Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Acquisition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public urges Hawaii County committee to buy and protect Honolulu Landing under Resolution 286-25
Summary
Public commenters at the Hawaii County committee hearing called on the county to use preservation funds to acquire 364 acres known as Honolulu Landing in Puna, citing cultural, historical and public-access reasons and warning against tourism-driven development.
Members of the Hawaii County Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions heard more than two dozen public comments supporting a county acquisition of Honolulu Landing in Puna during the committee’s 14th session. Speakers urged the director of finance to proceed with purchase under Resolution 286-25, saying the property contains cultural sites, burials and shoreline access that should remain in public stewardship.
The public testimony centered on protecting Honolulu Landing’s archaeological and genealogical resources and maintaining public access rather than permitting private development. “Hawaii needs this,” said Paula Pippen, who identified herself as speaking in support of Resolution 286-25. “We shouldn’t be even allowing anybody to come in and purchase our land.”
Speakers stressed immediate action and cited past county processes. Pauline Lilinoy Young told the committee the two parcels that together make up the Ahupua‘a of Honolulu and Puna were approved for purchase in February 2007 but were never acquired. She listed Parcel 1-4-003:020 and Parcel 1-4-003:019 as the parcels at issue.
Why it matters: Testifiers said the site is both culturally irreplaceable and important for public safety and community resilience. Lehua Kaulukukui, who identified herself as a great-granddaughter of a person born at Honolulu Landing, invoked legal protections while urging preservation: “Your duty under the Hawaii state constitution article 12 section 7 and under HRS 6E is not only legal, it is sacred,” she said, tying the request to constitutional and statutory obligations referenced in testimony.
Several speakers described the place as a wahi pana (storied place) with house sites, heiau, burials and traditional food-gathering areas. Marcy Brown said the site’s roughly 364 acres “hold many treasures that are yet to be discovered,” including archaeological features and gravesites that would be lost to commercial development. Multiple commenters said the property is currently listed for sale and faces the threat of private development.
Speakers also warned of secondary impacts a private sale could bring. Greg Owen, a long-time resident of Puna, opposed building parking lots and portable toilets and said social media could quickly increase visitation: “With Instagram and social media, Honolulu Landing and Beach Road will be flooded with tourists. I figure maybe 10 times the traffic as we have now,” he said, noting Government Beach Road is narrow and often single-lane in places.
Several commenters linked the acquisition to broader community needs after the 2018 lava eruption. Amadeo Markoff, who described himself as treasurer of Main Street Pahoa and executive director of local community organizations, said Lower Puna “is still in crisis” from the eruption’s loss of ocean access and that Honolulu Landing would help reconnect families, fishers and cultural practitioners to the makai (seaward) areas.
Other themes in testimony included: the role of lineal descendants in site stewardship (a preference voiced by several speakers, including Owen), historical use of the landing for cattle and community gatherings (recounted by long-time residents), and requests to keep the site undeveloped to preserve ecosystem habitat for native species such as ‘eo and pueo.
Speakers identified specific elements for the record: Pauline Lilinoy Young named the two parcel identifiers (1-4-003:020 and 1-4-003:019); Marcy Brown and others referenced a 364-acre figure for the combined property; and multiple witnesses said the site was added to the county’s preservation priority list roughly 17–18 years ago (testifiers variously cited “17 years,” “18 years,” and a 2007 resolution) but was not purchased then.
No committee vote or formal action on Resolution 286-25 is recorded in the public-comment portion of the transcript. Testimony concluded with requests that the director of finance and the committee act promptly to complete the purchase and to involve lineal descendants and cultural practitioners in management if the county acquires the land.
The committee chair opened public testimony for this agenda item and allowed speakers from multiple sites. The transcript does not record the committee moving to a vote or issuing direction during the public-comment period.
