Videos

Comments

• 

  Alan T. Murakami October 12, 2008 at 10:03am

  This case is an example of the distorted interpretations under which the SHPD applies the law that is supposed to avoid conflicts like this one. Those that remember Honokohua on Maui are confused. Didn't we go through exactly this kind of turmoil then when this State resolved to pass a law to stop this kind of desecration? The answer is unequivocably "yes!"
  
  Andre is unfortunately a representative of the next generation who was NOT supposed to face this kind of crisis of conscience over protecting iwi kupuna from construction. The blame is unequivocally on the shoulders of those charged with implementing the law, which was distorted to the point you could not recognize it was in place.
  
  The Kaua`i Ni`ihau Island Burial Council voted to "preserve in place" all 30 known and other yet-to-be discovered burials in this ancient Hawaiian cemetery. Yet, neither the state archaeologist, Nancy McMahon, nor Brescia's hired contract archaeologist would even recognize it as a cemetery! Worse, McMahon then took that decision, and approved a burial treatment plan that would allow Brescia to build ON TOP of 7 burials, as long as the building was separated from the burials by an 8 foot "vertical buffer." She also required that the affected burials be encased in a "concrete jacket," consisting of a ring of concrete which was to be capped over each of the 7 burials. These measures, she claimed, were to be how the burials were to be "preserved."
  
  Even worse, McMahon failed to even talk to the burial council about what measures would constitute "preservation" to enforce the vote to "preserve in place." This is the distortion that triggered all the protest and outrage, leading to Andre's turmoil. It was never necessary.
  
  After hearings on requests to stop construction, Judge Watanabe agreed with the Hawaiians who insisted on following the consultation requirement embedded in the law. She ruled that McMahon had failed to properly consult with the burial council before making her outrageous decision to implement the burial council vote with these "preservation" measures. Therefore the burial treatment plan she approved earlier was invalid. She accordingly forced McMahon to "consult" with the burial council and any "appropriate Hawaiian organizations" before approving a new plan. Unfortunately, Judge Watanabe did NOT stop the Brescia house construction in the meantime.
  
  On Oct. 2, 2008, McMahon finally, and belatedly, met with the burial council for the first time to consult as she should have done immediately after the vote to preserve in place. Jeff Chandler and Puanani Rogers, two Hawaiians who sued the SHPD for its failures to properly implement the law, rejected the plan during the required consultation with McMahon. The public testimony at the burial council meeting was unanimously against allowing any building on the cemetery.
  
  McMahon must now act to approve a new burial treatment plan. Whether she will insist on leaving the plan the way she first approved it is now the big question, especially after scores of witnesses and Hawaiian academic experts condemned and rejected her initial decision. So far, only Bescia and his agents approve what she previously approved.
  
  If you feel strongly as many do about this issue, send your opinions to:
  
  Email: Nancy.A.McMahon@hawaii.gov
  
  Regular mail:
  
  Pua Aiu
  Administrator
  State Historic Preservation Division
  Dept. of Land and Natural Resources
  Kakuhihewa Building, Suite #555
  601 Kamokila Blvd.
  Kapolei, HI 96707
• 

  Pomaikaiokalani October 10, 2008 at 12:50pm

  There is no more sacred duty of today's Kanakamaolihawaii then the protection of the iwi of our kupunakahiko.
  Those of our ancestors who are not able to defend their sacred resting places.
  Ku I Ka Pono, o Pomaikaiokalani