Hawaiian Homes Commission approves one-year pilot allowing indigent beneficiary to occupy Lualulei parcel

On Tuesday, Dec. 17, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) Hawaiian Homes Commission approved a one-year indigent Native Hawaiian homesteading pilot and issued a 12-month right of entry to an applicant, Dimont Manaole, to test whether an indigent beneficiary could establish a sustainable on‑land presence and potentially progress to a homestead lease.

The pilot, approved by a 7–2 vote, directs DHHL staff to work with the participant to clear and secure a two‑acre portion of a four‑acre parcel in Lualualei, Oʻahu, and to report back to the commission. Commissioners framed the vote as a limited experiment intended to develop program rules, benchmarks and applicant eligibility for a cohort of beneficiaries who cannot qualify for traditional loan‑backed offerings.

Commissioners and staff emphasized the pilot is exploratory. Julie (planning staff) told commissioners the project is “designed to allow the department to develop policy, procedure and program elements that provide individual homesteading opportunities to indigent Native Hawaiian applicants.” The pilot’s stated goals include testing off‑grid living methods, documenting soil‑retention and water catchment systems, and determining realistic performance benchmarks that could lead to a longer‑term lease if met.

Supporters said the parcel is currently blighted with dumping, unmanaged brush and illegal vehicle access; placing a beneficiary on site would provide ‘‘eyes and ears’’ to deter trespass and clean the property. Manaole, who has previously held a month‑to‑month right of entry and testified at the meeting, said he wanted to demonstrate that indigent applicants can live sustainably on DHHL land and offered to be a hands‑on participant in building out water catchment, composting toilets and soil retention.

Opponents, including Commissioner Neves, expressed legal and procedural concerns. Commissioners pressed staff and land management (LMD) to confirm that the chosen instrument (a right of entry) and any residency conditions comply with DHHL’s administrative rules and the commission’s fiduciary duties. Commissioners also asked that beneficiary consultation and rule work be advanced in parallel with the pilot. Several commissioners urged greater clarity on insurance, environmental suitability of the lot, and how the pilot would scale without creating a large management burden for LMD.

The commission recorded the motion as carried with seven ayes and two noes. Commissioners directed staff to monitor the pilot, provide regular updates, and return with recommended program language and thresholds. The commission also signaled it will set up a permitted interaction group (PIG) and conduct beneficiary consultation to refine the concept before any broader rollout.

The pilot authorizes the 12‑month right of entry as a limited disposition for the stated activities: site cleanup, securing the parcel, basic subsistence cultivation within the two‑acre area, photo and written documentation of progress, and regular check‑ins with assigned DHHL staff. DHHL staff said the parcel will be assessed for habitability before full occupancy and that DHHL will identify any assistance (technical or limited financial) required to support the participant.

Commissioners and several public testifiers framed the vote in historical context, arguing the department must find ways to serve beneficiaries who have been on wait lists for decades and who cannot qualify for loan‑based homesteads. Others asked the commission not to use a pilot to bypass established entitlement processes for beneficiaries or to create inequitable, ad‑hoc disposals.

The commission recorded conditions requiring DHHL to (1) confirm site suitability before residency, (2) assign a staff liaison to monitor the pilot, and (3) report benchmarks and an evaluation plan at regular intervals to the commission. The pilot does not create a permanent homestead lease; pathway to a lease will depend on meeting established benchmarks and the later rulemaking and beneficiary consultation that the commission requested.

The commission’s action was procedural and time‑limited: staff will return with updates and recommended policy, including proposed eligibility criteria and performance indicators, that would be subject to broader beneficiary consultation and any necessary legal review.