The public should oppose Agenda Item Number III and the “new” version of the hybrid of Charter Proposals 51 and 61 at the Honolulu Charter Commission meeting on Friday at 3:30 p.m. in the committee meeting room at Honolulu Hale.

The new charter proposal embodies a significant reorganization of the City and County of Honolulu and is overly ambitious given the lack of serious research and analysis that the Charter Commission has brought to bear.

Moreover, the commission has not conveyed the significance of the proposed reorganization and the implications of a city department focused on “land disposal or joint development of city lands” to the public and elected officials.

There are clear parallels between the lofty language in the new proposal and the language utilized by development proponents during the short life of the ill-fated Public Land Development Corporation.

A review of the scattered and disorganized Charter Commission Report of the Permitted Interaction Group on Proposals Relating to the Use and Development of City Resources reveals that the group appears to have a very limited understanding of the subject matter it is attempting to tackle.

The disjointed report makes it obvious that although the group has high aspirations to make it easier for commercial entities to utilize public land for private gain, it has not demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the city’s existing resources, systems and processes.

Directing city resources to be utilized for and focused on assisting private commercial entities to obtain and utilize public assets is offensive and violates the public trust.

The new proposal and the report are particularly insulting to the public given that the group could not be bothered to provide a coherent and data-driven explanation of the status quo.

Most surprising, the report does not provide a summary of the city’s major land holdings, their existing uses, and the departments responsible for managing them (or, even a summary of city-owned land along the route of the rail project).

Moreover, there is no summary of the alleged regulatory barriers to the types of “joint development” or “transit oriented development” projects the new proposal seems to truly be about (not “land preservation and enhancement” as the proposal attempts to cloak itself in).

Digging through the rambling report reveals that at its core, the “new” proposal appears to be attempting to sidestep: existing protections for public assets such as park land; existing city processes for disposal of city property; and existing processes for allowing non-city use of city land. The group attempts to surround these core goals with various rhetorical niceties such as “preservation” and “enhancement.”

After decades of working with community organizations to collaborate with the city and county in helping the people of Honolulu to obtain valuable land for pubic use (and, moreover, often working along side the city to ensure that private interests do not abuse or illegally obtain public land for commercial use) many residents take strong exception to commissioners working to create a “Honolulu Public Land Development Corporation” that will threaten the fruits of these types of efforts.

The report is not able to offer a single cogent example of how specifically the proposed “Department of Land Preservation and Enhancement” would actually benefit the public.  For example, the report fails to explain how the new proposed department would be better able to manage Parks properties than the existing Department of Parks and Recreation.

In addition, the report glaringly fails to acknowledge existing city mechanisms for inventorying, leasing, and disposing of city property.

For example, in our community on the North Shore more than one parcel of city land is currently leased to (and/or utilized by) non-city entities using pre-existing city processes.

Moreover, the city already has established policies for the Department of Budget and Fiscal Services to work with all city departments to annually determine if any city parcels are “surplus” or “remnant.” Using these existing processes the city regularly sells such parcels to non-city entities.

In addition, as recently as 2011, the City Council updated city processes to ensure that the public interest is protected in “disposing” of high-value city parcels.

In short, the Permitted Interaction Group and the commission are wasting the public’s time with a superfluous “solution” without a defined “problem” and one is left wondering if the commission took the time to review Chapters 28 and 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu.

Directing city resources to be utilized for and focused on assisting private commercial entities to obtain and utilize public assets is offensive and violates the public trust. Non-city entities have proven themselves more than capable of navigating the existing city systems.

The Public Land Development Corporation was repealed shortly after its inception because the residents of Hawaii and elected officials agreed that it fell short of “ensuring that the public land is maintained for the people of Hawaii.”

Moving the hybrid of Proposals 51 and 61 forward is clearly analogous to the failed attempt to implement the state-wide PLDC (originally staffed by a former employee of Campbell Estate) and needs to be stopped in its tracks.

In conclusion, the public is left asking who will specifically gain from this proposal other than development interests (such as James Campbell Company and Kapolei Property Development) and potentially clients of consultant/engineering firms such as SSFM International.

The City and County of Honolulu and the Charter are designed to serve the interests of the public, not the interests of the employers, clients, and associates of Charter Commission members.

Given recent press attention on the Honolulu Ethics Commission and the recognition that public corruption is the use of public office for private gain, support for this troubling proposal raises serious questions. In order to fulfill its mission on behalf of the people of Honolulu, the Charter Commission must put an end to the meritless and disingenuous pursuits of the new proposal.

Instead the commission should make an effort to communicate to the city administration the one common sense portion of the report that recommends that there be a study conducted of “how the development function is undertaken in other cities, and in particular in other rail cities and that the community at large engage in a broad and thoughtful discussion of how the city should meet its vision for the future, and how to capture benefits derived from nearby real estate back into the city.”

This one recommendation offers honesty and clarity on what the true goal of the proposal is (development) and requires Honolulu to seek out best practices rather than make things up on the fly based on an incomplete and shoddy analysis of the facts.

Residents can submit comments on the Charter proposal to cclcharter@honolulu.gov.