Relating To Historic Preservation Reviews.
By allowing the DHHL to manage its own reviews, the bill seeks to enhance efficiency in historic preservation protocols. It requires the DHHL to utilize a qualified Hawaiian home lands preservation officer to conduct these reviews and maintain transparency by incorporating all documentation into the state's historic preservation digital document management system. However, it is crucial to note that this authority comes with exclusions; the Department of Land and Natural Resources retains review authority over projects impacting properties listed in the Hawaii or National Registers of Historic Places.
House Bill 2135 focuses on historic preservation within the State of Hawaii, specifically regarding the review process for proposed projects affecting historic properties and burial sites. The bill amends section 6E-8 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, allowing the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) to assume responsibility for reviewing the potential impacts of projects on historic sites or burial locations that fall under its jurisdiction. This change is intended to streamline the regulatory procedure and empower the DHHL in managing historic resources on Hawaiian lands.
The reception of HB 2135 appears largely supportive among those who believe in enhancing local control over preservation efforts, particularly within communities that are historically significant to Native Hawaiians. Proponents argue that the bill empowers the DHHL to make informed decisions on projects impacting culturally significant sites. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of oversight and potential risks of leniency in protecting sensitive historical sites, underscoring a dichotomy of perspectives around local governance authority versus standardization of preservation practices.
Critics of the bill raise valid concerns about the implications of transferring significant review authority to the DHHL. They argue this change could lead to inconsistencies in how preservation standards are applied and potentially compromise the integrity of safeguarding historic properties. Furthermore, there is apprehension that local interests might overshadow broader state and national considerations regarding the protection of historically significant sites. As discussions continue, it will be important to reconcile these viewpoints to ensure that the bill serves both local community interests and the wider goals of historic preservation.