Our View an ‘insult’

In response to the Our View editorial July 12, I find it “curious” that it insinuates that people who gave testimony to the PONC did so with no integrity.

Since the editorial quotes my words, I myself feel that the snide challenge to my motivation for supporting the purchase of the property next to Kona Vista is an insult. As a retired professor and historian, I hold my words and their integrity sacred. As a scholar of and writer on Hawaiian history and culture, my words are my currency and may not be devalued. I said specifically that I am not anti-development. I did not speak as a “neighbor” but as an individual whose education in-forms a deep concern for preserving Hawaii’s history. For the record, I do not live on property that would abut the land whether it is protected or not.

There are enough aspersions in the opinion piece to suggest that the writer’s view is an outsider’s. Anyone who actually listened to the testimony before PONC clearly heard that there was no mention of NIMBY or other self-serving positions. Each person who spoke was sincerely interested in preserving the history of this important remaining piece of the ancient Kona Field System. For the unaware, this strip of land cultivated by Hawaiians since at least the 14th century fed most of the population on this side of this island. It was the center of farming in pre-contact times — the breadbasket of the west side. That was long before it became ranch land and the northern end of the Kona Coffee Belt.

My experience as a caretaker and educator on land that was developed in this area has proven that decisions made about land development back in 1984 need to be revisited. Many things have changed in Kona in the past 35 years, including our awareness of the value in preserving and protecting the fragile history of this land that is so easily erased forever by bulldozers. In my kuleana, more than 128 historical elements were identified before building, and now there is only one — one — left. Only the most minimal archaeological survey has been done of the property in question: 5 acres of the almost 70 acres in the parcel were surveyed, the defined “minimum standard.” It is not pono to proceed until a complete survey is done.

The off-hand assumptions of the editorial board and the flippant language in the Our View suggest someone uneducated and uncaring. The writer might better investigate the facts and the issues and address them as serious journalists do.

Kate Kealani Winter

Kailua-Kona

Land fits preservation mission

Your July 12 editorial, “Neighbors’ call for preservation curious” criticism of Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates owners is harsh, one-sided, uninformed and inflammatory. The Public Access Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation (PONC) Committee administers the “2% Fund” of about $20 million at this time, to purchase nominated open space worthy of saving — our property taxes at work.

Anyone can nominate a site for preservation. To be accepted on this list is an involved procedure, takes months, and requires open space that must meet very stringent requirements. PONC purchases accepted sites at market value. The subject of your editorial is the accepted 70 acre site known as PONC # 19-024. This involved acceptance process must begin early before property is developed. There is no guarantee property will be developed until all county requirements are met.

A quote from your op-ed: ” ‘I’m not anti-development, but I’m for very conscious, very patient study before we go in and literally erase things,’ one neighbor said Monday, when the PONC took up the issue as to why they oppose the project.”

My neighbor and I attended that meeting; neither of us heard PONC or anyone offering testimony “take up the issue as to why they oppose the project” or any discussion of anti-development.

Perhaps if your reporter, Cameron Miculka, had arrived at that PONC meeting at its beginning instead of near the end, he would have heard testimony from numerous citizens praising and detailing the benefits of # 19-024 as a site worth saving. It is culturally and historically significant, has rare agriculture and other archaeological sites, supports endangered habitat and natural resources. The process for protection must begin early. Once a site is developed, it’s too late.

If you want to criticize, I suggest Hawaii state and county for the traffic mess south of town.

Gayle Scoggin

Kailua-Kona