDA.

SO IF IT'S COMMERCIAL ‑‑ I THINK THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF SAYS THAT THEY COULD BUILD PUBLIC MEETING PLACE, PUBLIC MARKETS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, ALL OF THAT IS GOOD.

THE RESTRICTION OF THE HEIGHT AS LONG AS THEY STAY WITHIN THE HEIGHT, HCDA HAS, IN ITS RULE, THAT IS FINE.

I THINK IT'S, HIGHEST YOU CAN BUILD IS 200.

>>Lara: SENATOR, SAME OPINION?

>> SO IF YOU READ THAT LAW, WHAT IT DOES SAY AS SENATOR MORIWAKI POINTS OUT, OHA ALLOWED TO BUILD ARRAY OF COMMERCIAL USE.

THEY CAN BUILD A HOSPITAL THERE.

THEY CAN BUILD YOGA STUDIOS, SPAS.

BUILD MARGARITAVILLE IF THEY WANT.

BUILD ANOTHER ALOHA TOWER MARKETPLACE FOR TOURISTS.

HOUSING FOR HAWAIIANS IS NONSTARTER.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS, BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND OPEN SPACE.

I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO KEEP OPEN SPACE.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 100 ACRES OF LAND IN HONOLULU NEAR THE RAIL LINE.

OHA OWNS A FRACTION OF THAT 100 ACRES.

THIS PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD HIGH DENSITY HOUSING ON A FRACTION OF OHA FRACTION OF THAT LAND.

>> IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ONE OF THOSE PARCELS IS INDUSTRIAL.

A LOT OF THINGS THEY CAN DO TO JUST SEEK A PROFIT.

THIS EFFORT IS INTENTION TO BUILD HOUSING IN AN AREA WHERE I THINK WE REALLY DESPERATELY NEED IT.

>>Lara: I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

>> I WANT TO FIRST RESPOND TO MR. IWAMI.

IN THAT ALTHOUGH ANYONE CAN RUN FOR OHA, THE BENEFICIARIES OF OHA ARE STRICTLY HAWAIIAN PEOPLE.

IT'S NOT ANYBODY.

AND THE TRUSTEES ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN MAKE DECISIONS ON THIS NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRUST LANDS.

>> IT'S NOT PUBLIC LANDS.

I DID WANT TO SAY THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>>Lara: YOUR OTHER RESPONSE IS TO WHAT SENATORS IS HERE DOESN'T HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT HOW THEY VIEW WHAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND WHETHER OR NOT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED, AND THEIR CONCERNS OVER HOW THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING IN THAT AREA.

AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY THE LAW.

>> HOUSING IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR PEOPLE.

THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE THAT NEED HOMES.

I MEAN, HAWAIIAN HOMES LIST HAS 28,000 PEOPLE ON IT.

AND WE SUPPOSED TO AT LEAST PARTICIPATE IN PROVIDING HOUSING FOR EVERYONE.

>> NOT ONLY HAWAIIAN, BUT I JUST HAPPENED TO KNOW THE STATISTICS OF OUR HAWAIIAN PEOPLE.

BECAUSE THAT IS OUR JOB HERE AT OHA.

HOWEVER, WE COULD DO SO MUCH GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE IF WE ARE ABLE TO PUT SOME HOUSING IN THERE, WHY NOT HOUSING?

WHY JUST COMMERCIAL?

YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO BRING OUR PEOPLE BACK TO THE LAND.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAVING THE HAWAIIANS LIVE IN KAKAAKO?

WE NEED TO BRING MORE PEOPLE BACK.

THEY WERE KICKED OUT LONG TIME AGO BEFORE IT WAS EVEN FILLED.

BEFORE THAT PLACE WAS FILLED WITH WHATEVER IS DOWN THERE.

HAWAIIANS OCCUPIED THAT LAND.

NOW, WE CAN'T HAVE OUR HAWAIIANS LIVE THERE, SOMETHING SO WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE.

>>Lara: MIKE FROM MAKIKI, BE MORE SPECIFIC, HE'S BEING MORE SPECIFIC, COULD THE LAND BE DEVELOPED FOR HOUSING FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS ONLY?

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS EITHER A CONSIDERATION, WOULD THAT CHANGE THE MINDS OF ANYONE IF THAT WERE THE SCENARIO?

>> ARE YOU ASKING ME?

>>Lara: YES.

YOU FIRST.

>> I THINK THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR US TO DEVELOP ONLY FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH A PARTNERSHIP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS.

THAT IS A DECISION THAT WE HAVEN'T MADE IT YET.

BUT WE HAVE TALKED WITH THEM.

>>Lara: FOR ANYONE ELSE HERE ON THE PANEL, DOES THAT CHANGE ANYBODY'S OPINION IF THAT WERE TO BE THE SCENARIO?

>> I THINK RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY AND BRINGS TO THE AREA, YOU KNOW IT IS BUILT ON HAZMAT AND COST, WHEN YOU HAVE HIGHRISES, THAT IS BUILT, I THINK THE INTENT IN 2005, SENATOR SAYS, A LOT OF HISTORY.

WHAT CAME TO LIGHT IN 2005, A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT TO ON THE SHORELINE WHEN ALEXANDER & BALDWIN WAS GOING TO BUILD LUXURY HIGHRISES ON THE SHORE SIDE.

BEAUTIFUL.

BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY.

THAT THE COMMUNITY CAME I AM, LEGISLATURE CAME TOGETHER AND SAID WE WANT TO MAKE A COMMITMENT THAT THIS IS TO BE OPEN SHORELINE.

THIS IS THE ONLY SPACE THAT IS HERE IN THE URBAN AREA.

THAT WOULD BE NOT JUST FOR PEOPLE LIVING, BUT FUTURE GENERATIONS.

IT REALLY IS A PLACE OF SPIRITUAL REJUVENATION.

THAT YOU CAN GO THERE AND IT'S FOR OUR KEIKI.

I MET ‑‑ TALKING TO ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE.

AND HE SAID, SOMEONE CALLED ME AND SAID, I USING TO DO TEACH IN SWIMMING.

AND I'M CALLING YOU TO VOTE NO ON THAT BILL BECAUSE WE GO THERE AND IT'S A PLACE THAT WE FIND HEALING.

SO I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE HAD ENVISIONED THIS AREA TO BE.

CULTURAL PLACE, PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN REALLY DEVELOP THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN CULTURE, TEACHING ARTS AND THE HISTORY, AND SOME PLACE WHERE EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE A CULTURAL GATHERING PLACE.

SO I THINK THAT WAS THE CONCEPT.

I THINK IT COULD GO BACK TO WHAT RON WAS WORKING ON.

FIVE YEAR, OHA WAS INVOLVED IN COMING UP WITH THIS VISION FOR THIS AREA.

SO THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN.

THE IDEA OF BEING THAT ALL OF THE HIGHRISE CONGESTION ON THE MAUKA SIDE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, THEY HAD NO OPEN SPACE.

SO THIS WAS A WAY NOT ONLY FOR THEM TO USE, BUT ALL OF HAWAII TO USE.

IT WAS NOT TO MEET THE BEST AND HIGHEST ASPIRATIONS FOR HAWAII'S PEOPLE.

THAT'S KIND OF THE BIG OVERALL CONCEPT THAT'S THERE.

SO I THINK BUILDING RESIDENTIAL AND SELLING THE PROPERTY OFF IS EVEN IF IT'S FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS, I'M NOT SURE.

LINDSEY CAN TALK ABOUT, WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM DEVELOPMENT THAT I WOULD NOT THINK IT'S GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF IT WERE.

MAYBE THIS TO CONSIDER.

REALLY IS PRIME PROPERTY AND IT WAS TO BE SET ASIDE, FUTURE GENERATION, ALL OF US, NOT JUST PEOPLE LIVING THERE.

>>Lara: MOVE ON TO OTHER QUESTIONS.

SINCE IT'S DIRECTED AT YOU.

DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO.

YES.

WHAT'S HER CONCERN?

>> SO JUST THAT THE WHOLE CONCEPT THIS WAYS COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII, HIGHEST AND ASPIRATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE THAT THIS WOULD BE BUILT AS A CULTURAL MEETING PLACE, A PLACE WHERE YOU WOULD TEACH, HAVE CULTURE AND ARTS OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS, MARKETPLACE, AND SO THE COMMERCIAL WAS TO BRING A LOT OF PEOPLE INTO THE AREA AND WOULD ALSO BE WHERE ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN CONGESTED URBAN HONOLULU, THIS COULD BE A PLACE THAT THEY COULD FIND REJUVENATION, OF MINDFULNESS, COMING OUT TO THE SHORELINE.

>> WANT TO SAY, WE PROBABLY WILL DO EXACTLY THAT AS PART OF COMMERCIAL AREAS OF OUR LANDS.

IT'S STILL DOESN'T ‑‑ I MEAN, 30 ACRES IS A LOT OF ACREAGE.

I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T INCLUDE SOME HOUSING FOR PEOPLE.

HOUSING IS SUCH A NECESSITY.

AND WHY WOULD WE ALLOW 22 TOWERS ACROSS THE STREET FOR FOREIGN, NOT ALLOW OUR HAWAIIAN PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RESENTMENT BY THE PEOPLE THAT IS OPPOSING THIS.

>>Lara: COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, SENATOR, I'M SORRY.

DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?

>> YES.

I WANTED TO RESPOND ABOUT HAVING RESIDENTIAL, HAWAIIAN PEOPLE ONLY.

JUST TO TAKE IT FURTHER, I WANT TO SAY THAT WE WILL NOT AGREE TO RESIDENTIAL HOUSING THERE.

MAIN REASON WHY IS ONCE YOU LET ONE PERSON BUILD RESIDENTIAL, IT OPENS THE FLOOD GATES AND OTHER LANDOWNERS WILL WANT TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL TOO.

SO OUR WORST FEAR IS THAT AREA, KAKAAKO MAKAI, BECOMING ANOTHER WAIKIKI.

WHERE FLOOD GATES ARE OPEN.

ALL OF THESE DEVELOPERS WANT TO COME IN.

WE WOULD LOSE CONTROL OF THAT LAND.

JUST LIKE HOW WE LOST CONTROL OF WAIKIKI.

>>Lara: I THINK SOME PEOPLE DO TAKE ISSUE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.

I WANT TO TURN THIS OVER TO SENATOR.

HE SAID, THE VIEWER ASKED, COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY, THIS EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU SAID SHAMEFUL FOR THE STATE TO ALLOW LUXURY RESIDENTIAL TOWERS DEVELOP RIGHT ACROSS STREET FROM OHA LAND IN KAKAAKO BUT NOT ALLOW OHA TO DEVELOP LANDS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS EVEN WITH HAWAII'S SEVERE HOUSING SHORTAGE.

SO I THINK THERE'S SOME PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED, BEEN ALLOWED TO DEVELOP, JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.

WHEN THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF MAYBE A DOUBLE STANDARD ON THE MAKAI SIDE OF THE STREET.

EL.

>> YEAH, COMPLETELY AGREE.

I THINK IT'S THE RESULT OF 25 YEARS OF HOUSING POLICY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE, THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

OBJECTIVES THAT WERE PUT FORWARD BY THE COMMUNITY 15 YEARS AGO NEED TO BE PUT IN CONTEXT TODAY.

WITH 28,000 HAWAIIANS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS WAIT LIST.

WE HAVE 22,000 UNITS SHORTAGE OF HOUSING ON OAHU AND THAT'S NOT HAWAIIANS.

THAT'S FOR EVERYONE.

THAT'S FOR YOUNG FAMILY, AND KUPUNA, WE ARE DESPERATELY SHORT OF HOUSING AND IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO HOUSING HERE, FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT PRESERVING OPEN SPACE AND SENDING DEVELOPMENT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

JUST IN THIS LAST YEAR, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN CHINATOWN, HAWAII KAI AND KAILUA WERE DEFEATED FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT IT PROHIBITION WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2005.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THINK WE SHOULD ‑‑ I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THAT CONTENTION THAT WHAT WE DID 15 YEARS AGO IS STILL ‑‑ WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO CONSIDER TODAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP, KAKAAKO WATERFRONT PARK IS NOT INCLUDED IN OHA'S LAND BASE.

THE PARK ITSELF IS, WE'RE NOT BULLDOZING THAT.

OR PROPOSING TO BULLDOZE THAT.

>> EVEN IF YOU LET ALL THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS DEVELOP THAT AREA.

THERE ARE REASONS WHY WE'RE HOUSING POPULATION AND PART OF IT IS WE CANNOT BUILD HOUSING ANYWHERE.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY SOME OF THESE REEFS, OFFSHORE PROPERTY, SIT ON LAND UNTIL THEY CAN BUILD THE MOST EXPENSIVE EGREGIOUS THING POSSIBILITY THINK IT'S DISGUSTING.

WE NEED TO CHANGE IT.

MODELS EVEN IN KAKAAKO THAT WORK THAT ARE FOR LOCAL PEOPLE, LOCAL PEOPLE LIVE IN NOW.

801 SOUTH STREET GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT FOUGHT BY THE COMMUNITY.

WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT OVER THERE?

THAT'S THE CONVERSATION WE SHOULD HAVE.

>>Lara: I WOULD TURN THE QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ALREADY HAPPENED ON THE MAUKA SIDE OF THE STREET AND OPPOSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE MAKAI SIDE OF THE STREET.

IS THERE A DOUBLE STANDARD THERE AS FAR AS YOUR OPINION, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THE ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED IN THAT KAKAAKO AREA?

>> OKAY.

WHY DON'T I ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

LIKE THIS.

ALL THE DEVELOPMENT MAUKA OF ALA MOANA BOULEVARD HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THAT LAND.

ZONING OF THE LAND, AND ALL OF THE AC RULES.

PRIVATE LAND.

HOWARD HUGHES LAND.

KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS LAND.

A&B LAND.

WHEREAS THE LAND ON THE MAKAI SIDE, LIKE I SAID, I CONSIDER IT PUBLIC LAND.

THE LAW STATES YOU CANNOT BUILD RESIDENTIAL ON THAT PUBLIC LAND.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO FIGHT THE HOWARD HUGHES TOWER.

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR LAND AND THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE RULES.

THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES.

>>Lara: ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU ALSO.

THIS IS FROM HILEI IN MANOA.

OHA PARCELS ARE LOCATED AT KAKAAKO MAKAI.

KEWALO BEACH PARK ACROSS THE HARBOR, FRIEND OF KEWALOS HAS REPEATEDLY STATED THAT OHA PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BLOCK BEACH ACCESS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW BEACH ACCESS AT KEWALO BEACH PARK WILL BE BLOCKED.

BY OHA PLANS ON PARCEL ACROSS THE HARBOR.

>> WELL, I GO BACK TO WORST FEAR.

OPENING THE DOOR OR THE FLOOD GATES, ONCE WE ALLOW ONE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, OTHERS WILL BE HARD TO STOP.

THERE ARE OTHER LANDOWNERS THERE.

TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IT'S HARD TO DESCRIBE.

IT WILL ALTER PUBLIC ACCESS TO WHAT IT IS NOW.

BECAUSE IT'S ADDED POPULATION, ADDED TRAFFIC.

LACK OF PARKING OR MORE COMPETITION FOR THE PARK.

THERE IS NOW, BECAUSE OF INFLUX OF DENSITY, AND POPULATION TO THE AREA.

LIKE I SAID, LOOK AT WAIKIKI.

DO YOU FEEL THIS ACCESSIBLE TO THE LOCAL PEOPLE?

WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE WHAT CAN HAPPEN.

BECAUSE OHA WAS SO VERY UNCLEAR, ON THEIR PLAN OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO DO ON THAT LAND.

>>Lara: SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

I'M GOING TO THROW OUT A SIMILAR QUESTION AS WEL FROM JOYCELYN.

ASSERTIONS OHA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD RESULT IN REDUCED ACCESS AND REDUCED OPEN SPACE.

OHA PROPERTIES HAVE EITHER STRUCTURES ON THEM THAT ARE ALREADY CONCRETED OVER, SO HOW WOULD DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL DIRECTLY IMPACT COMMUNITY ACCESS TO EXISTING OPEN SPACES THAT YOU SUGGESTING, THAT OHA WOULD CONVERT THESE LANDS TO OPEN SPACE INSTEAD OF GENERATING REVENUE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATION TO SERVE BENEFICIARIES?

THEY'RE LOOK AT IT SAYING, YOU KNOW, ALREADY SORT OF CONCRETED OVER.

ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO THE AREA THERE.

SO WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD CHANGE ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES?

>> DEFINITELY NOT CHANGE ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES.

BECAUSE THE ENTIRE FRONT BELONGS TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU.

ALONG WITH LARGE PARK, AND IT'S A BEAUTY THERE.

WE APPRECIATE THAT.

SO HAWAIIANS BEING WATER PEOPLE, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY WOULD BLOCK OUR ACCESS TO THE OCEAN.

SO I THINK WHAT MR. IWAMI IS SAYING THAT HE DOESN'T WANT A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO CRAMP HIS STYLE.

IF HE WANTS PRIVACY ON THE OPEN AREAS.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING FROM HIM.

BECAUSE HE SAYS, IT WILL OPEN THE GATES, OPEN GATES TO MORE HOUSING, MORE PEOPLE?

I HAVE TO SAY, HOWEVER, WE NEED PEOPLE THERE TO BRING LIFE TO THE PLACE.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S DEAD.

YOU KNOW, AND I LOOKED ‑‑ I'M SO EXCITED TO SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING RESIDENTIAL WITH COMMERCIAL.

JUST HAVING A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY THERE, JUST LIKE THEY DO ACROSS THE STREET.

>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

>>Lara: YES.

GO AHEAD.

>> SO YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED THAT OHA'S PLANS FOR THE AREA WAS VERY VAGUE.

SO IT MADE THE PUBLIC SPECULATE.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING DETAILS.

SO CHAIR, CAN YOU PAINT A CLEARER PICTURE FOR US ON WHAT YOU PLAN TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL, ESPECIALLY ON THE PROPERTIES THAT YOU WANT TO RAISE THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 200 TO 400.

THAT'S LIKE TWO PROPERTY, RIGHT?

WHAT ARE YOUR ‑‑ I MEAN, CAN YOU MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT YOU WANT TO BUILD ON THOSE TWO PROPERTIES AND FOR WHOM?

AFFORDABLE?

RENTAL?

HOW MUCH IT WOULD BE FOR A ONE BEDROOM.

2 BEDROOM AND A 3 BEDROOM.

>> CAN I JUST INTERJECT HERE?

EXCUSE ME.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE, AGAIN, TO LUMP OHA IN WITH.

A&B, HOWARD HUGHES FOUGHT 15 YEARS AGO, JUMPING TO A LOT OF CONCLUSIONS.

I THINK PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT COMING.

FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS BEEN DOING THIS EVERYWHERE.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A 22,000 UNIT SHORTAGE OF HOUSING OFF OAHU.

WE CAN'T BUILD IN OUR URBAN CORE NEXT TO THE RAIL LINE MILLENIALS DON'T HAVE CAR.

FRIENDS LIVE THERE DON'T HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSE.

WALK OR BIKE OR UBER.

CAN'T BUILD IN THE AG LANDS MUCH WE CAN'T BUILD IN THE COUNTRY.

CAN'T BUILD NEXT TO SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES.

>> CAN'T BUILD ANYWHERE.

YOUNG PEOPLE ARE LEAVING.

WE ARE SHORT CRITICALLY, POLICE, DOCTORS AND TEACHERS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND PLACES TO LIVE.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PLACE WAS INTENDED TO BE PLACE OF CULTURAL REJUVATION.

FOR WHO?

IF WE DON'T HAVE HAWAIIANS HERE, BECAUSE THEY LIVE ON THE MAINLAND.

>>Lara: I'M GOING TO TURN TO YOU.

I HAVE TO THROW IN QUESTIONS TOO THAT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN KIND OF INCLUDE IN YOUR RESPONSE.

BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO PEOPLE ASKING ABOUT, OKAY, WHERE WILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING BE?

IF WE AREN'T BUILDING ALONG THE URBAN CORE, ALONG THE RAIL LINE?

WHERE?

AG LAND, SUBURBS?

ARE WE OKAY WITH LACK BE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SITUATION?

DO YOU OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE OR WORKFORCE HOUSING OF TOWERS?

IF NOT HERE, WHERE ELSE?

WHETHER IT'S REFERRING TO NATIVE HAWAIIANS OR THE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WANT TO STAY HERE OR HOMELESS.

>> I THINK WE ARE LOOKING AT THE RAIL LINE.

WE LOOKING ‑‑ THERE ARE OTHER PLACES.

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO BUILD?

SENATOR HAD PROBLEMS WITH JUST 6 STORE BUILDING IN KAWAINUI.

AND KAILUA.

TO ME, THAT IS WHERE IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET FROM COMMERCIAL AREA.

>> THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A HOUSING PROJECT THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE.

>> JUST LIKE HERE.

>> LOOK AT THE RAIL LINE, WHAT WE HAVE LEFT OF THE SHORELINE.

ONCE YOU HAVE A BUILDING.

IT STAYS THERE AND AFFECTS ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS.

SO WE'RE NOT SAYING DON'T BUILD HOUSING.

WE'RE JUST SAYING WHERE YOU BUILD HOUSING.

IT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND THERE ARE OTHER PLACESS THAT ONE OF THE, WE HAVE HOUSE RESOLUTION THAT IS GOING THROUGH.

AND THE IDEA IS LET'S STOP FIGHTING.

LET'S GET TOGETHER, FIND SOME SOLUTIONS THAT MAY BE LAND EXCHANGE, WHERE THERE ARE GOOD PROPERTY OF VALUE THAT YOU COULD BUILD WHAT OHA WANTS TO BUILD.

AND FIND SOLUTIONS THAT WORK RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY COMING BACK.

I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT'S LAW IS THE LAW.

AND I MEAN, NOBODY IS TRYING TO DEPRIVE OHA OF RIGHT TO BUILD FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

WE WANT TO HELP THE NATIVE HAWAIIANS.

>> A LOT OF BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE DOES THAT.

BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS APPROPRIATE, WHAT IS REALLY WORKING FOR EVERYONE, AND COME TO THE TABLE AND AT LEAST HAVE A DISCUSSION.

WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

>> THIS RESOLUTION AT LEAST BRINGS PEOPLE TO THE TABLE, LOOKS AT IS THIS A PROPER PLACE?

THERE IS A PLAN OHA WAS INVOLVED IN 2011.

IT WAS APPROVED BY HCDA GOVERNING AUTHORITY FOR THIS AREA.

>> GO BACK TO.

MAYBE IT DOESN'T WORK.

MAYBE TIMES CHANGED.

>> WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT NOT JUST DROP IN, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

I THINK THERE ARE OPTIONS.

IF YOU LOOK AT COMING TOGETHER AND OVER THE TABLE.

>>Lara: I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD THERE IN RESPONSE SOME OF THE THINGS HAD HE SHE HAD TO SAY COMING TO THE TABLE OR OTHER OPTION THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

YOUR RESPONSE?

>> THANK YOU.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, THAT HAS THE EXCLUSIVE FIDUCIARY DUTY TO DEVELOP THOSE LANDS.

AND NOT ANYBODY ELSE.

NOT THE LEGISLATURE.

NOT THE GOVERNOR.

NOT ANYBODY ELSE.

WE ARE GIVEN THAT DUTY TO DO WHAT WE MUST DO TO BRING REVENUE IN, TO PROVIDE FOR OUR PEOPLE'S DIFFERENT PROGRAM.

OUR PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING.

THERE'S SO MUCH DISPARITY.

AND YOU KNOW, MORE REVENUE WE CAN BRING IN, THE BETTER WE CAN HELP THEM.

AND ALSO, TAKE THEM OFF THE STREETS.

AND GIVE THEM A HOME.

YOU KNOW, THAT IS OUR JOB.

THAT'S OUR JOB AS TRUSTEES.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE JOB OF THE REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS ARE, BUT I KNOW WHAT MY JOB IS.

THAT IS TO TRY TO TAKE CARE OF OUR PEOPLE.

>> DO WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT.

APPRECIATE MISS LINDSEY HELPING NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OHA AND BE BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR OHA PROPERTIES AND WHAT YOU HAVE IN TRUST.

WE ALSO AS LEGISLATORS, AT THE LAW, FOLLOW THE LAW, UNTIL THAT LAW IS REPEALED.

WE FOLLOW THE LAW.

SO LAW IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT TO BE BUILT UPON RESIDENTIAL.

AND HAVE YOU GO BEFORE THE HCDA WHICH STILL HAS ‑‑ >> WHERE IS THAT?

>> THE LAW.

UNDER 12 SETTLEMENT OHA AGREED TO.

IT SAYS, YOU STILL MUST GO BEFORE HCDA AND HCDA'S LAW RULED BY A STATE LAW THAT SAYS, NO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON MAKAI SIDE.

UNTIL THAT LAW IS CHANGED THAT IS THE LAW.

YOU CAN BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THE LAND.

BUT IT MUST FOLLOW THE LAW.

AS LEGISLATORS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE UNTIL THAT LAW IS CHANGED, THAT WE FOLLOW THE LAW.

AND SO THAT I THINK IS WHERE WE KIND OF RUB TOGETHER AND THE LAW, THREE TIMES, OHA, COME BACK TO CHANGE THAT LAW, IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

SO I THINK GOING TO THE TABLE, AND SAYING OKAY, THIS IS NOT WORKING.

LET'S FIND ANOTHER WAY.

AND I THINK THAT IS ALL THAT THE RESOLUTION ASKS FOR.

LET'S GET BACK TOGETHER.

2005, SAME PROTESTS OCCURRED.

AND THERE WAS A RESOLUTION, LAW WAS YOU CAN'T BUILD RESIDENTIAL.

COME TO THE TABLE AND FIND A WAY THAT YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER.

OHA AND ITS NEIGHBORS COME TOGETHER.

LET'S FIND SOME OTHER WAYS, THAN COMING BACK OVER AND OVER TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW.

>>Lara: LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

SO WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS THAT THIS HAS COME BEFORE LAWMAKERS TWO, THREE TIME NOW, AND IT HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO PASS?

WHAT DO YOU THINK HAVE BEEN THE BARRIERS?

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS STANDING IN THE WAY OF THIS PASSING FOR THE LAW CHANGING?

>> I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY THE NO RESIDENTIAL LAW.

HOWEVER, I DO HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT THE LAW THAT WAS CREATED IN 2006 WAS A SPECIAL LEGISLATION LAW.

WHICH IS REALLY NOT ALLOWED.

BUT IT WAS CREATED THEN.

WHEN WE TOOK THIS LAND FROM THE STATE, WE WERE ENCOURAGED THAT WE SHOULD COME BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE TO GET OUR ENTITLEMENTS.

THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL.

IN GOOD FAITH, WE TOOK THE LANDS AND WE DID A LOT OF STUDY ON IT.

HOWEVER, IN ANSWER TO MR. IWAMI'S CONCERN, WE COULDN'T BE MORE CLEAR AS TO WHAT WE WANTED TO BUILD BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER WE COULD BUILD RESIDENTIAL OR NOT.

THAT MAKES A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN A MASTER PLAN.

WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO KNOW, IF WE CAN BUILD A CONDOMINIUM FOR HOUSING FOR OUR PEOPLE, MASTER PLAN WILL BE DONE ACCORDINGLY.

THIS WAY, WE CAN BUILD A HOSPITAL.

BUT DO WE WANT TO BUILD A HOSPITAL?

NO.

WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR PEOPLE THAT NEED HOUSING.

THERE'S SO MANY OF THEM.

WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DRAW THOSE PLANS.

>>Lara: SO THIS IS A QUESTION FROM GREGORY.

I ACTUALLY THIS IS BACK TO YOU.

HE'S ASKING, SAYING, OKAY, FOR LIVES IN KAKAAKO, WANT TO KNOW WHY FOCUS ON DECIDING PURCHASE THIS LAND KNOWING IT HAD THESE STIPULATIONS ATTACHED TO IT.

IN HIS MINDSET, THINKING YOU ALREADY KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A BATTLE.

WHY NOT LOOK SOMEWHERE ELSE?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT PRIOR TO BEING OFFERED THIS LAND, 2012, WE WENT THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE STATE FOR 20 YEARS.

THEIR TRYING TO PAY US FOR THE PUBLIC LAND TRUST MONIES THAT THEY COULDN'T PAY US IN CASH.

AT ONE TIME, IT WENT BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE, OTHER LANDS, AND IT WAS TURNED DOWN.

IT WAS TURNED DOWN.

FINALLY, WITH THIS GOVERNOR, HE WAS ABLE TO GET IT PASSED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.

>> BUT IT WAS THIS RESISTANCE ON RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE OF THE 2006 LAW THAT WAS PASSED.

TOLD US COME BACK AGAIN.

WE ARE THINKING TRUSTING AND HAVING A GOOD FAITH, WE'RE THINKING, LEGISLATORS ARE GOING TO SEE THE NEED FOR HOUSING.

WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO BE A THREAT.

AND HERE WE ARE, AND BY THE WAY, WE ONLY CAME BACK TWICE.

NOT THREE TIMES.

2014 WAS THE LAST TIME THAT WE WENT TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND WHICH WE GOT TURNED DOWN.

TRIED AGAIN THIS YEAR.

AND WE WERE SO EXCITED WHEN IT PASSED SENATE WITH 19 OF 25 VOTES.

WE THOUGHT, THAT IS GREAT.

BUT AS SOON AS IT ENTERED THE HOUSE, SPEAKER SAIKI KILLED IT.

>>Lara: SENATOR, YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.

I WANT TO GET YOUR OPINION.

WE'VE BEEN HEARING SENATOR AND ALSO MRS. LINDSEY EXAMPLE PLAN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT ‑‑ EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THEIR STANDPOINT RIGHT NOW.

YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> RELATIONSHIP.

>> I WASN'T IN THE LEGISLATURE IN 2006.

I WAS A SENIOR AT U.H.

MANOA WAITING TABLE ACROSS THE STREET AT OLD SPAGHETTI FACTORY AND BODY BOARDING THREE TIMES A WEEK AT KEWALOS.

THE REASON I SAY THAT IS THAT THAT WAS 15 YEARS AGO.

I HAVE THREE KIDS NOW AND WE LIVE WITH MY WIFE'S FAMILY.

BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE AND MY WIFE HAS MASTERS DEGREE AND I'M AN ATTORNEY.

MY BROTHER WOULD I WISH WAS IN KANEOHE, RENTS IN MILILANI WITH NO HOUSING STABILITIED AND MY OTHER BROTHER LIVE WAS HIS PARTNER IN WAIANAE.

AWAY FROM OUR FAMILY LANDS IN KANEOHE.

BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO LIVE THERE.

THAT'S THE POINT THAT I'M GOING TO KEEP COMING BACK TO ON THIS.

BECAUSE MR. IWAMI IS RIGHT.

THAT'S A FAIR POINT TO MAKE.

THE FEAR OF OPENING THE FLOOD GATES, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK 2021, THAT NEEDS TO BE WEIGHED AGAINST OUR 22,000 UNIT HOUSING SHORTAGE ON OAHU.

OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE LEAVING.

MY FRIENDS, MY FAMILY, MY CLASSMATES I SEE THEM GO.

I'M FRIEND WAS THEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA NOW.

SO THAT'S WHAT I COME BACK TO.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EFFORTS WERE ABOUT, WHAT THE EFFORTS WERE FOR, BUT WHEN I NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO OUR ‑‑ THE FACT FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS.

10,000 KIDS GRADUATE FROM HAWAII HIGH SCHOOLS A YEAR.

WE'VE AVERAGED 3500 HOUSING UNITS BEING BUILT A YEAR.

WE ARE NOT CREATING ‑‑ WE'RE NOT LEAVING A PLACE FOR OUR CHILDREN.

AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY AND THE FIGHTS THAT TOOK PLACE.

BUT I AM ASKING NOW, BECAUSE I IT'S HAPPENING TO YOUNG FAMILIES BECAUSE I HAVE A YOUNG FAMILY.

I SEE THESE GUYS IN SOCIAL MEDIA AND LAS VEGAS AND HOUSTON AND CALIFORNIA.

THEY GO TO COLLEGE, BEST AND BRIGHTEST, DON'T COME BACK BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY HERE.

WE NEED LOTS OF HOUSING.

DENSITY, PLACES WHERE WE CAN HANDLE IT.

IT'S SHOWN THAT IT WORKS IN KAKAAKO.

I JUST THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION COME FULL CIRCLE AND TALK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUING DO WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR A GENERATION.

>>Lara: I'M GOING TOSS THIS OVER TO YOU.

TO MAYBE EXPAND.

JANINE SAYING, SHE WANTS KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT, IF THERE WERE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, TO BREAK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE, GIVE MORE DETAILS.

ASKING THIS AS WELL.

WOULD THIS BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT AND WHAT WOULD THEY COST?

HOW ARE THE HAWAIIANS ON THE WAIT LIST FOR HOUSING BENEFITS DOING?

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD AND LIVE IN THESE AREAS?

ARE THESE GOING TO BE HOMES THAT WOULD BE SOLD OR NOT.

I THINK, BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN IN THESE DISCUSSIONS, PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS BUT WANT KNOWING MORE DETAILS.

FEELING LIKE THEY NEED MORE DETAILS ABOUT IF THIS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AGAIN, HOW EXACTLY IS THAT TRULY GOING TO BENEFIT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THIS TYPE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

>> WELL, SO AGAIN, I THINK ON A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSION, PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

ASSUMING THAT OHA IS GOING TO TREAT THE LAND LIKE HOWARD HUGHES WOULD.

JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION.

OHA TRUSTEES ELECTED BY MEMBERS OF PUBLIC.

ARE NOT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.

IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF EGREGIOUS LUXURY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED BY OHA, WHEN THEY HAVE TO MYRIAD OF PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENTITLEMENT REQUIREMENTS, EVEN IF THE LAW WAS CHANGED, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PLACE IN THE PROCESS WHERE THE COMMUNITY, WHERE HAWAIIAN BENEFICIARIES CAN GET INVOLVED TO CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY OF THIS.

PERSONALLY, I THINK 801 SOUTH STREET IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIVE THERE.

WORKING PROFESSIONALS IN HONOLULU THAT DON'T OWN CARS.

AND WALK TO WORK.

THEY OWN.

THEY OWN UNITS.

THEY'RE SMALL.

THEY'RE DENSE.

BUT LOCAL PEOPLE, LOCAL YOUNG PEOPLE, WHO REALLY WANT TO STAY HERE, THEY PURCHASED, LIVE THERE.

RENT THERE.

I'M NOT SAYING, I WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE PROTESTING IF OHA PROPOSES TO BUILD $22 MILLION LOFTS.

ON THE SHORELINE OVER THERE.

BUT THE REASON I'M INVOLVED IN THIS IS BECAUSE WE NEED HOUSING.

THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO BE ADVOCATING FOR.

THROUGH ALL OF THIS CHANGE.

ANOTHER THING ABOUT STICKING TO THE LAW.

FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE, TRADITIONAL EASY WAY, WHICH IS THE LONG BONES, CREMATION BUT YOU KEEP THE BONES.

IWI.

BURYING YOUR FAMILY IN THE REGULAR CEMETARY IN IWI WAY WAS POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL VIOLATION.

I WROTE THE BILL TO CHANGE THAT LAW.

WHEN THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, ABOUT WHAT WE DID AND WHY WE DID IT 15 YEARS AGO, LET'S APPLY THE CONTEXT OF 15 YEARS LATER.

FACT WE HAVE A WHOLE GENERATION OF FAMILIES THAT ARE LEAVING BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO STAY HERE.

>>Lara: LITTLE BIT MORE TO YOU AS FAR AS MAYBE PEOPLE NOT KNOWING ENOUGH AND NEEDING MORE DETAILS ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD REALLY TRULY BE ABLE TO AFFORD THIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IF IT WERE AVAILABLE, AND HOW ELSE THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO BENEFIT IF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING WERE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT IN THIS AREA.

>> WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH OUR PLANS EVEN WITHOUT THE APPROVAL FROM THE LEGISLATURE.

AND DOING OUR MASTER PLANNING AND AT THAT POINT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO DECIDE HOW HIGH, HOW MUCH, HOW BIG, WOULD WE'RE SERVING, I KNOW OUR THOUGHTS ARE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SERVING THE WORKFORCE.

OUR WORKFORCE PEOPLE, PEOPLE THAT WORK IN CENTRAL HONOLULU, THEY WANT TO LIVE THERE, THEY CAN WALK TO WORK.

OUR CONCENTRATION WILL BE THERE.

WE HAVE NOT PLANNED BECAUSE WE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER WE COULD DO RESIDENTIAL OR NOT.

BUT WE WILL KEEP, WHILE WE DON'T HAVE THE APPROVALS, WE WILL PLAN SO THAT WHEN WE COME BACK, NEXT YEAR, WE'LL BE MORE CLEAR AS TO WHAT WE WANT TO BUILD.

HOPEFULLY, OUR LEGISLATORS WILL AGREE WITH US AND GIVE US OUR APPROVAL.

>> MAY I SAY SOMETHING?

I WANT TO SAY, BECAUSE THE PLANS ARE SO UNFAIR, AS I SAID BEFORE, PUBLIC WAS SPECULATING.

PREPARING FOR THE WORSE.

ALL WE HAD GO BY WAS THE FACTS OF THE BILL.

WHICH SAYS, THE FIRST TRACT IS THEY WANT TO RAISE HEIGHT LIMIT FROM 200 FEET TO 400.

>> SECOND IS THEY WANT TO LIFT THE RESIDENTIAL BAN.

FOR THE KAKAAKO MAKAI LAND.

THE THIRD IS THEY WANT TO ABILITY FOR THE OPTION TO CONVEY THE LAND TO THIRD‑PARTY.

CONVEYING LAND TO THIRD‑PARTY, ACTUALLY MEANS TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP TO A THIRD‑PARTY.

SO THEY CAN BUILD THEIR 400‑FOOT TOWERS WHICH THEY'RE ASKING VARIANCES FOR.

AND ALSO THEY CAN BUILD ANYTHING THEY WANT THERE BECAUSE THE THEY'LL BE THE NEW OWNERS OF THE LAND.

CHAIR MENTIONED, YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP OHA IS GOING TO DEVELOP THAT LAND.

BUT WHY THEN DID YOU PUT THAT CLAUSE INTO THE BILL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ‑‑ YOU CAN CONVEY THE LAND TO A THIRD‑PARTY?

IT COULD BE HOWARD HUGHES.

IT COULD BE PEOPLE FROM CHINA.

>> WE DID NOT PUT THOSE WORDS INTO THE BILL.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE DID.

>> OKAY.

IT'S IN THERE AND FOR PEOPLE TO SEE.

>> WE DIDN'T WRITE THE BILL.

>> WELL, I DID NOT KNOW THAT.

I THOUGHT IT CAME FROM YOU.

>> YES.

>> YES.

IT'S LIKE YOU CAN SELL THE LAND.

>>Lara: WE ONLY HAVE FEW MINUTES LEFT.

I THINK SOME OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH TRUST AND BUILDING TRUST AND I KNOW OVER THE YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF OHA HAD TO DEAL CONTROVERSY.

STATE AUDITS HIS PIECE OF MIND AND AS FAR AS WHAT IS BEING FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THAT.

REQUIRED EVERY FOUR YEARS, SUSPENDED IN DECEMBER 2019 BY LES CONDO STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE BECAUSE OF THOMAS SAYING BECAUSE OF OHA FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IMPORTANT INFORMATION CONCERNING OHA REAL ESTATE.

FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN TRUSTEES AND THE OWNER.

YOU KNOW, HE'S ASKING, WILL OHA COMPLY WITH THE STATE AUDITOR'S REQUEST AND ALSO, FOLLOW‑UP QUESTION TO SENATOR, WILL YOU ENSURE THAT'S STATE WILL AUDIT CONDUCTED BEFORE ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE GIVEN TO OHA?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT OUR DECISION TO NOT GIVE MR. KONDO OUR DOCUMENTS IS BECAUSE IT WAS ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS.

WHICH WE TOOK TO THE COURT AND THE JUDGE AGREED WITH US.

AND AS A RESULT, IT'S A MATTER OF PRIVACY AND THE JUDGE AGREED, SO WE DID NOT GIVE THOSE DOCUMENT.

HOWEVER, WE GAVE OUR AUDITOR 19,000 DOCUMENTS.

AND I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY HE WOULD NEED ANY MORE.

>>Lara: QUICKLY SENATOR?

>> SO I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS WITH OHA AS SOON AS ALL OF THE AUDITS ARE COMPLETED, I'VE MET WITH THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.

WE INTEND DO OPEN BRIEFING WITH THE AUDITOR, WITH THE OHA PRIVATE AUDITORS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED BY LAW TO CONTRACT AND THIRD‑PARTY AUDITS WITH.

AND 8 HOURS LET'S GO THROUGH ALL OF IT.

THANKFULLY, NOW WE HAVE REMOTE ACCESS AND LIVESTREAMING CAPABILITIES.

AT THE CAPITOL.

EVERYBODY CAN WATCH.

>>Lara: I APOLOGIZE.

WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT.

VERY, VERY BRIEFLY.

ABOUT 20 SECONDS EACH.

TO YOU SENATOR, DID YOU HAVE ANY FINAL THOUGHTS?

>> I JUST THINK THAT OHA AND THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO GET TOGETHER.

SO I REALLY URGE LOOKING AT, AND I UNDERSTAND SENATOR'S CONCERN ABOUT HOUSING, YES.

HOUSING, THERE'S LAND AROUND, IF THERE IS SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT AT LEAST COME TOGETHER.

I ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT COLLABORATION, COOPERATION WORKING TOGETHER REALLY CRITICAL.

>>Lara: ABOUT 20 SECONDS TO YOU.

>> OKAY.

I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN ALL COME TO THE TABLE.

AND HAWAIIAN WAY.

LIKE HO'OPONOPONO.

MAKE A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE LANDS FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII.

>>Lara: SENATOR?

BRIEFLY.

>> COMPLETELY AGREE.

WITH MR. IWAMI I'VE LEARNED THINGS IN THIS DISCUSSION.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH SENATOR MORIWAKI.

PRETTY OBVIOUS THERE NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PARTY.

IF WE'RE GOING TO SAVE IT, ASK WOULD WE'RE SAVING IT FOR.

>>Lara: FINAL SENDS TO YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK SENATOR MORIWAKI AND RON FOR THEIR INPUT AND I DO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE LANDS IN FRONT OF THEM.

BUT I DO HAVE EXTREME PASSION TO HELP OUR PEOPLE AND I BELIEVE THAT THESE LANDS WERE GIVEN TO US FOR US TO USE TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

AND I HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE SPEAKER THAT OHA IS NOT GOING TO HAVE IT EXCHANGED OR SOLD.

>>Lara: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FINAL THOUGHTS.

MAHALO TO YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT AND WE THANK OUR GUESTS, OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS BOARD OF TRUSTEES CHAIR, CARMEN HULU LINDSEY, STATE SENATOR JARRETT KEOHOKALOLE, STATE SENATOR SHARON MORIWAKI, AND RON IWAMI, PRESIDENT OF FRIENDS OF KEWALOS.

NEXT WEEK ON INSIGHTS, VIOLENCE AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS HAS BEEN ON THE RISE SINCE THE START OF THE COVID‑19 PANDEMIC.

THE PUSH TO RAISE AWARENESS AND CALL OUT THESE ACTS OF RACISM.

PLEASE JOIN US THEN.

I’M LARA YAMADA FOR INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAI`I.

ALOHA!

¶¶ ¶¶