Maui’s Plan To Protect Cultural Sites Is In Limbo
The former mayor vetoed the bill on his last day in office and it’s now up to the Maui County Council to override the veto and get the plan back on track.
The future of a proposal intended to prevent the accidental destruction of burials and other important cultural sites by creating an interactive map to display the historical legacy of properties now rests largely in the hands of Maui’s new group of County Council members.
In one of his last actions as the county鈥檚 top executive, former Mayor Michael Victorino vetoed a Maui County Council proposal that directed the local government to create a map 鈥 known as a 鈥渃ultural overlay鈥 in the county鈥檚 jargon 鈥 to document the island鈥檚 rich history.聽The map would allow anyone to search a wide range of information including maps, building outlines, video clips, chants and the locations of pivotal historic events.
The proposed law also directed Maui County鈥檚 staff archeologist to review and make recommendations on certain development projects if they happened to occur in areas near vulnerable cultural sites.
But for now, it’s unclear what the future holds. The Maui County Council can override the former mayor鈥檚 veto by passing the bill again with a two-thirds vote, but the council has so far struggled to make decisions because it’s politically divided and currently missing a member.
The county administration could also look to move forward with building the map on its own. A spokesperson for the Bissen administration didn’t respond to requests for comment.聽
Proponents argued that the bill would stave off destruction of sites, prevent the lawsuits that can follow and speed up the current project review process. In his memo, however, Victorino said that, while he applauded the intent of the bill, he thought it would bring 鈥渦nintended consequences.鈥
Among his concerns: that the county鈥檚 archeologist would have too much discretion, creating 鈥渙pportunities for arbitrariness and delays,鈥 and that the map should be completed before the county took other steps. He also questioned if the criteria by which a property would be given a 鈥渃ultural sensitivity designation” was too broad and said it was 鈥渦nclear what the impacts of the mapping will be.鈥
鈥淚 urge the next council to take up the matter of the cultural overlay and work with the stakeholders to craft a bill that operates within the law to provide greater information about and better protection for iwi and other historic properties,鈥 Victorino wrote.
The measure was put together through 14 meetings over the course of almost two years, a process that included back and forth with the state鈥檚 Historic Preservation Division as well as the county鈥檚 archeologist, attorneys and departments of Planning and Public Works. The bill was supported by the planning commissions of Maui, Molokai and Lanai as well as the county’s Cultural Resource Commission, according to county documents.
Initially, the bill aimed to 鈥溾 was almost universally supported.
In the first vote in November, it passed the council with an 8-to-1 vote. But in the weeks that followed, organizations including the American Resort Development Association of Hawaii and the Hawaii Hotel Alliance raised concerns about whether the county鈥檚 archeologist would be given too much power and argued that it would be duplicative of existing planning processes. But the measure passed again 6 to 2 in the final vote in December (one council member was absent).
鈥淏eing afraid to create a map because you may not like what it shows is sad and disrespectful to island residents and Hawaiian people,鈥 council member Shane Sinenci, who introduced the bill, said in a statement about the veto.
Right now, Sinenci said, the current system isn鈥檛 serving anyone. Even after undergoing a lengthy state review process, it鈥檚 not unusual for contractors to hit burials and disturb the sacred resting places of iwi kupuna when trying to develop property, he said.
Right now, the county often relies on the state’s Historic Preservation Division to review projects, which is reportedly understaffed and backlogged.
Sinenci said that having Maui County鈥檚 archeologist review projects would mean that she could recommend to the county staff who approve permits that projects skip the state process if it’s safe to build there. If enacted, the measure would鈥檝e required that the archeologist give a recommendation within 90 days 鈥 a timeline that’s faster than the state and other county agencies that have the power to approve permits.
鈥淭he bill merely allowed (the county’s archeologist) to review projects and make recommendations to department directors,鈥 Sinenci said. 鈥淚t gave her no authority.鈥
Civil Beat鈥檚 coverage of Maui County is supported in part by grants from the Nuestro Futuro Foundation and the Fred Baldwin Memorial Foundation.
Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed.
Support Independent, Unbiased News
Civil Beat is a nonprofit, reader-supported newsroom based in 贬补飞补颈驶颈. When you give, your donation is combined with gifts from thousands of your fellow readers, and together you help power the strongest team of investigative journalists in the state.