Outrigger should avoid
condemnation processThe issue: The City Council has given
initial approval for condemnation of land
to allow hotel redevelopment in Waikiki.OUTRIGGER Enterprises has won preliminary approval by the City Council of a land condemnation process that would enable it to go forward with a $300 million renovation project in Waikiki, but it should not come to that. Outrigger and five landowners should be able to reach a compromise that would avert condemnation and the lengthy legal battle that could ensue.
Outrigger wants to renovate or replace old buildings and create a tree-shaded plaza in the Lewers Street area of Waikiki. However, 10 percent of the area is owned by others who have been leasing it to Outrigger. The leases require the landowners' permission for the project's plans to go forward.
This is not a case of families being thrown out of their homes or businesses. Instead, family trusts, individuals and a business partnership would be compelled to reinvest their assets elsewhere to allow redevelopment of a dilapidated area of Hawaii's prime tourist area.
Outrigger has tried to negotiate purchases of the land, but Melvin Kaneshige, the company's chief operating officer, says the landowners have demanded two to three times the fair market value. Even so, it has reached a tentative agreement with the second-largest landowner, a trust of the mainland Andrade family.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution allows government to condemn private property for public use, providing just compensation to the landowner. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted "public use" to facilitate urban renewal and the "broad and inclusive" area of public welfare. In upholding the Hawaii Land Reform Act in 1984, the high court ruled that condemnation for direct transfer of land from lessors to lessees was permissible as long as it was in the public interest.
Robert Klein, the attorney for four of the landowners, says the City Council action will damage his clients' negotiating stance "because now they're one step closer to knowing that the properties eventually, at some point in time, will be condemned." He likens the situation to his clients having a gun pointed at their heads.
The gun had been pointed in the opposite direction. The Council's preliminary approval of condemnation should bring balance to the negotiations, as long as Outrigger does not abuse its new leverage to retreat from its earlier offers. The agreement with the Andrade trust should provide a basis for further settlements.
Klein's clients would be wise to use the leverage they have left -- consisting of their ability to challenge the condemnation in court, however meritless such a lawsuit would be -- to negotiate a reasonable price. That is likely to be more than what independent appraisers would decide is fair market value.
Allow TV coverage
of terrorism trialThe issue: A judge has been asked
to allow TV coverage of an accused
terrorist's trial.TELEVISION coverage of court proceedings has been commonplace in America's state courts for years but is prohibited through most of the federal system. The absurdity of such a ban could prevent the American public from witnessing the most important terrorist trial in U.S. history.
Congress is considering legislation that would require the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, charged with complicity in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, to be put on closed-circuit television for relatives of the victims. No adequate reason can be given for limiting access to relatives. Indeed, an argument can be made that all Americans were victims of the attacks.
U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema indicated she would resist being dragged into the 21st century by allowing general TV coverage of the Moussaoui trial. She cites a federal judiciary rule dating to 1946, when cameras were bulky and required floodlights.
The rule has been steadfastly retained by the Judicial Conference, which administers federal courts but takes its cue from the Supreme Court. Justice David H. Souter reflected the court's consensus several years ago when he told a congressional committee that "the day you see a camera coming into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."
The reason for keeping cameras out of courtroom is the same as that for performing any government function without wide public scrutiny: Government officials, including judges, may be revealed as human, capable of making mistakes. Congress and state legislatures have opened proceedings to cameras only under public pressure.
All 50 state judicial systems allow some form of television coverage in courts, and 38, including Hawaii, allow cameras in criminal trials. If portions of the trial are deemed inappropriate for television, because of the age of witnesses, the privacy of sexual-assault complainants or any other valid reason, the judge has the discretion to order use of a lens cap.
The coverage of state court proceedings provides modern compliance with the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to a public trial. The U.S. Supreme Court continues to arbitrarily prohibit television coverage without explanation.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comRichard Halloran, editorial page director, 529-4790; rhalloran@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, contributing editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
