property/seawall article

[Col.Sanders]

A very detailed article on Honolulu Star about the property/seawall.

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/08/ ... loopholes/

[Pahonu]

A very detailed article on Honolulu Star about the property/seawall.

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/08/ ... loopholes/

Thank you! Very thorough and detailed, indeed.

[NotthatRick]

Wow!

[rasgards]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

[Pahonu]

We have a very similar problem here in California. The LA Times did a series of articles on the topic last fall. Some communities, where there is still existing beach are building sand berms every season to counter the beach erosion. Building new sea walls is not allowed. In many communities the problem is bluff erosion by the sea that threaten homes on top of those bluffs. The questions in those cases becomes allowing property owners to harden those bluffs, effectively creating a sea wall. The end result is the same, loss of the sand.

It’s a problem with no good solution. The public loses the beach or property owners lose their homes. If Eve Anderson had not been given the easement for the sea walls to remain, the beach would have continued to erode and the sea walls deteriorate until collapse. Based on the huge report done before the construction permits were granted, at certain tides, the water can wash into the actual property at the gates. The lowest point of the property is just about five feat above the AVEARGE high tide. Extreme tides can go several feet above that. Mrs. Anderson would never have found a buyer for the property without that easement being granted. That’s the dilemma. Tens of thousands of property owners, in several states actually, face this problem. The solution for them is simple, protect your property. However, that means losing the beach for everyone else.

What Marty Nesbit is seeking to do is raise the lower sea walls to match the highest portions, to save his property’s value just as Mrs. Anderson did by getting the easement. He also wants to reinforce them as well. According to the newspaper article, he hasn’t been granted that permission yet. The article also explains why the property was subdivided. To comply with new codes, the size and placement of the structures is limited. To be able to build anything at all, these new codes had to be followed.

One of the reasons I follow these issues so closely is that I live on a marina myself. The issue isn’t beach erosion where I am specifically, but neighbors nearby face this problem. Our issue is with the rising sea level entering our parking structure. The structure is partially below grade and during extreme tides we are starting to see puddles forming on the concrete as water migrates upward. I’ve been here for over 20 years and it’s only become an issue in the last several years. The puddles are not really a problem now, being infrequent and small, but they point to a future problem of larger magnitude. South Florida is currently facing much larger problems coming from the same source.

[Gorilla Mask]

really detailed in-depth article concerning the whereabouts, motivation/goals of the whole affair ! Very informative.

Nevertheless, i am a bit hurt to observe the related tendency of big bucks influence on Hawaii local urban masterplan... Loopholes and ' easements' that resulted in protecting private interest against reckonized public good... questionable at least.

[Pahonu]

really detailed in-depth article concerning the whereabouts, motivation/goals of the whole affair ! Very informative.

Nevertheless, i am a bit hurt to observe the related tendency of big bucks influence on Hawaii local urban masterplan... Loopholes and ' easements' that resulted in protecting private interest against reckonized public good... questionable at least.

It’s a classic example of private property rights versus the public good. I’m sure Eve Anderson, having been a state representative, didn’t hurt her chances of getting the easement granted. It says she paid a one time $61,400 fee to lease the land under the sea walls for 55 years. I think most owners of the property would have done the same as her, or at least tried to. The alternative is essentially surrendering your property to nature, drastically reducing its value. Who would pay for a property knowing they couldn’t protect it from destruction? I’m pretty sure it would be uninsurable as well meaning no one would finance any new construction. Also, why would she or anyone pay to restore what was there if it couldn’t be protected? This explains a lot about why maintenance might have been neglected until the easement was granted.

Edit:

I was telling my wife about all this and she reminded me of a related example. A few years ago we were watching a program where people search for beachfront properties. This episode was on the east coast of the US, New Jersey I believe. One of the choices the woman had was a freestanding house right on the sand at an incredibly reduced price, like much less than half of nearby properties. The catch was that the home was in an area unprotected from storm damage and sea level rise. Basically, if the home was damaged to the point that it was red tagged as unlivable, it couldn’t be repaired. It would have to be surrendered. No insurance company would underwrite it and no lender would loan on it. That’s why the current owner had to reduce the price so drastically. That’s what’s Eve Anderson avoided by getting the easement and paying the money.

The incredible part is that’s the house the woman in this episode chose! It was a second home and I understand the risk she was willing to take on, but I can’t imagine taking that risk myself. It was a total crap shoot. She paid cash and threw the dice! She might get decades of enjoyment out of the home for very little money or if a big storm hit next year she would have to walk away and lose it all. I’m thinking she paid something like a quarter million dollars when nearby home were close to a million and up.

[Diandra]

With the Obama's moving in, will the locals still be able to enjoy the tidal pool! It
doesn't sound too good to me.

[K Hale]

With the Obama's moving in, will the locals still be able to enjoy the tidal pool! It
doesn't sound too good to me.

1. The Obamas are not moving in. His name is being thrown around as clickbait. I saw one headline that said something like, “Human remains found on property tied to Obama.” You had to read the article to find out that the remains were hundreds of years old.
2. All beaches in Hawaii are public property.

[Pahonu]

With the Obama's moving in, will the locals still be able to enjoy the tidal pool! It
doesn't sound too good to me.

1. The Obamas are not moving in. His name is being thrown around as clickbait. I saw one headline that said something like, “Human remains found on property tied to Obama.” You had to read the article to find out that the remains were hundreds of years old.
2. All beaches in Hawaii are public property.

You’re correct on both counts currently.

At least the long-form article is very thorough about the actions of each party involved, IF people read the whole thing. Other news outlets have released shorter versions that imply Marty Nesbit or even Obama paid or used their connections to get around the sea wall laws. It’s simply not true. Eve Anderson applied for the easement and was granted 55 more years after paying $61,400 as a lease fee for it. As I said above, I’m sure her previous position as a state representative didn’t hurt. Nesbitt hasn’t yet been granted permission to alter the sea walls. A massive impact study and report was completed (like 300-400 pages and I’ve read much of it) as part of the process for the permit request to raise and fortify parts of the existing sea walls. That’s how they uncovered the human remains. He is a close friend of the Obamas so they may live there but that’s not known with certainty at the moment.

[K Hale]

When I was there in February, a huge heavy piece of iron had been hauled partway out of the low part of the seawall and bent into a semi-J shape. It was sticking out over the sand. It definitely did not simply fall out of the concrete on its own so I have to wonder what the reason would be for making the seawall look worse than it already did.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I thought the article said that Marty Nesbitt paid $61,400 for the easement for the next 55 years. So it was Eve Anderson? Any idea if she did that a long time ago or just recently before selling the property? If it was a long time ago then that 55 years might be dwindling down now. I mean it's already 40 years since MPI began filming there.

P.S. That reminds me, how will we celebrate 40 years of the debut of MPI this fall???

[K Hale]

“But the sellers of the Waimanalo property found a way to ensure the seawall remained in place for another generation. They asked state officials for something called an easement, a real estate tool that allows private property owners to essentially lease the public land that sits under the seawall. The cost: a one-time payment of $61,400.“

The sellers paid. Not the buyers.

[Pahonu]

[quote="K Hale"]“But the sellers of the Waimanalo property found a way to ensure the seawall remained in place for another generation. They asked state officials for something called an easement, a real estate tool that allows private property owners to essentially lease the public land that sits under the seawall. The cost: a one-time payment of $61,400.“

The sellers paid. Not the buyers.[/quote]

Exactly. Mrs. Anderson would have lost a huge amount of money if the property would become unprotected by the sea walls if sold. I don’t blame her for doing it. She paid that “small” amount upfront and, probably using her political connections, insured millions in value wasn’t lost.

The sea walls were likely “grandfathered” in, meaning they remained because the house hadn’t been sold since its construction. Mrs. Anderson inherited it. To sell the property, this arrangement likely wouldn’t meet current code. New sea walls are forbidden and existing sea walls are tightly regulated. She sought to extend the sea walls existence with the easement, since parts of them are on public land. She paid the money as a “lease” for 55 years use of the public land.

Why she got the easement was the topic of much of the article. It hasn’t happened often in recent years as environmental laws tightened. I think the article said just 120 times in 20 years. She was from an old island family and a former politician herself, so we can judge for ourselves how she got the easement. Marty Nesbitt, as developer, has paid for a huge environmental impact study and still hasn’t gotten permission to reinforce and raise parts of the existing sea walls. Adding Obama’s name in the headline simply got people’s attention, clickbait, as KHale correctly stated.

[Pahonu]

I thought the article said that Marty Nesbitt paid $61,400 for the easement for the next 55 years. So it was Eve Anderson? Any idea if she did that a long time ago or just recently before selling the property? If it was a long time ago then that 55 years might be dwindling down now. I mean it's already 40 years since MPI began filming there.

P.S. That reminds me, how will we celebrate 40 years of the debut of MPI this fall???

It appears the easement was granted to Mrs. Anderson not long before the property was listed for sale. If the easement were about to expire, the property value would decline dramatically. It ultimately sold for much less than the original listing price anyway. I believe that this was because it still had very restrictive development laws controlling it even with the easement, hence the subdivision.

Something similar happened before Pahonu was built. One of the old documents that Rembrandt’s Girl posted a while back showed that when Mrs. Wall purchased the multiple properties to build Pahonu, it was already understood that parts of the existing sea walls were on public land. Mrs. Wall got some type of approval from the territorial government to allow them to remain and go ahead with construction. I remember distinctly reading a document about it. This recent article also revealed that some of the land Mrs. Wall purchased was supposed to be set aside for native Hawaiians but was sold to her anyway. There was a native woman who claimed part of the property as a historic homestead, but she didn’t win her claim. I believe she received some kind of payment. These types of deals are nothing new, sadly.