That simple statement summarized that lessor's frustration completely - that all of the false and half-true statements made against the leasehold system were based neither on facts nor independent studies.
If the leasehold system had been a person, had been found guilty of all the accusations and was condemned to death through a mandatory conversion, what would he say to his accusers? Maybe something like this:
"I have been found guilty, but I am innocent. My only crime was doing exactly what I was expected to do.
"It was never intended that I be as good as fee-simple ownership. I was supposed to be better than renting and less expensive than fee simple. I was supposed to be a stepping stone through which buyers could purchase leasehold, build up equities, sell and then buy fee-simple properties.
"The City Council members condemning me have made a number of serious accusations, mainly based on hearsay and opinions but with little factual basis.
"In the law's 'Findings of Fact' they accuse me of being a feudal system, of stealing lessees' value, of high and unreasonable lease rents on renegotiation, of a concentration of ownership, to name just a few charges.
"But how can the City Council act as my accuser and jury when many of its members are lessees who will benefit from me being found guilty? Is that not one of the issues on the minds of Council members - that there are more lessee voters than lessor voters?
"Some Council members supported mandatory conversion because of a belief that prices were too high. Yet, the same Council - acting as a lessor of the land under Harbor Court condominium - decided to sell its land to lessees. Council members had it appraised and sold at a value greater or equal to the amount for which Hawaii's other lessors have sold their land.
"If the prices asked by other lessors are so unfair as to require passage of a mandatory law, why does the city sell its land at a comparable value?
"The Honolulu Board of Realtors has published studies showing that leasehold and fee-simple properties tended to follow the same appreciation rate up until 1991. But as the leases grew closer to renegotiation, the leasehold units should have started to decline in value because of the pending rent renegotiation. But the values remained high. Basically, lessees continued to pay an equivalent fee-simple price for leasehold properties.
The other fact published by the Honolulu Board of Realtors that proves my innocence is that since 1985 until today, Hawaii's land values have doubled. It is hard to believe because we think of our market as having declined, but values have doubled between 1985 and today. During the same period, why wouldn't they expect leased fee values to also double? In fact, leased fee prices should have outperformed the market.
"The reality is that leasehold properties were overvalued. It is possible this is because lessees believed that the government would allow the same type of mandatory law for condominiums and cooperatives that allowed single-family leased land to be sold at 25-30 percent of its true value. Hawaii's lessors lost over $3 billion this way.
"Was anyone concerned over this obvious injustice to lessors? Did multi-family lessees expect the same giveaway? It is obvious that is what was expected. No profit is supposed to be made in a fee conversion.
"I am guilty, but not of what I am accused. Instead, the leasehold system is guilty of not being a person and speaking sooner."