developers in beach battle

Hawaii

Democracy wins out over developers in beach battle

Community action saves Oahu’s Sandy Beach.

By Ed Rampell

JA CARTOON in 1970 s ‘new

wave’ journalist Hunter S Thompson’s book on Hawaii

depicts a pack of vultures sweeping

down on an island, with the caption Real estate development in Oahu . On November 8 this year the ‘vultures’ re ceived a clear anti-development mes sage from the electorate with the triumph of the Save Sandy Beach in itiative. When the Kaiser Development Company proposed a new residential development near Sandy Beach a popular surfing spot on one of Oahu’s last stretches of unspoiled coastline the people arose. Despite City Council approval, a media campaign and un clear ballot language, community activists defeated developers by 164,007 votes to 85,210.

Land near Sandy Beach has been zoned residential since the 19705, but in 1987 the Honolulu City Council

approved a shoreline development

permit by a slim margin; Kaiser plan ned to construct 171 nomes (each re portedly in the half-million dollar price range) at a proposed subdivision 000 metres away from the beach on land owned by the Bishop Estate, a private Hawaiian land trust.

From the moment the matter came before the City Council local residents and supporters from all over Hawaii were planning their opposition. The Save Sandy Beach Initiative Coalition emerged to do battle with the de velopers; to tilt against corporate windmills. Petitions attracted more than 39,000 signatories in only 10 weeks, enabling the issue to be placed on the State elections ballot. The San dy Beachers sought to protect the property by ‘downzoning’ it, from re sidential to preservation.

The cause touched a responsive chord in Oahu people weary of de velopers, the Pentagon and others who have been alienating land since Statehood, transforming Hawaii into a paradise almost irretrievably lost. The Sandy Beachers found support in a community sick of high-rise eyesores, spiralling real estate prices Hawaii’s homes cost more tnan double the American national average

Japanese speculation, increasing pollu

tion and growing congestion . . . not to mention artillery practice. Hawaii’s Aloha Aina “love the land” senti ment and environmental awareness

immediately came to the fore.

The movement, led by long-time environmentalist and community organiser Phil Estermann, became a populist revolt. Labour unions and artists’ associations spoke out and bipartisan endorsement was given by both

mayoral contenders, Republican in-

cumbent Frank Fasi (re-elected for his fifth term) and Democratic challenger Marilyn Bornhorst, US Congressional candidates, Republican incumbent Patricia Saiki (who was returned to office) and Democrat Mary Bitterman. Fortyfour members of the bicameral State Legislature and four City Council members, together with candidates for

the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, also endorsed the initiative.

The pro-development forces quickly

launched a counter-offensive with the formation of People Who Vote Know on The Sandy Beach Initiative. The well-financed campaign concentrated on a media barrage on TV, radio and in the newspapers claiming that the housing would not affect Sandy Beach’s pristine splendour.

Some other Hawaiian groups, most notably the Bishop Estate, came out against the initiative, claiming that downzoning would lower the value of its lands, hence reducing revenues for its indigenous programs such as the

all-Hawaiian Kamehameha School.

The Estate further claimed that the downzoning was the first step in turn ing the trust’s private lands into public property, thereby taking the lands out of its control. (Estermann, however, insists that “according to polls, the ethnic groups most strongly opposed to developments such as Sandy Beach are the Hawaiians.”) Public suspicions were also aroused by what some claimed was “confusing” language on ballot papers: voters opposed to the development were asked to vote ‘Yes’, while those who favoured the construction were re quired to ‘No’. Estermann and others charged that Kaiser took advantage of this confusion “and deliberately ran an outrageous, deceptive, dishonest

media campaign”.

Nevertheless, the initiative surged easily to victory on what local media characterised as a ‘tidal wave’ of opposition. Estermann estimates that “Kaiser and the Bishop Estate outs pent us at least $3O to one. They spent between $300,000 and $400,000; we spent only $lO,OOO on

the campaign. This makes our two-to one victory all the sweeter.”

However, despite the jubilation the outcome of the Sandy Beach vote is

still subject to judicial rulings. An

Oahu circuit court has already found the voter initiatives cannot change land-use ordinances, but the matters must be reviewed by the Hawaii Sup reme Court. Furthermore, the City Council is considering two related bills, irrespective on tne high court ruling, that would condemn the land so it could be turned into a public park and that would rezone the land.

The Sandy Beach supporters, howev er, are only guaranteed four out of the nine votes on the Council.

More disappointing was the result of a second initiative: in a 23,455 to 18,186 vote, Japanese developers and their supporters beat environmental ists opposed to the construction of a 350-room luxury hotel near Hapuna Beach (see Pacific Islands Monthly, September). The hotel is the founda tion for a $329 million resort, which would also include a golf course and 800 homes on 198 hectares. A coali

tion of business and labour groups stressing property rights and economic needs defeated the Save Hapuna In itiative Petitioners unlike Oahu, the Big Island was more concerned with jobs than with the environment.

The plebiscite process has a stormy history in Hawaii. In the early 1980 s a community movement Defeated Japanese real estate developers at Nukolii on Kauai through the ballot box. However, following the devasta tion of Hurricane Iwa and the ensuing depressed economy, a second initiative was passed overturning the result of the first and opening up the beach for a Hilton Hotel and condominiums.

The success of the first Sandy Beach initiative has nevertheless caught the

State off guard. During the anti-Sandy

Beach initiative drive, pro-business

elements emphasised the importance

of private land ownership, attempting

to play on patriotism with the asser tion that “there are no property rights in communist countries”. Estermann agrees he was “definitely being red baited”, but points out that despite these tactics, ‘the initiative won in ev ery voting district on Oahu”. □