Ceded lands controversy pits reason against reason
December 11th, 2008 by Jerry BurrisThe never-ending battle over ceded lands (those former Crown and government lands now held in trust by the state of Hawaii) has reached a new peak. Gordon Pang had a good roundup of the dispute Thursday.
The problem here is that there are as many layers to this dispute as there are to a fancy wedding cake. Let's just take one complication:
The administration of Gov. Linda Lingle has been generally sympathetic to Hawaiians and their claims for political recognition. She supports the Hawaiian recognition or Akaka bill, for instance.
Then why, complain many activists, is the Lingle administration trying to shoot down a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that puts any further transfer or sale of ceded lands on ice until Hawaiian claims are resolved?
The answer is fairly straightforward. The administration does not want to see any legal precedent set that would tie its hands in sovereign decisions on the use or disposition of ceded lands or any other property for that matter. Call it a fundamental state's rights argument.
Some see this stance as being an underhanded way of refusing to consider any kind of lands deal as part of any settlement of claims that the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown illegally. In fact, it is not.
But while those claims are being hashed out, and it could take years, the state does not want to see itself iced out of any way to make reasonable and prudent use of the ceded lands. After all, they were set aside for any number of public purposes, only one of which was the betterment of Native Hawaiians.
And in truth, those arguing the Hawaiian case do not contend that the state has no right to sell or transfer ceded lands. Far from it. All they are saying is that that inherent right should be put on hold until and when their claims are resolved, since settlement might indeed at least a portion of those lands. If lands were sold or transferred out of state control prior to a settlement, they would be gone forever and could not become part of any future settlement.
Complicated? Of course. But behind the emotion and rhetoric, both sides are working from fairly responsible and realistic legal positions.
Tags: ceded lands, Hawaiians, Lingle
December 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Again, the premise of the book "Land and Power In Hawaii" is proven.
Aloha,
Keahi
December 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Seems like lingle is dealing with the issue ass backwards. Why not settle the issue whether the hawaiians have any claim on the ceded lands; instead of trying to resolve the issue whether the state can dispose of the ceded lands.
This process is showing that lingle is talking out of both sides of her mouth. Why is so difficult to determine whether the hawaiians have any claim to the ceded lands?
Can't blame the hawaiians for objecting since they don't want any land that they might have a legitimate or legal claim against to be disposed of. Is this not reasonable?
By disposing of the land with a cloud on its title would only complicate matters more in the future. First things first and stop playing games. If the governor really believes that the hawaiians do not have a valid legal claim against the lands then, they should say so and settle the issue in court. Show some guts and not trying to light both ends of the string at the same time. Take a stand, that is what you were elected for, if not resign.