Opinion ID: 871559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

Text: On October 19, 2007, Plaintiffs Richard Nelson III, Kaliko Chun, James Akiona, Sr., Sherilyn Adams, Kelii Ioane, Jr., and Charles Aipia (Plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (FAC) against Defendants Georgina K. Kawamura, in her official capacity as the State Director of Finance; the State of Hawai`i (collectively, State Defendants); the Hawaiian Homes Commission; the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Micah Kane, in his official capacity as Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission; and Perry Artates, Billie Baclig, Donald S.M. Chang, Stuart Hanchett, Malia Kamaka, Francis Lum, Trish Morikawa, and Milton Pa, in their capacities as members of the Hawaiian Homes Commission (DHHL Defendants). [2] In their FAC, the Plaintiffs set forth the following factual summary of the current state of affairs of the Hawaiian Home Lands: [T]he Hawaiian Homes Commission, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the State of Hawai`i have ignored this mandate [that the legislature shall make sufficient sums available to the DHHL to carry out its mission of rehabilitating native Hawaiian beneficiaries]. The State of Hawai`i has failed to provide sufficient funds to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to minimize the number and waiting time on its waiting lists for homesteads to a reasonable level. Instead of obtaining necessary funds from the Legislature, the Hawaiian Homes Commission and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands have continued to offer commercial leases to non-Hawaiian entities in order to raise revenue. This removal of Hawaiian Home Lands from use by beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust, and the failure to seek sufficient funds[,] are breaches of the State Constitution and the trust. Because the State of Hawai`i has failed to provide sufficient funds to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Department and the Hawaiian Homes Commission have improperly attempted to lease approximately 200 acres of land at Kealakehe on Hawai`i Island in order to raise revenues. Plaintiffs alleged in Count 1 of the FAC that the State violated its constitutional duty to sufficiently fund the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in order to rehabilitate native Hawaiian beneficiaries, under the Hawai`i State Constitution. Plaintiffs further alleged the following in Count 1 of the FAC: 61. In 1979, the voters of Hawai`i ratified an amendment passed by the 1978 Hawai`i Constitutional Convention delegates which specifically required the Legislature to provide the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands sufficient sums to pay for its trust programs and operating budget. 62. Under Haw. Const., Art. XII, § 1, the legislature must make sufficient funds available for the following purposes: (1) development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots; (2) home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans; (3) rehabilitation projects to include, but not limited to, educational, economic, political, social and cultural processes by which the general welfare and conditions of native Hawaiians are thereby improved; (4) the administration and operating budget of the department of Hawaiian home lands; in furtherance of (1), (2), (3), and (4) herein, by appropriating the same in the manner provided by law. 63. Furthermore, under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act § 219.1, the Defendants are obligated to assist the lessees in obtaining maximum use of their leased lands, including taking any steps necessary to develop these lands for their highest and best use commensurate with the purposes for which the land is being leased, and assisting the lessees in all phases of farming, ranching, and aquaculture operations and the marketing of their agriculture [or] aquacultural produce and livestock. 64. Hawaiian homestead beneficiaries cannot achieve the lofty aims of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act unless they are awarded homesteads timely and provided sufficient assistance to maximize their utilization of those lands for the purposes set out in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. 65. Payments made pursuant to Act 14, 1995 Special Session, do not diminish funds that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is entitled to pursuant to Article XII, section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i. [3] 66. Accordingly, the compensation for the past breaches of trust by the State under Act 14 is exclusive of the sufficient sums to which the DHHL is entitled pursuant to Article XII, section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i. 67. The infrastructure cost to develop Hawaiian Home Land lots on average is approximately $100,000 per lot. 68. According to Hawaiian Homes Commission Chair Micah Kane, The model is there, the projects are there, the momentum is there. Now, it's just an issue of money. 69. According to Hawaiian Homes Commission Chair Micah Kane, a conservative estimate of the funding necessary for infrastructure to place one thousand homesteaders each on homestead lands each year is $100,000,000 annually. 70. In contrast, other than the funding provided pursuant to Act 14, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands received less than one and a half million dollars in general revenue funds from the legislature for fiscal year 2007. 71. Simultaneously, since 1994, the State of Hawai`i has [neither] floated nor issued any capital improvement bond financing to support the need for additional DHHL infrastructure. 72. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does not currently receive sufficient funding to develop house lots for all applicants on the waiting list. 73. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does not currently receive sufficient funding to reduce the waiting list by ninety percent over the next decade. 74. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does not currently receive sufficient funding to pay for the development of homesteads for applicants on the waiting list within a reasonable time frame. 75. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does not currently receive sufficient funds for the following purposes: (1) development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots; (2) home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans; (3) rehabilitation projects to include, but not limited to, educational, economic, political, social and cultural processes by which the general welfare and conditions of native Hawaiians are thereby improved; (4) the administration and operating budget of the department of Hawaiian home lands; in furtherance of (1), (2), (3) and (4) herein. 76. The state administration fails to annually request sufficient sums for the administration and operating budget of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to assure that the all [sic] programs of the department prescribed under Article XII, § 1 are adequately funded. 77. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration by this court that Defendants are in breach of their duties under Article XII, §§ 1 and 2. 78. Plaintiffs are also entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring the State to provide sufficient funds to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to (a) place as many beneficiaries on the department's waiting lists for residences, farms, and ranches on available Hawaiian home lands within a reasonable period of time; (b) fund a fully functioning farm, ranch, and aquaculture support program to enable homesteaders to maximize the utilization of their homestead lots. Thus, Count 1 of the FAC alleged that the State failed to make available sufficient sums to the DHHL, in violation of Article XII. [4] The Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief in the form of sufficient sums awarded to DHHL to enable as many applicants on the waiting list as possible to receive homestead lots within a reasonable period of time.