If enacted, SB2759 would amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes specifically regarding state land leases. The bill provides a stringent framework for determining the eligibility of entities seeking to lease public land, fostering a concept of good standing that emphasizes not just financial obligations but also adherence to legal and environmental standards. It includes a provision allowing existing lessees who fall out of good standing three years to rectify any violations before their leases are terminated. This introduces a more structured oversight mechanism over state land usage.
Senate Bill 2759 proposes significant changes to the management and leasing of public lands in Hawaii. The bill seeks to prohibit the state from leasing public lands, or extending existing leases, to any individual, corporation, or federal agency that is not in good standing with the state. This includes those in arrears for payments due to the state, noncompliant with environmental agreements, or convicted of a crime. The aim is to ensure all lessees meet their financial, contractual, and legal obligations, enhancing accountability and environmental responsibility in the use of state lands.
The sentiment surrounding the bill seems to favor increased accountability among lessees of public lands. Proponents argue that these measures would protect state resources and ensure that only responsible parties benefit from the leasing of public lands. However, there may also be concerns about how such regulations could impact access to land for development and the potential for legal challenges from affected entities. The necessity of requiring certification from the Governor's office adds an additional layer of state oversight that some may view either as essential governance or excessive bureaucracy.
A notable point of contention could arise regarding the criteria for determining what constitutes 'good standing' and how it may affect various lessees differently. Critics may argue that the punitive measures of lease termination may disproportionately impact smaller entities that might struggle to comply with strict regulations compared to larger corporations. Additionally, the three-year window provided to rectify non-compliance might be perceived as insufficient for addressing significant legal or financial issues.