Relating To Historic Preservation Reviews.
The implementation of SB2653 signifies a pivotal shift in the oversight of historic preservation in Hawaii. By empowering the DHHL to conduct these reviews, the bill aims to streamline the process, ensuring that considerations of cultural significance are at the forefront of project evaluations. This approach acknowledges the unique relationship that the Hawaiian community holds with the land and its history. However, the bill stipulates that the DHHL must still adhere to certain guidelines and consult with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for sites meeting specific significance criteria.
SB2653 is a legislative measure aimed at revising the historic preservation review process specifically for projects occurring on lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). This bill allows the DHHL to assume responsibility for reviewing the impacts of proposed projects on historic properties and burial sites, which were previously managed by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. This change is positioned as a means to enhance the protection and management of the state’s significant cultural and historical sites, particularly those relevant to the Hawaiian community.
The sentiment surrounding this bill appears to be mostly positive, especially among advocates for Hawaiian heritage and cultural preservation. Proponents argue that local control over the review process will lead to better-informed decisions that reflect the values and needs of the Hawaiian people. Critics, if any, would likely raise concerns about the adequacy of resources allocated to the DHHL to fulfill these new responsibilities effectively, as well as the potential bureaucratic challenges that may arise from the shift in oversight.
A notable point of contention regarding SB2653 could arise from the existing authority retained by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, which continues to handle reviews for projects affecting properties listed on the Hawaii Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places. This division of responsibilities may lead to debates about jurisdiction and the adequacy of reviews done under differing authorities, particularly in cases where historic significance is contested.