Hawaii House Bill HB1087

Hawaii 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/23/25
• Report Pass: 2/14/25
• Refer: 2/14/25
• Report Pass: 2/28/25
• Engrossed: 3/4/25
• Refer: 3/6/25

Caption

Relating To Historic Preservation Reviews.

Impact

The proposed changes are seen as crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of historic preservation efforts in Hawaii, especially concerning lands under the responsibility of the DHHL. By assigning a qualified preservation officer to handle project reviews, the bill seeks to provide specialized expertise in assessing impacts on cultural properties. This reflects a broader commitment to the management and protection of historical and burial sites within the state's jurisdiction and aligns with the principles of respecting indigenous rights and cultural heritage.

Summary

House Bill 1087 aims to amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes concerning the consultation and review process for historic preservation projects managed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). The bill recognizes the significance of historic properties and burial sites and designates responsibility to DHHL for reviewing the effects of proposed projects on these sensitive areas. With this amendment, the DHHL is empowered to designate a preservation officer to oversee reviews, making the process more focused on Hawaiian heritage and cultural resources, while ensuring necessary documentation and compliance are maintained.

Sentiment

Sentiment around HB 1087 appears supportive amongst advocates of native rights and cultural preservation, who view this legislation as a necessary step toward empowering the DHHL to manage projects that may affect justified historic sites. However, there may be concerns from other stakeholders about the additional regulatory processes that could come with the DHHL's new responsibilities, particularly those involved in land development and construction who may see potential delays in their project timelines.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential implications for project timelines and the exercise of authority by DHHL over private projects. Stakeholders may fear that the added layer of review could complicate approvals for development projects, particularly if there is inconsistency in how the DHHL implements the review process. Opponents might argue that while the intentions of protecting cultural properties are commendable, the logistics of enforcing these amendments require careful consideration to avoid hindering economic development or increasing the bureaucratic burden on developers.