Lingle, Hawaiian Homelands and Akaka Bill

In his Advertiser column David Shapiro talks about Lingle's perceived "steady commitment to advancing the rights of Native Hawaiians" through Akaka bill lobbying and efforts to "significantly increase the number of house lots and other leasehold lands made available to qualifying Hawaiians by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands."

Without getting into a discussion of the pros and cons of the homelands program overall, with 50% blood quantum and such, I do think it is good that more HHL development is happening, and I give Lingle credit for that. And it is true, as Shapiro points out, that "Hawaiian Homes is directly serving a segment of the population hardest hit by the housing crunch, and in doing so, helps others in the community by freeing up affordable housing inventory elsewhere in the market."

But Shapiro then concludes with the argument that "the Hawaiian Homes gains could be in jeopardy if Congress fails to pass the Akaka bill to provide an umbrella of protection over programs that benefit Native Hawaiians."

Hawaiian Homelands being threatened is one of main scare tactics that has been used to try to generate support for the bill, often with very misleading information. The thing is, there is nothing in the language of the bill that would actually guarantee any protection for Hawaiian Homelands. On the contrary, one of the latest proposed amendments to the bill would remove the ability to file court claims for violations of the homelands trust.

The Advertiser reported in September that:

The changes proposed by the amendment would:
Leave negotiations on claims made by Native Hawaiians against the United States and the state in the hands of a federally recognized Hawaiian governing entity. Individuals and organizations, including the governing entity, would not have the legal basis to file such claims in court.

As noted in an Advertiser article when the portion of the Arakaki v. Lingle lawsuit that was directed at Hawaiian Homelands was thrown out earlier this year:

Hui Pu, an umbrella group of Native Hawaiians opposing the Akaka bill, said in a statement yesterday that it's wrong to use the court's decision to support the Akaka bill because "it actually hurts the group which this ruling protects — Hawaiian Homeland lessees. With ... new amendments, the bill takes away their right to file legitimate claims against the government. From 1959 to 1995 alone, more than 4,000 claims have been filed."

Meanwhile, the Star-Bulletin reported at the time why DHHL was distinct from other Hawaiian programs like OHA:

The [9th Circuit] court found that DHHL was the creation of the federal government's Admissions Act that made Hawaii a state in 1959... The court said that because DHHL was created under the direction of the federal government, the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge it as state taxpayers.

The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 set aside about 200,000 acres for homesteads staked by Hawaiians with at least 50 percent aboriginal blood. The intent of the act was to establish "a permanent land base for the beneficial use of native Hawaiians."

When Hawaii became a state in 1959, Congress required it to incorporate the HHCA into its state Constitution. Because of the federal role in the creation of HHCA, the court ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue the federal government as taxpayers under existing law.

Posted: Wed - November 23, 2005 at 08:35 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1295638618"); >

Lingle, Hawaiian Homelands and Akaka Bill

> >