Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 9, 1 September 1997 — Two threats loom for Hawaiians [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Two threats loom for Hawaiians

My message covers two issues whieh I believe pose a major threat to Hawaiians. Honolulu International Airport Approximately one-third of the airport sits on ceded lands, , former Hawaiian crown or government lands ceded to the United States in 1898 and now held in trust by the State of Hawai'i. Since 1980, a portion of the revenues generated by the airport have been paid to Hawaiians in eomplianee with state law, the constitution and the Admission Act. Last September, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation determined this payment cannot eome from the Airport Revenue Fund. The federal government contends federal law restricts the use of these funds to airport purposes and believes the payment to native Hawaiians is not an airport purpose. It was estimated the state owes $30 million to this fund. Airport landing fees add no

more than $2.50 to eaeh mainland or international round-trip airline ticket. For Hawaiians, this equates to millions of future dollars for eeonomie development, education, and other initiatives to help our people andcommunities heeome self-suffi-cient. For the airlines, it means 50 cents for eaeh round-trip ticket. For the state, it means one more reason to break its trust obligation to Hawaiians. Most recently, Senator Daniel K. Inouye attached a "forgiveness provision" to the Department of Transportation's Appropriation request. If Congress passes the provision, the $30 million owed by the state to the Airport Revenue Fund will be forgiven. OHA thanked Senator Inouye for his considerable*" effort to mitigate the federal preemption, but cautioned that his provision sends a dangerous mixed message. First, that the $30 million should be forgiven because of

"special circumstances surrounding the use of airport revenues," and second, that no further payment shall be made from this fund because it is not in the national interest. Payment of a portion of the revenues derived from the airport is pono. Where that payment comes from is the state's problem, not OHA's. Withholding funds from native Hawaiians, until the problem is resolved, is not pono. The state's obligation to native Hawaiians ean not be ignored and every effort must be made to ensure that justice is done. See DESOTO on next page

KaWaiOlaoOHA

A J>e*9t9 Trustee, At-Large

DESOTO from previous page Vote for 'No'

State Constitutional Convention (ConCon) In July, U.S. District Judge Ezra ordered a new vote on a state Con-Con, because voters in last year's general election did not understand that blank and spoiled votes would be counted as "No" votes. If Judge Ezra's ruling is not overturned by the 9th Circuit, the state has until Dec. 2 to hold a second vote. I oppose a Con-Con for several reasons: the results from last year's Native Hawaiian Vote moves us closer to drafting a Hawaiian Constitution whieh require amendments to the state's eonstitution; Hawaiian rights, created by 1 the 1978 Con-Con, could be deleted or limited by another Con-Con and return Hawaiians to a powerless minority in our own land; although a Con-Con could not amend the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, it could prompt Congress to makechanges detrimental to native Hawaiians; and, finally it makes no sense to me that the state spend millions now for a Con-Con and millions more a few years later for another one. Therefore, I oppose a Con-Con before the sovereign nation is created, and I urge eaeh of you to vote "No" when a new vote is taken. If we lose and the vote is "Yes," then Hawaiians must heeome Con-Con delegates to ensure we don't lose the benefits we have enjoyed since 1978.