Hawaiian Home Lands logo

FOR THE RECORD

The following are questions (in bold) subitted by Rob Perez of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and our verbatim answers to those questions.

At my request, Commissioner Renwick “Uncle Joe” Tassill provided me with a list distributed at last week’s commission meeting showing the revocable permit holders who were in default.

I’m working on a story about this and was hoping you could answer some questions regarding the permits on the default list and other related issues. If you could get back to me by Thursday morning, Nov. 7, I would appreciate it.

Here are the questions:

In July, the department said 80 percent of the RP holders were in compliance, with the remaining 20 percent not in compliance. The default list I have has 24 permit holders. That’s roughly 13 percent of the nearly 180 permit holders. Can you explain the difference between the 20 percent who were not in compliance in July and the 13 percent in default as of last week? Did some of those non-compliant permit holders from July take steps to return to compliance, reducing the numbers actually in default?

Nine RPs, or 5 percent, were not renewed either by the permitee or DHHL.  Notification via certified mail went out to the remaining 24 former RP holders, or 13 percent, who were found to be non-compliant and have been given until Nov. 29 to remedy all outstanding violations.  The remaining 82 percent were compliant with the conditions of their leases by the time notices were sent out.

What is the status of the 24 cases on the list? Are any of them close to correcting the defaults? If so, please elaborate on those cases.

Permitees who were found to be non-compliant with the conditions of their agreements have been given until Nov. 29 to remedy all outstanding violations.

I’ve been told that Stuart Hanchett has taken down or is in the process of taking down his home on the Kauai RP parcel. What is the status of his permit and the illegal structure on that parcel?

Mr. Hanchett will not be considered for any land use disposition, including a right-of-entry, without first bringing his current parcel into compliance with the terms of his permit.  It is our understanding that Mr. Hanchett is in the process of removing his illegal structure.

For RP 173, the violations include unauthorized boundary expansion, non-compliance with use provisions and illegal structures. Please elaborate on the extent of the unauthorized boundary expansion, what non-permitted uses were occurring on the parcel and how many and what types of illegal structures were on the property.

DHHL does not take this matter lightly, and has conducted a thorough investigation into these violations.  We understand that you may have received information regarding this matter from other parties.  However, we have been advised to not comment at this time because this matter may involve litigation.

Similarly, for RP 321, please elaborate on the extent of the unauthorized boundary expansion, what non-permitted uses were occurring on the parcel and how many and what type of unauthorized structures were on the property.

DHHL does not take this matter lightly, and has conducted a thorough investigation into these violations.  We understand that you may have received information regarding this matter from other parties.  However, we have been advised to not comment at this time because this matter may involve litigation.

A couple of the cases list subleasing as a violation. Are RP holders generally prohibited from subleasing any portion of their parcels to other tenants?

RP holders are prohibited from subleasing without departmental approval.

Please elaborate on the PASHA Group’s default violations listed for RP 309.

DHHL does not take this matter lightly, and has conducted a thorough investigation into these violations.  We understand that you may have received information regarding this matter from other parties.  However, we have been advised to not comment at this time because this matter may involve litigation.

For the RP holders with rent delinquencies, please detail the amount each RP holder was in arrears as of the compiling of this list.

RP NO.

PERMITEE

DELINQUENCY

RP0023

LEMN, WILLIAM

$     4,152.00

RP0160

CONTRADES, WOODROW

$          91.00

RP0404

MAUHILI, JERRYL

$   19,940.00

RP0411

SAVE OAHU RACE TRACKS

$   18,000.00

RP0449

MIGUEL, KENNETH & DONNA

$        175.00

TOTAL DELINQUENT RENT DUE (As of October 21)

$   42,358.00

Have all 170-plus RPs been converted to ROEs, including the ones on this default list?

The RP accounts that are identified for conversion to ROEs are still being processed.

What is the status of the effort to come up with new regulations for a reformed RP program? Does the department expect to have the revised program in place by a targeted date?

Review and formulation of recommendations for a revised Revocable Permit program is continuing with the assistance of the Attorney General’s office, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the Department of Budget and Finance.

Is a RP moratorium still in effect or has DHHL resumed approving revocable permits? If so, please elaborate.

The department is still in the process of re-formulating the program.

My series in May revealed that the commission about four years ago revoked the permit for the Correa Ranch property in Waimanalo, yet the two brothers still had use of the property. That was six months ago. Has that situation changed? If so, please elaborate.

This matter continues to be with the Attorney General’s office.

The series also mentioned that four homes and five other structures were on a Big Island (Waimea) homestead parcel leased by Flora Solomon even though DHHL regulations permit only one home per homestead lot and, under certain circumstances, a worker’s quarters. DHHL said at the time that the department had been discussing the issue with the lessee. Has that situation changed over the past six months? If so, please elaborate.

The department is still in discussions with the lessee.

Please provide any other information to help explain the status of the above cases and the effort to reform the revocable permit program. Also, please send me a copy of the list showing which RP holders are in default. I want to verify that the list I received is complete.

Finally, please provide an overall statement about how the planned changes are expected to improve the RP program.

Revenue generated from DHHL lands, which includes the RP program, is an important component that allows the department to build new infrastructure supporting the placement of native Hawaiian beneficiaries on the land while at the same time generating resources to maintain and repair the infrastructure of our existing communities. Although the Revocable Permit program is still under review, DHHL looks forward to an improved land management tool that will increase revenues through a competitive selection process.