Blog

From Marti:

Like everybody else, we’ve been watching the news coverage about the closing of Molokai Ranch. We’ve seen how the corporation has tried to spin this event to throw blame at the community for opposing the La‘au Point development. The same tactic was tried with Superferry. But, I gotta say, it still ain’t working.

It is not the community’s fault when a corporation has a bad idea, sinks a whole bunch of money into it, and it fails. When somebody says “ah, this isn’t gonna work, don’t do it,” but a corporation goes and does it anyway… that’s called hard-head.

To see how hard head this corporation is… and how resilient the people of Molokai are, take a look at this list of news coverage & commentary compiled by Molokai residents.

La’au Point Residents Not At Fault by Lee Cataluna
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803280357

Karen Holt and Todd Yamshita were on KGMB 9 new this morning talking about the Ranch shutdown, the closure of access, buying the Ranch, and windfarms.
http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/5093/108/

Maui News Articles

Future of proposed project at Laau Point is unclear
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/501866.html?nav=10

Residents resolve to move on
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/501867.html?nav=10

Star Bulletin Editorial/Articles

‘Mothballing’ Molokai Ranch would be devastating
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/26/editorial/editorial01.html

Molokai parent calls isle unit ‘cash positive’
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/26/business/story01.html

Molokai Ranch’s imminent closure brings uncertainty
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/26/news/story02.html

Honolulu Advertiser Articles

Ranch’s fate determined by billionaire
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NEWS01/803260431

Molokai Ranch closure leaves bleak prospects
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NEWS01/803260433

Molokai Ranch timeline
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NEWS01/803260432

Some legal mana’o/analysis on recent Water Decisions from a Save La’au attorney:
“Three recent decisions need to be understood. First, in September 2007, the Attorney General finally concluded that the State could not lease the MIS to MPL until an environmental assessment is completed.

Second, on December 26, 2007, the Hawai`i Supreme Court vacated the Commission on Water Resource Management’s permit to withdraw and use water from Well #17 for the West End of Moloka`i. In the Matter of the Contested Case Hearing on the Water Use Permit Application Filed by Kukui (Molokai, 174 P.3d 320; 2007 Haw. LEXIS 381 (2007) (Kukui).

Third, on December 14, 2007, Maui County enacted a new ordinance (Ordinance #3052) that requires verification of water supply before subdivision is approved. MCC 14.12.040 and 18.04.020(G)…no permitted allocations from Well 17. At this point, MPL has neither the right to use Well 17 water, nor the right to transport water using the MIS….

The bulk or “piecemeal” sale option and the agricultural subdivision option present inaccurate information. These lots cannot be subdivided into more than 1500 – or even 215 plus 223 – lots. Ordinance 3502 (2007) would not allow this to occur because there is no water source available for these lots. Moreover, MPL over-estimates its ability to sell any of the parcels of land given the fact that it currently has no guaranteed water source for any of its lots. No buyer would purchase a lot on the dry West End without any assurance of a water source.

It is unfortunate that MPL has misled GuocoLeisure and its shareholders regarding the value of MPL’s land. Not only was the Hallstrom Group’s valuation inaccurate when it was made, but the three recent decisions (the Hawai`i Supreme Court’s in Kukui, the Department of the Attorney General’s regarding the MIS, and Maui County in the new subdivision ordinance) make it abundantly clear that 1) MPL has no guaranteed source of water to develop its lands and 2) the lands cannot be easily subdivided. MPL’s land is worth far, far less than MPL claims.”