1.8 million acres (7,300 km²) of land that were the crown lands of the Hawaiian monarchy prior to January 17, 1893 allotted out by Kamehameha III during the Great Mahele. The 1846-1848 Mahele (division) transformed the lands of Hawai‘i from a shared value into private property, but left many issues unresolved. Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) agreed to the Mahele, which divided all land among the mô‘î (king), the ali‘i (chiefs), and the maka‘âînana (commoners), in the hopes of keeping the lands in Hawaiian hands even if a foreign power claimed sovereignty over the Islands. The king’s share was further divided into Government and Crown Lands, the latter managed personally by the ruler until a court decision in 1864 and a statute passed in 1865 declared that they could no longer be bought or sold by the mô‘î and should be maintained intact for future monarchs. Crown Lands were part of the personal domain of Kamehameha III and evolved into a resource designed to support the mô‘î, who in turn supported the Native Hawaiian people. The question of who owns Hawai‘i’s Crown Lands today is of singular importance for Native Hawaiians in their quest for recognition and sovereignty. After the illegal overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, Government and Crown Lands were joined together, and after annexation in 1898 they were managed as a public trust by the United States. At statehood in 1959, all but 373,720 acres of Government and Crown Lands were transferred to the State of Hawai‘i. On January 31, 2008, the state courts unanimous ruling misinterpreted the Apology Resolution, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law in 1993 to acknowledge the illegal overthrow of Hawaiis monarchy. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the State of Hawaii had to resolve the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians before selling ceded lands. [Source: Honolulu Star Bulletin newspaper Vol. 13, Issue 121 - dated Wednesday, April 30, 2008 article by Alexandre Da Silva entitled, Sovereignty cited in ceded land case] The federal act authorizing the transfer required that the lands be held in trust and that revenue from the land be used for five purposes: 1.Support of public education 2.Betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 (The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 1920 did not exist in 1893) 3.Development of farm and home ownership 4.Public improvements 5.Provision of lands for public use (These excerpts actually came from the Statehood Act 1959) ...the high court in 1919 backed a similar land hold on the mainland to allow the Pueblo Indians to pursue their claims, and that land repatriations have also happened in New Zealand with the native Maoris. At present, control of these lands is divided mostly between the US Federal Government and the state of Hawaiʻi. A number of facilities, including airports and military facilities, are located on ceded lands, which in part leads to the controversy surrounding the issue. The dispute began in 1994, when OHA and four plaintiffs sued to stop the state from transferring ceded lands on Maui and the Big Island from the Department of Land and Natural Resources to the predecessor of the state Housing and Community Development Corp. of Hawaii to develop low-cost housing. The injunction specifically sought to prevent the transfer of a 500-acre parcel on Maui identified as Leialii. By the time OHA and the other plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, DLNR had already transferred the land, and the state housing agency had sent OHA a check for 20 percent of the fair market value of the land as its share according to state law. The state housing agency decided to stop work on the project after investing $31 million in Leialii for roads, utilities, light poles, sewer hookups and landscaping. The plaintiffs agreed to remove some of the Leialii lands from the dispute so the state could transfer them to the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to provide housing for native Hawaiians. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the portion of the decision based upon the federal Apology Resolution on March 31, 2009. The Court remanded the case back to the Hawaii State Supreme Court to reconsider its decision based upon state law. The majority of the suit was subsequently settled out of court, and the Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the remaining, non-settled claims as unripe.
Posted on: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 06:15:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015