Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kalakehe Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supporters tell Senate panel Kalakehe regional park could spur Big Island tourism and community growth; committee adopts resolutions with edits
Summary
Testimony from West Hawaii Parks and Athletic Corporation and Senior Softball USA cited housing growth, newly secured water, and a recent tournament that they said generated about $800,000; the Senate committee adopted SCR20 and SR17 with amendments to change the land designation to county ownership and make technical edits.
Speakers told the Senate Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs on March 17 that a proposed regional park near Kalakehe would meet growing community needs and drive visitation and revenue.
Craig Bo Kahui, representing West Hawaii Parks and Athletic Corporation, told the committee his organization has worked with the county since 2009 on a regional park plan and provided a support packet. He said the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has "somewhere about 500 more homes" in the pipeline and cited an existing 300 homes in the area; he also said water was secured that could support roughly 800 additional housing units, arguing a park would be needed to serve that growth. "We applaud this committee for recognizing the needs of our community for a comprehensive regional park," he said.
Jeffrey Kimoto, senior softball USA director for the state, said he recently ran a senior softball event that drew more than 700 players from Hawaii and the mainland and estimated the six‑day event produced "close to $800,000" in economic activity. He told committee members a facility like the Patsy Mink Sports Complex would help the Big Island host similar tournaments and community events.
Committee members noted there was no Hawaii County representative present to comment at the hearing. In response to Department of Land and Natural Resources input recorded in testimony, the committee amended SCR20 and SR17 to change language from a state set‑aside to county ownership and made technical, non‑substantive edits before adopting the resolutions.
The committee's action advances the resolutions to the next step in the legislative process; testimony included economic and housing claims that were presented by proponents and were not subjected to independent verification during the hearing.
