In the early 1870s, Princess Ruth had a 50 percent interest in the entire ahupuaa of Hilea. The other 50 percent belonged to several Hawaiian families who lived there. In 1873, Ruth divided Hilea into two parcels, Hilea Nui and Hilea Iki, in proceedings before the Boundary Commission of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Hilea Nui was eventually sold to “Big Five” sugar planter C Brewer. Today descendants of the now-14 families who ended up with Hilea Iki in 1873 argue that the division was not legally valid. They are represented by Hilo attorneys Stanley Roerhig and Andy Wilson.

Kristine Kubat, editor of the Big Island Weekly, writes on January 10: “If the families are right and the land was never actually divided, then they continue to own half of the entire ahupuaa.” What is omitted in her report: The families would therefore lose 50 percent of their ownership of Hilea Iki.

In 2004, Hilo 3rd Circuit Court Judge Greg Nakamura had granted C. Brewer’s motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs’ claim. C. Brewer attorneys called the claim “frivolous.”

In C. Brewer’s hands, Princess Ruth’s Hilea Nui became cane fields for nearly 100 years. More recently C. Brewer sold Hilea Nui to the Nature Conservancy and the Ed Olsen Trust. In the 1870s, the soil-covered Hilea Nui lands mauka were valued as cane fields while the rocky shoreline Hilea Iki lands were of little interest to sugar planters. Today, the opposite is the norm: Soil is of little concern, shoreline real estate is more highly valued than mauka lands.

In 1873, perhaps Princess Ruth got the better end of the deal. Today in 2007, if the 14 families were to win their case, they would be giving up 50 percent of the more valuable shoreline land in exchange for 50 percent of the less valuable mauka land. The Nature Conservancy would be the big winner.

As the sole 50 percent owner – against 14 divided minority owners - of the entirety of Hilea, the Conservancy would gain effective control of twice as much land as they paid for. Some observers may feel this is a desirable outcome, just as 100 years ago some felt building the cane plantations was a desirable outcome as well.

Hilea is next to the controversial Sea Mountain development, which environmentalists are also working to take from its owners. Adding Hilea to Sea Mountain makes for a substantial eco-plantation—with condos already built. By recasting the resort as eco-tourism, complete with the endangered green sea turtles and organic golf thrown in as a bonus, the ecos can jack up the room rates at Sea Mountain and really rake in the bucks.

Since the Nature Conservancy profits by keeping the land looking wild (except for the fountain grass), it serves its needs merely by blocking any of the 14 families from using what used to be their property. That will make Sea Mountain an attractive resort destination for rich eco-tourists. Taking control of 50 percent of the entire ahupuaa is a lot cheaper than buying Hilea Iki—a savings to the Conservancy--and a potential loss of millions of dollars to the 14 families.

Hawaii has generations of un-probated land holdings. Many, such as Hilea Iki, are held by Native Hawaiian owners. Owners cannot exercise control because they are unsure of their claim on the land.

The Hawaii State Supreme Court has a long record of politically motivated manipulation of land disputes and issues: most significantly their former responsibility for naming corrupt trustees to oversee the Bishop Estate. Will they now serve the eco-plantation builders? Their decision to bypass the Intermediate Court of Appeals and put Hilea directly onto the Supreme Court docket shows they are hungry to hear the case.

Hawaii will continue to be a playground for grasping land trusts and developers (whether green or not) until the Legislature adopts a law requiring Probate Court for all estates. Only when estates are probated upon the death of the owner can ownership be clearly delineated for future generations.

Landowners would then be able to develop or sell their land confident that it truly is theirs. Clear title puts an end to the games and the theft. Until then, be careful what you ask for: The Supreme Court might give it to the Nature Conservancy.

Andrew Walden is the publisher and editor of Hawaii Free Press, a Big Island-based newspaper. He can be reached via email at mailto:andrewwalden@email.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Guest Commentary...