Plant growth blocks Kahala beach access

Full story: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

The state has sent letters to 12 Kahala beachfront property owners whose vegetation is forcing people to walk in the water when going from one end of the beach to the other.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of73
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Oahu Boy

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jun 1, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Hey,

you've got a multi-million dollar house in Kahala and you're complaining about cutting the weeds?

Tough luck about your land being eroded. You should've thought about that before you bought the property.

Sympathy for you? You gotta be kidding. The State should trim the plant growth and put the cost as a lien on your home.
JKai

Mount Juliet, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jun 1, 2008
 
There's a lot things wrong with Lanikai, but too much vegetation isn't one of them. They pulled up all the plants and the beach washed away.
Becka

Kalaheo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Jun 1, 2008
 

Judged:

1

These landowners plant grass to make it look like its part of their property and you can see them watering it right in the part where people walk. Cut it down already.
Manoa

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Jun 1, 2008
 
I am familiar with this from other locations in Hawaii. Here is the problem:
The landowner cannot cut vegetation growing on state land, so if the vegetation is growing on the beach, they cannot cut it.
It takes a special survey to determine where the shoreline boundary is-- it's based on where the vegetation grows!! So not so easy.
Some owners have been cited for cutting vegetation!!!!!
Bottom line, the state needs to cut the vegetation.
westside girl

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Jun 1, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Mokebla wrote:
Growing up as a child our kapuna's always told us that a landowner's right cease at the high water mark on the beach. Went to Niihau once as teenager diving, as long we were in the water we were fine. So whats the true Law?
Niihau might be different since it is a privately owned island period. But that is a good question.
wvg

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Jun 1, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

boo hoo... these plants that encroach stop my property from eroding. If you buy property in an area prone to erosion at some point you will lose a lot of your property. that is just the way of nature. The bottom line is that the high water mark will always be public land.. so this year it may be one place and 20 years from now another. if you cant afford to lose your property to erosion and public access dont buy land by the beach!
shamWOW

Camarillo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Jun 1, 2008
 
just walk thru gen kawamoto's empty houses n den go batroom dea at da same time....no huhu...if u like stay ay empty beach house go fer it 2....
alohawaldo

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Jun 1, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

Howzabout the state conduct a survey, determine the "property" lines and order the property owner to remove any vegitation put there within 30 days.

If the owner refuses, the state has licensed crews go in and remove the out of bounds material and charge the property owner for the actual costs and an admin fee.

If they don't pay up, place a lien, plus interest on the property and tie up the title, that'll get the attention. The only thing that gets the wealthy folks attention is when someone digs into their pocketbook
Educator

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Jun 1, 2008
 

Judged:

1

westside girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Niihau might be different since it is a privately owned island period. But that is a good question.
This has already been covered ad-nauseum in the past. Kauai PD will simply not respond to complaints about people on Niihau beaches unless they go beyond the high water mark, which 99% will not as they know it's a private island.
Blackpope808

Kihei, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Jun 1, 2008
 
manini wrote:
There will be no consequencies for those home owners who refuse to comply. There are never consequences for the wealthy. They hire a skillful lawyer or two and the next thing you know the state is paying off the violator.
that's why they are called wealthy
Blackpope808

Kihei, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Jun 1, 2008
 
Have you noticed that there isn't anyone claiming to be from Kahala justifying the plant growth? That's because rich people have better things to do than respond on forums...like building fences to keep the hoi polloi out
asdf

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Jun 1, 2008
 
Those darn rich guys. They've got almost everything they want. Why do they have to take away so much more from everyone else?
Martin Turow

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Jun 1, 2008
 
I'm glad to see the State is at least doing something. I get the distinct impression the owners wouldn't care if the beach were completely blocked along the shoreline. And while the State is so interested in access, they should also enforce the leash law before someone gets seriously injured.
Someone who knows the law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Jun 1, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The state cannot require these lawndowners to do anything unless they irrigated the plants to grow seaward. If it was a natural process, then the land covered by the vegetation almost certainly belongs to them.

Beachfront owners get the benefit of natural accretion and the burden of erosion. The public has only the right to the water up to the shoreline established by naturally existing vegegation or the high wash of non-storm related waves.

The State has tried to take private land without compensation in the past through a 2003 law that prohibited beachfront owners from claiming accretion--contrary to 100+ years of precedent. The law was found unconstitutional in a class action lawsuit. More information will be available on www.hawaiiclassaction.com beginning on Monday.

Unless it has proof of improper irrigation), the DLNR is way off base--but what's new about that?

Beach user

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Jun 1, 2008
 
Why dont you just FINE them! Why give them a chance? Would you give a drunk driver a chance.....OH WAIT dont answer that...we all know that answer.
HI resident

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Jun 1, 2008
 
this is an issue of encroachment right?...the state owns to the highest wash at the time of shoreline certification. Cert is only good for 6 month window, so the state needs to have them done by surveyors which would delineate the encroachment and requirements of landowners. That door swings both ways though, home owners can have their own certifications done, and possibly replant. There are tons of uneducated jerks and hotheads out there, on both sides of this issue like owners who irrigate their naupaka to grow down the beach as well as people who trample, uproot, and tear shrubbery and ground cover because they think they're some sort of vigilante of the people. why don't beach front owners ask the state to bring in sand to extend the beach area for people to walk...to me that would be just as crazy as these letters. Know and follow the law people; if you do not care to take the time to do that, then no fuss, gotta walk in the water sometimes, but no make stink.
Just Wondering

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Jun 1, 2008
 
mookane wrote:
It's a typical Haole attitude, thinking they brought with them from the mainland. They think because they have money they don't have to obey the laws, WRONG !! They choose to live on the beach, so if mother nature takes back the Aina and their houses flood or fall into the ocean, SO BE IT !! It was your choice, LIVE WITH IT !! The Beaches are PUBLIC, Cut your plants Kahala or move back to the mainland!!
Curious as to how you can stamp this particular situation with a "haole attitude" all the way from Washington State. I'm cool with your point of view as long it is based on fact and not hate.
WonderingBoutBea ches

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Jun 1, 2008
 
The law doesn't say the property line is the vegetation line. The law says the boundary between private property and public property (the beach), is the highest reach of the highest tide. That occurs one day a year. The law also says this is *usually* marked by the debris line (sticks and rubbish and stuff). Growing your naupaka closer to the shore doesn't make that land yours, and if a judge ruled that way, he ruled it wrong. The highest reach of the high tide can change. Beaches erode naturally, and are also affected by piers and seawalls. If you built your house too close to the shore, or bought one already there, and the ocean undercuts your house, that's just tough. You don't get to steal the public beach just to save your private mansion. No different than if lava took back your property on the big island. And if that doesn't work for you, just call it "eminent domain". The public's right to the beach is more important than your need to protect the foundation of a house that should never have been built that close to the shore.
GO Obama

Agoura Hills, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Jun 1, 2008
 
alohabill wrote:
You get to think seriously that you really can not blame the property owners that they must make it harder to access thier property so people that want to burgalize them will have a hard time, On the other hand it is the public rights to walk on the sand and enjoy the beach. I love that beach and yes at high tide it gets hard to walk without getting your feet wet. Also the vegetation actually helps with erosion, but then again the law is law.
AWwwwww poor fithy rich home owner.....Must have alot of money to install a state of the art security system huh? ya think?
Leeward Lolo

Naalehu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Jun 2, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Curious as to how you can stamp this particular situation with a "haole attitude" all the way from Washington State. I'm cool with your point of view as long it is based on fact and not hate.
All these alleged haoles must have moved there in the last two weeks. Last month (mainland) haoles were a small percentage of residents.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of73
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Kihei Discussions

Search the Kihei Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Pukalani Music Selection (Sep '12) 1 hr Musikologist 8
Review: All Stars Garage Mar 27 Roger 1
Thank you Mar '14 Judy and Art 1
Rudeness Mar '14 Pattie 1
Ululani's keeps growIng Feb '14 Betty 1
Ranchers welcome rain Feb '14 tongangodz 2
Kihei stay this weekend is the costliest in U.S. Feb '14 Stranger in Town 2
•••
•••
•••
Kihei Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Kihei Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Kihei People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••