A New Focus on Land Use

George R. Ariyoshi

I say "kind fate," because of the political environment of the time. One controversy on land use followed another, yet each created opportunities to do the right thing. Community activists grabbed headlines, but they did so in the context of a planning-conscious community.

Consider what decision-makers were thinking 35 years ago. The Chamber of Commerce had its Oahu Development Conference, headed by the respected planner Aaron Levine. The ILWU, then the most influential union, had its own planning consultant. Each of the daily newspapers had planning writers, who stayed with their subjects a long while and played genuine educational roles. Civic organizations such as the League of Women Voters and the Outdoor Circle were major forces. In 1970, the state created a Commission on the Year 2000.

All of these initiatives nurtured the Hawaii State Plan, which became the organizing concept of my administration.

Through a path-finding task force, we studied Growth Management Issues in Hawaii, the name of a publication I still keep on my book shelf. We addressed land-use management in context of:

o Population growth

o Agriculture

o Affordable housing

o Open space

o Traffic

o Taxation

Above all, we worked on the relationship between land use and water supply.

The State Land Use Commission was subjected to a critical review. As openings in the commission occurred, I tilted the composition toward preservation and good planning.

I told the Legislature: "There is no reason why we must endure what an uncontrolled and unregulated future holds for us. We must shape our own future, not have it thrust upon us by forces over which we have little or no control."

The goal was summed up in words we do not hear today: managed growth.

Who could imagine such an outpouring of concern today? Where are the enlightened community leaders? How do we evaluate the land-use practices of today when we have so little public dialogue?

Nonetheless, the recent legislative session may suggest that the issue of land use is making a much-needed comeback in the public arena. The context is the Lingle administration's dedication to abolishing the State Land Use Commission in the name of streamlining government.

This is a bad idea, simply because the commission has a history of discouraging inappropriate development. Another reason is that the administration's thinking is out of step with our state Constitution, which directs the state government to "conserve and protect agricultural lands."

The third basic reason is the orientation of the counties, which are said to now possess planning resources that they previously lacked. In fact, the counties have a direct conflict between managing growth and taking in revenue. The counties rely mainly on property taxes. Therefore the counties are inclined to increase the property tax base. While the state is similarly interested in arguments for economic activity, its perspective is more arm's length. It has a greater capacity for looking at the big picture across the Islands, and this has been demonstrated over and over in decisions for preserving conservation, rural and agricultural lands.

Rather than abolish the State Land Use Commission, what we really need is for the Legislature to implement the 1978 Constitution's directive to "provide standards and criteria" for preserving agricultural lands. This becomes particularly important because, as The Honolulu Advertiser shrewdly observed, we currently have "plenty of ag land, and not enough farmers; plenty of urban land, and not enough homes." The result is recurring pressure to rezone inappropriately.

We must preserve agricultural land until the era of diversified agriculture catches up with the demise of the plantations. The stakes deserve a public dialogue in which many should become involved, in the interest of future generations of Hawaii citizens.