Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 25, Number 12, 1 December 2008 — Kahana Valley [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Kahana Valley

'īhe most challenging decision l've faced as Chair'

Wai 01 a r e c e n 1 1 y A \_wrote about the Ahupua'a 'o Kahana State Park. Mahalo to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for this opportunity

to share my thoughts and experiences in this significant and emotional matter. Some history of Kahana - the proposal for a "living park" and how that idea has worked in practice - is important to understanding past decisions and how best to move forward today. After the Great Mahele, the Ahupua'a of Kahana was divided into 33 small parcels to the maka'āinana and the majority to Keohokalole, mother of King Kalākaua and Queen Lili'uokalani. Overtime, Mary Fosterpurchased Kahana. Foster leased to Native Hawaiians, Chinese, Japanese and Fihpinos. The ahupua'a became a multicultural mix of people who lived a rural lifestyle. In 1965, the state condemned Kahana for the purpose of creating a public park. Between 1970 and 1985, the state, Kahana residents and eommunity discussed ideas for a "living park" that allowed Kahana residents to remain in the ahupua'a in exchange for delivering interpretive services for visitors to the public park. In 1988, the Legislature authorized the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, or DLNR, to issue 65-year leases to the 31 families of Kahana. The Legislature noted that the residential area was limited to the original number of leases. Families could pass their home to one successor. This meant young adults had to leave the ahupua'a if they wanted their own home. By 1993, the 31 families were issued leases and committed to 25 hours a month of interpretive services. Over time, many children of

the original families moved out of the ahupua'a. Six relatives stayed in abandoned structures at the park entrance without leases, applying for a "replacement" lease. DLNR thought it could issue

"replacement" leases if any of the 31 lessees defaulted. Twenty-eight people applied for replacement leases - 22 ehikken of lessees who followed the law and moved out of the ahupua'a but wanted to return, and the six who remained in the abandoned structures at the park entrance. Meanwhile, DLNR and the residents wrestled with the interpretive program. Clearly DLNR is responsible for mueh of the eom-

munication problems. However, due to no agreement among residents - a 2001 legislative report noted there were "at least" three different competing groups among the 31 families - there's no preferred approach. This report noted that some families didn't provide any interpretive services. Residents eomplained that "the failure of state parks to take decisive action has

a negative impact on the other residents, who see these [few] as 'getting away' with eonhnual noneomplianee, and for those other Kahana-related families, including grown children of residents, who want to be active participants in the park." In 2005, 2007 and 2008, the state Legislature refused to amend the law to allow new leases. In 2008, the Attorney General notified DLNR that the law did not

permit any "replacement" leases. By suimner 2008, we knew DLNR couldn't issue any more leases, needed to work more eollaboratively with the 31 families on the interpretive programs, and together bring the families who were not participating into the programs. We also had to address the six families who remained at the park entrance without leases. We notified the six families they

had to move and worked with OHA and Alu Like to offer transitional services. Several months later we posted eviction notices and brought back Alu Like and Catholic Charities and began searching for transitional housing. Area legislators asked if we would let the six stay in plaee for one more session while they tried to change the law to give them leases. Some of the 31 families asked why I would favor the six and

not their own relatives who had followed the law. Some were eoncerned that favoring the six would send the wrong message to families refusing to participate in the interpretive programs. People outside Kahana eomplained that the living park was not meeting the vision and the state had an obligation to open the park entrance to make it a plaee weleoming residents and visitors alike. This was the most challenging decision I've faced as Chair of DLNR. I struggled with finding a solution that gave the Legislature time to address new leases but to also be fair to the families providing interpretive programs, to the 22 ehikken who had followed the law and that would open the entrance of the park. I offered to relocate the six famikes to the residential area of the park in temporary shelters while the Legislature revisited the issue of new leases. That would open the park entrance, provide the six no pennanent rights over the other appkcants, support the active residents and encourage ak famikes to participate in the interpretive programs. I arranged two meetings with the six families to share these ideas and listen to theks, since mine ean always be improved upon. Unfortunately the families chose not to meet, and have indicated they are seeking leases to remain at the enkanee of the park. Now the matter rests in the hands of the Legislature. There is no easy solution for Kahana, and I wish them the best in their deliberations. If the area remains a state park, I trust the Legislature will continue to respect the basic foundation of the public's right to access state parks, keep residential areas separated from the public areas and make Ahupua'a 'o Kahana State Park a public park that welcomes and enriches all residents and visitors of Hawai'i. For more infonnation on the legislative report referenced here, see Kahana: what was, what is, what ean be, Legislative Reference Bureau, 2001. Laura H. Thielen is the chairperson of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources. E3

KUKAKUKA ■ CŪMMUNITY FDRUM

By Laura H. īhielen