The history of the Land Preservation fund (the 2% land fund) is one of the people asserting the importance of preservation of special natural and cultural places around the island and those in power asserting that this responsibility is not so important.

The first time I recall attending a hearing on this topic was prior to any voter referendum initiative. The Council was considering setting up a similar program to be funded annually in a certain amount (in the hundreds of thousands, I believe). Although the debate occurred during a period of growth – the Council voted against the proposed legislation. In general the underlying objection was because the program would take power away from the Council -and the Mayor-to decide how the County’s revenue would be spent. In the case of a program with dedicated deposits from some source, the ruling politicians no longer would have total control of these funds, and control of funds is what governing is all about --of course in the best interest of the people . And, so it seems, some times our politicians believe they are a better judge of what is in the best interest of the people, than what the people themselves say is in their best interest. Note: the code phase for taking away power, is the more politically acceptable concept that locking in a specific use of funds would harm “flexibility”.

So at the last election the voters rose up and in effect said: “Our land is our heritage and it is our future; those who have ruled this County have been delinquent in protecting our special cultural and natural places, so we are ordering you to set aside 2% of property taxes each year – as an investment in our future and protection of our heritage. “

But a year or so after that Land Preservation initiative was approved by the voters, in the first budget crunch to occur, guess what was the very first source of funds to be targeted in order to balance the budget – you got it – the deposits to this land preservation fund. The bigger picture problem is of course that unless this program is codified in the Charter, there is nothing to stop this raiding of the fund deposits from reoccurring indefinitely. (And in fact Mayor Kenoi hinted to that prospect when he indicated to the Council he would decide at a future meeting whether to continue to usurp these funds for his other general revenue needs.)

So really the only recourse now is for the program’s supporters to ask that the voters be given the opportunity to codify this program in the County Charter. Again, keep in mind, the County Charter is the supreme law of the County – and trumps all other county law. It is therefore only by including this program in the Charter that puts it out of reach of those currently in power.

The County Charter is only required to be reviewed once every ten years. Luckily it is now that the Charter is up for revision. As anticipated inclusion of the 2 % land preservation fund is one of the proposed amendments being considered. On Friday, November 6th, the Commission took its first vote on this amendment. The vote was in favor of including the program in the Charter – but for a lesser percentage of funds. Instead of retaining the 2% figure that is in the 2% land fund ordinance, the Commission is proposing that the Charter provide that the funding deposits cannot go below .5%. This amendment to the Charter will not automatically change the current County ordinance calculation from 2% to .5%. What it does mean is that if the Mayor and the Council again seek to take away funds from this program, they cannot reduce it below this half percent (.5%) floor regardless of the arguments in favor of taking all of the deposits.

At this point those who support this program will continue to urge the commission to retain the 2% deposit figure….and that is the current status of this effort.

The Commission will vote again on this matter – probably at the Commission’s next Commission meeting, now scheduled for December 18th.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

For more information link here to read: West Hawaii Today article “Reduced land fund could be part of county charter” by Nancy Cook Lauer (at page 5A). In this article, notice the quote from Nancy Crawford, Mayor Kenio’s Finance Director . She is quoted as saying “(If this passes)You’re absolutely giving up flexibility.” Notice she did not instead say: “You are absolutely giving up power.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here is Debbie Hecht’s explanation and suggested course of action for all of us who support of this amendment but want to retain the 2% funding calculation. (Debbie led the previous successful effort to pass the 2% land preservation fund referendum vote.

FROM DEBBIE HECHT: Aloha 2% supporters:
The Charter Commission met yesterday and voted 6 to 2 to REDUCE the 2% Land Fund to the " Not less than Half % Land Fund".
This means the land fund would receive approximately $1million per year. If the County could obtain full matching funds, the county would have $2 million per year to acquire your favorite beach access, AG lands, watersheds, cultural places, etc. BUT what can you buy on the Big Island for $2 million per year????
Voters approved this once for 2%. Why is the charter commission changing it now? This amendment was proposed to get the 2% for the land fund out of the yearly budget wrangling.
You will hear that the other counties have half percent or 1%. Why? They are almost fully developed, have less land that is still open to acquire. They have a larger tax base to draw from, meaning they have 1% of a much larger amount of property taxes. People talk about sustainability. Open space is a way to acquire AG land, beach and mountain access, trails, park areas etc. It does not need to be developed to a park right away, it can be land banked until the money is available to develop these areas.
Undeveloped lands protect our watersheds and recreation sites, so they are protected from development. Maui is developed, Kauai and pretty much developed. If we don't save the please that makes the Big Island a great place to live, what have we got? If we want to grow more food we need to preserve AG lands now. If we want to buffer recreation and cultural sites we must acquire the land around them. The Half percent land fund will not do that. The 2% Land Fund was STEP in the right direction.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
A “Cheney Aside”: What is most interesting in the study of power among the elite is that it is when times are tough or there is some sort of emergency, that is when they are able to further solidify their power to control the people. Vice President Cheney expressed this paradigm best when asked what was the best day of his Vice presidency, and he answered: 9/11. As the story goes, the TV commentator, responded, "No I mean what was your BEST day," (believing Cheney must have misunderstood his question). Cheney again said 9/11. In other words the attack on the trade centers enabled him and his buddies to coalesce extraordinary power in the executive branch and promote a more "dictatorship leaning" government power structure. This vast coalescing of power would not have otherwise been possible without a heavy duty disaster in which to cloak their long time agenda -- so as to be more acceptable to main street folks. Along the way – there are of course assertions that the rights taken in an emergency will be returned when the emergency is over --- but guess what – that does not happen.