Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Friday, February 2, 2001Saving Sandy Beach
came with a priceThe issue: A judge has ruled that the city must compensate Kamehameha Schools and developer Maunalua Associates for downzoning their land near Sandy Beach 12 years ago.
THE time for the city to pay the piper for downzoning land across Kalanianaole Highway from Sandy Beach to block a housing development is near. Circuit Judge Sabrina S. McKenna ruled that the City Council's 1989 action amounted to "inverse condemnation" carries a price tag to be determined by trial if no settlement can be reached. The judge ruled that the city must pay for potential revenues lost since the Council action.
The proposal to build a 177-unit housing development on Bishop Estate -- since renamed Kamehameha Schools -- land caused a furor in the 1980s. The Council approved the development by a one-vote margin in 1987, but voters rejected it by initiative a year later, culminating a campaign by a citizens group called the Save Sandy Beach Coalition.
This was a misnomer because the land in question is not on the beach.
The state Supreme Court ruled the following year that the initiative was invalid in zoning issues, but the Council, following voter sentiment, then unanimously torpedoed the project by downzoning the 30 acres from residential to conservation.
The city plans to use the acreage for a park and budgeted $5 million for its purchase last year. However, McKenna ruled that the condemnation price -- the cost of the downzoning to the landowner -- must be based on the land's value as residential property, undoubtedly a much higher figure.
The developers maintained that the city's cancelation of the project by downzoning their land would infringe on their rights. Not surprisingly, McKenna agreed.
Dave Matthews, a founder of the Save Sandy Beach Coalition, says saving the beach area is worth the cost to taxpayers, whatever it might be. "To me, you can't put a price on that land," he said. "It's all that's left of the eastern part of Oahu, and it should be left alone."
However, it is unlikely that many voters -- or even Council members -- who supported the downzoning were aware that the city might be forced to pay the landowner and developer considerably more than $5 million. Saying you can't put a price on land won't impress taxpayers who have to come up with the money.
The Sandy Beach experience should be a warning to county governments to use caution in zoning for development in environmentally sensitive areas. Reversing such decisions if the public becomes belatedly aroused in opposition to such development -- as was the case with Sandy Beach -- can be costly.
OK of Ashcroft could
be expensive for Bush
PRESIDENT Bush's nominee for attorney general, John Ashcroft, won Senate confirmation yesterday but not without a price. This was the most controversial nomination since 1989, when the Senate rejected another colleague, John Tower, as secretary of defense.
The battle certainly did not advance the president's goal to heal Washington's partisan wounds. Rather it created a new set of wounds. If the White House did not anticipate that the fight would be taken to such lengths, Bush's advisers made a major miscalculation.
Unlike Tower, Ashcroft's personal life appears to be impeccable and he is liked by many of his former Senate colleagues, while Tower was disliked.
But Ashcroft's conservatism strikes many as extreme. Abortion-rights advocates, spokesmen for racial minorities, gun-control promoters and supporters of the separation of church and state protested his appointment.
Liberal Democrats took turns savaging him. In the end, 42 Democrats voted no -- enough to show the administration that his status is shaky and the opposition will watch him closely.
The usual presumption is that the president should be allowed to appoint the members of his cabinet, and that presumption was accepted in this case, but with many Democrats refusing to go along.
Ashcroft insisted that he would uphold laws -- such as abortion rights -- even if he disagreed with them. But to his critics his views were simply too conservative and his vows to be impartial unconvincing.
Ashcroft's blocking of a federal judgeship for Ronnie White, a black Missouri Supreme Court judge, was subjected to strong criticism because it was based on a misrepresentation of the judge's views.
Adding to the discontent with the nomination was Bush's order withdrawing federal funding for international organizations that pay for abortions or abortion counseling -- which was another administration bow to religious conservatives.
Bush clearly wanted to include a representative of the religious right in his cabinet, but nominating Ashcroft to the highly sensitive position of attorney general touched a political nerve. That might have been avoided had the president found a less conspicuous job for him.
Bush has now been given notice that the liberals will oppose him on key issues and appointments if he chooses more arch-conservatives -- notice that will be particularly applicable if the president gets an opportunity to name one or more justices of the Supreme Court.
With his narrow and controversial election and bare majorities in Congress, Bush cannot afford many such victories.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
