This is the Board’s statement read by the GM Maylette Garces with SOS Hui editorial notes where we believe appropriate. The original document can be viewed on the PHCA website's "glamping" page only accessible by PV1 residents.
“September 17, 2021 Update, presented at the September 16 PHCA Board of Directors' meeting:
The Board is sincerely grateful for the e-mails, phone calls, conversations, letters and testimony it has received from members on the ongoing subject of Starwood’s announced glamping project and other development projects, as well as the subject of preserving Princeville’s open spaces now and after 2026. Your input matters. The Board takes your feedback seriously in exercising its judgment regarding what is best for the Princeville community.
The Board has been closely tracking these issues on 3 different fronts. Here is an update.
First, the Board has taken significant interest in County Bill 2822, which has sometimes been referred to as an “anti-glamping” bill. Every time it has been heard by the Planning Commission, PHCA has submitted formal comments to register the Association’s very strong interest in preserving open space in Princeville. Two days ago, the Planning Commission passed the Planning Department’s version of Bill 2822 and sent it back to the County Council for further hearings and approvals. The Board knows that the version sent from the Planning Commission may or may not be the same version of the Bill that eventually gets passed, if it even gets passed at all. PHCA will continue to monitor and participate in hearings regarding Bill 2822 every step of the way. It will be actively reaching out to County officials and elected officials so that the Association’s input is part of the conversation as this Bill goes through the legislative process.”
- Did PHCA send additional written testimony since its original submission on June 29th, 2021? If new testimony was provided, what was it? There was no record of any new PHCA submission in the Commissioners’ packet in advance of the meeting.
- Hundreds of letters were submitted in advance of the July and September hearings, by individuals and groups across the island in support of the Bill.
- The Bill ORIGINATED with the Council and unanimously passed on first reading in April. Planning Director Ka‘aina Hull stated at the 9/14 hearing that the Planning Department had consulted with Council regarding its suggested changes to the Bill prior to submission to the Commission; there was no opposition from Council to the Department’s amended language.
- The Bill unanimously passed the Commission. ]
“Second, regarding a lawsuit filed in state court by individual Princeville homeowners against the golf course owner (also known as Starwood) to stop Starwood’s announced glamping project, the Board has been made aware of a recent court filing that purports to bring the Association into the litigation. As of today, PHCA has never been served with any papers related to this lawsuit. The Board should not and will not make any comments about what actions the Board will take unless and until the Association gets served. Commenting now could be deemed as receiving formal notice of the litigation. If the Association is served, at that time, the Board will review the merits of the claim and then take appropriate actions that are in the best interests of PHCA.”
- Starwood’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition surprisingly contained a Declaration by Sam George (saying he is president of the PHCA Board, but not signing it as such) in support of Starwood’s attempt to Dismiss the Petition.
- The Judge denied Starwood’s Motion to Dismiss.
- IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT SEEK MONETARY DAMAGES (nor are monetary damages even allowable in a Petition for Declaratory Judgment).
- Starwood filed documents with the Court naming PHCA as a Third Party Defendant in the action on 9/7/21 at 10:22 am; hence PHCA has, in fact been sued by Starwood Capital Group, AND NOT by the Plaintiffs.
- Whether a party has been served or not does not change that fact they have been brought into the legal action.
- Is this a negotiating ploy or a threat to get PHCA Board to join Starwood’s efforts to break the contract between themselves and the thousands of owners of property in Princeville 1? ]
“Third, active discussions are ongoing between the Board’s representatives and Starwood regarding the possibility of a formal agreement to permanently commit the golf course lands to open space and other community benefits, in exchange for the Board’s support of certain Starwood development projects. Those discussions have been productive. [Ed. bolding] As of today, no new offer has been extended by either side, and there is no agreement. The Board is sensitive to the fact that within the community, some individual members are strongly in favor of the Association making an agreement with Starwood, others are strongly against this, and others are somewhere in between or perhaps indifferent to the issue. The Board continues to do its due diligence on this very important matter. It is doing its best and will continue to do its best to weigh the pros and cons in deciding what to do next.”
- The statement says that “Those discussions have been productive.” How so? What’s on the table?
- None of those most affected or any other interested parties have been included in those negotiations.
- Why in the world would Princeville or the PHCA Board choose to support a corporate developer over its Membership and favor more tourist accommodations that steal open space and give the Island even more problems with parking, traffic, infrastructure, and numerous other issues? ]
“As the Board stated in previous meetings, it is committed to determining the most supportable path forward. This is an important moment for the Princeville community. The Board will take action in administrative, legal, and/or legislative venues, as appropriate, to advance PHCA’s interests.”
NOW FOR THE SCG PORTION OF THE MEETING…
- Sam George was asked if PHCA had been sued. He said, “No, not yet - not to our knowledge.” Even the above statement acknowledged that “the Board has been made aware of” such an action.
- What are the lawyers actually doing? Sam responded that the attorneys had been hired maybe August of last year (when this all began), that they were fact-finding about Princeville, and he said that there was a lot of misinformation “out there”. But it’s only since May or June 2021 that Doug Chin of Starn O’Toole Marcus & Fisher joined the PHCA legal team, so how are there more “facts” yet to be uncovered after nearly a year of legal “research” and fees? In the July Board meeting, Sam said that Doug Chin was handling all issues presented by Starwood. Sam said that the Community had paid for the lawyers and that we deserved to know what had been found…but not yet.
- The Petition for Declaratory Relief was filed with the Court on or about June 24th 2021, asking for the judgment on “glamping”. A Princeville resident implied that the petitioners stood to gain financially if the result came in their favor. The answer is NO. There are no damages requested nor available in this sort of petition before the Court. IN FACT, IT IS THE PLAINTIFFS and other supporters who are paying the legal fees for this action and who are spending much time and treasure in an effort that PHCA should have been fighting from the beginning.
- Starwood has essentially issued a threat to all of us who are Owners of Land in Princeville—if PHCA Board doesn’t support glamping (thereby supporting a breach of an existing valid contract), they will develop all 27 holes of the Makai Golf Course. Why wouldn’t the Board want a judicial determination of whether glamping is illegal under the Dedication?
- It is also VITAL to note that if PHCA supports glamping, which we all know is resort expansion on Open Zoned land, it will be thumbing its nose at the County. Good luck with repairing that relationship in the future.
- Apart from the PHCA posted message about Starwood Capital Group, there were also many concerns expressed vocally and in the chat box about losing even more green open space through the Waimaumau potential development, with homeowners expressing many of the same serious concerns – noise, traffic, parking and so forth. These issues need to be heard and addressed. We also want to note that permitting glamping/resort development on any or all of the golf course will be a force multiplier on the stresses on Queen’s Bath and the entirety of the Princeville community.
- It continues to be extremely distressing that the Board refuses to hear any commentary or answer questions on any SCG-specific issues – why do they continue to negotiate given the stance of the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, AND the County Council; the possible form of any agreement; and why they are even considering interfering in a contract when they do not have the representative capacity to negotiate away the rights of individual homeowners?
- The retained parliamentarian, Mr. Glanstein, hired to run interference for the Board was less than helpful in promoting communications or enabling comments by members who want to help provide solutions for our divided community. Communication disruption is exactly what developers love to see. They don’t love Princeville; they just want a return on their investment. We do love Princeville and are willing to fight for it. Please join the fight for your individual rights and those of the community.
Mahalo Nui Loa for your on-going support!
SOSHui.org.
More...
More...
More...
By Luke Evslin (Civil Beat)
By Luke Evslin (Civil Beat)
By Luke Evslin (Civil Beat)