Re: Starwood Capital’s Glamping/Resort Expansion Project
Our apologies for the delay in getting this summary out. First, we were rather taken aback by the contentiousness in general and lack of discussion regarding the Starwood Capital Group’s resort expansion efforts in the meeting. To say the least, it was a long and vexing meeting chaired by the Board’s hired parliamentarian, Steve Glanstein.
The discussion of issues (on the limited occasions it was allowed by the parliamentarian) and the chat line were replete with frustration and contention. Members present at the meeting expressed concern with the Board’s lack of transparency; the parliamentarian’s refusal to allow discussion of important issues; the Board’s refusal to clearly answer questions; an apparent disabling of the Zoom chat function allowing private chats between members; complaints of rude treatment and the disabling of mics by the parliamentarian.
This summary addresses the key points of the meeting.
In addition to Starwood Capital Group’s Glamping Project, the September PHCA meeting included a proposal from another mainland developer who seeks to get a Special Use Permit for the development of another Open Space “green belt” property, Parcel ID 540050370000 on the County tax rolls. We are aware of the problems presently existing in the neighborhood near Queen’s Bath and it is clear from the discussions at the meeting that Queen’s Bath is another hot button issue that deserves careful consideration by the Board, the membership (particularly all the adjoining neighboring property owners), and all other stakeholders affected by the proposal.
We understand that a committee may be formed to study the situation and make recommendations regarding the project. Stay tuned.
Now on to Glamping/Resort Expansion:
The best news first – Bill 2822, with Council-approved Planning Department changes, was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission so it now goes back to the County Council for a 2nd reading. We anticipate it will be on the next Council meeting agenda. As a Council-sponsored bill we expect it to pass and then move on for signature by the Mayor. This should happen sooner rather than later.
A Petition for Declaratory Relief has been filed in court seeking judicial determination of the single issue of whether glamping is ancillary to golf. The only party named as a defendant in the suit was Starwood Capital Group/SOF-XI. THE PETITION DOES NOT SEEK ANY MONETARY DAMAGES nor are money damages available in this type of lawsuit.
The Facts:
- The Petition for Declaratory Relief was filed by Lorraine Mull and another PHCA member. Lorraine is married to Tom Mull who is a candidate in the upcoming board election. Former Hawaii Attorney General Margery Bronster is counsel for the petitioners. When questioned about any potential conflicts of interest, we have learned that, prior to filing the Petition, Ms. Bronster advised Mrs. Mull that the Petition presented no conflict of interest should Mr. Mull decide to run for the PHCA board.
- Starwood filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit which was accompanied by a Declaration supporting their action for dismissal by PHCA President Sam George.
- Judge Watanabe denied Starwood’s Motion to Dismiss and, subsequent to that, Starwood filed a Third-Party Demand that brought PHCA into the lawsuit as defendants. Contrary to Mr. George’s statements at the meeting, PHCA has indeed been sued by Starwood; the fact that the suit has not yet been served on PHCA does not change that fact.
A Princeville resident attending the meeting implied that PHCA candidate Tom Mull might benefit financially from a judicial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. That is clearly not the case as there are no money damages sought in the lawsuit. However, since the issue of conflicts of interest has been raised, we wonder about the appearance of impropriety resulting from the fact that Mr. George has officially sided with Starwood in its Motion to Dismiss the case.
The real beneficiaries of a judicial ruling that glamping is not “ancillary to golf” will be the Owners of Land in Princeville who are protected by the Dedication.
For those of you in PV1 – PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming election for the 2 open board member seats. BALLOTS ARE VERY CONFUSING, AND WE ARE ALL WAITING FOR CLARIFICATION ON HOW TO VOTE for selected candidates; the email that was intended to help only muddied the waters further. Please keep an eye out for the ballot – they are in the mail. We would like to see Tom Mull elected because of his clearly stated position to defend the Dedication and preserve our Open Space; we believe the Board needs a strong counterpoint to the present president’s “let’s make a deal” approach. All the candidates are qualified, committed members of this community so we encourage you to read their bios that accompany your ballot. Cumulative voting is allowed under the PHCA rules; this means two votes can be cast for one candidate.
Thank you for reading to this point – for a more detailed report on this portion of the meeting, including our point-by-point response to PHCA’s posted statement regarding glamping, please visit SOSHui.org, to read the rest of the story.
As always, Mahalo Nui Loa for your ongoing support!
SOSHui.org
More...
More...
More...
By Luke Evslin (Civil Beat)
By Luke Evslin (Civil Beat)
By Luke Evslin (Civil Beat)