i am new to this forum so i apologize if this has already been discussed/answered. my concern is this...as i drive around oahu i notice that much of the state owned properties and utilies are in a major state of disrepair. most noticably, the schools look like dumps. if the governor wants to use state funds to take over (i.e. buy) the turtle bay area and eventually not renew the land lease on the condos,how is the state going pay for this and make up for the lack of tax income and tourist income that this area generates for the state. in addition, where is the money going to come from for the implementation and maintenance of the area? after all, if the state doesn't have the funds to improve the existing state owned facilities, why would the state incur more unnecessary debt? make no mistake, i am all for keeping the north shore country. but i think we need to look at the potential impacts that the governor's plan would have on both the residents of hawaii and the tourists. common sense tells us that the governor would need to raise money to fund and maintain her turtle bay "project". how does any state raise money? easiest way is by raising taxes. property taxes,sales taxes,business taxes,ect. a mass tax increase could have a detrimental impact on a state that is extremely expensive to live in, run a business in, and vacation in. we also need to consider the state of the current economy. nation wide we are is a recession and the real estate market is hurting everywhere. is this the best time for the state to be taking on a huge financial responsibilty such as this? we need to think about this. in addition to the added expense to everyone we need to look at the lost income to the state by getting rid of the turtle bay resort, the condo, and the golf course. again, i am all for limiting and strictly regulation large scale development projects on the north shore, but i am not so sure the governors idea for the turtle bay area is such a great idea. what about tax incentive for the business and residents in the turtle bay area for implementation of "green living". if the carbon foot print on this area can be reduced it will help solve many of the existing problems and concerns.
i welcome any and call comments, both for and against.
mahalo!

Thank you for the reasonable tone and valid questions.

Please allow me to clarify some facts: 1, Nobody wants the hotel to fail; 2, nearly everyone wants to Keep the Country, Country; 3, the state is not planning to retain and operate the hotel; 4, the potential cost in highway improvements and social impacts of massive expansion would far exceed whatever is required now to preserve the area; 5, Oaktree took hundreds of millions of dollars out of the property and now refuses to pay it back, so the resort is in foreclosure; 6, property is worth what an informed buyer is willing to pay, not what someone "hopes" or "needs" to collect; 7, the 1986 development plan seems to have no expiration, so this crisis could resurface again unless dealt with now.

In summary, the issues are complex and the solution will not be easy, but this is a critical moment in determining the future of Oahu. Thank God, the Governor has the vision and integrity to do what is right, even when doing right is not easy.

Gil,
thanks for taking the time to read my post. you make some very good points that i had not thought about. (again i am new to this forum and still reading all the past posts to get better educated) the potential costs in highway improvements...very valid point. and the social impacts have the potential to be devastating. And yes, i think the 1986 development plan needs to be re-addressed. if for no other reason than that legally it is too broad and vague with regard to expiration. would a similair development plan and impact study done today be different than what was done in 1986...absolutely it would be different. Gil, i commend you for taking the initiative with this matter and trying to make changes. i guess the thing i am still having questions/concerns about is whether the state buying the land is the best answer? don't get me wrong, i understand the reasoning behind it, i just don't know if once the state owns the land if they will do the right things with it. i envision a large abandoned area bordered with "no Trespassing signs" for years while the state tries to decide on "a plan". i don't mean to sound negative, but i am a lawyer by profession so i tend to play devil's advocate often.
again, your thoughts are both welcome and respected. thanks for giving us this forum for educated discussion.
mahalo!

Kuilima is a beauftiful place thats no doubt. I drove out last week to check it out and was just shocked. the place looks like a third world country. The hosipital is in need of repair and upkeep. The State will not benefit from a buyout. The State should be focused on our children. Saving Kuilima will not generate $$$$ that the People of Hawaii needs. This I promise you will open up to a whole lot of save this and save that land deals. People have a hard enough time just getting by here on the Islands. The tax will be raised I gtd that and for what just to benefit the few? How about a developer comes in and does the right thing in the first place. Affordable housing, Union Jobs, Children/Senior Center, Open access to the beaches, Scale down the project to no more than 2000 units and on the job training for all get the devloper to help its people in kahuku.I bet that there is someone willing to do this. It would be a win win situation. Stop focusing on the negative ans stabing each others back. Unite and work together with the developers and meet in a happy medium. We are in a recession so you are all kidding if you think that the feds/State or even private $$$$ its going to come out of our already heavy taxes!! So you saved North Shore. Tell me how that will help feed, house and educate our chldren.
Thanks but no thanks. perception is a dangerous thing. We are a State and not a REIT.