Difference between revisions of "Template:Nhsc-v1-438"

From GrassrootWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
been charged with the receipt and
 
been charged with the receipt and
 
administration of the public land
 
administration of the public land
−
t r u s t established by this section of
+
trust established by this section of
−
the Admission Act. 17/ However, a
+
the Admission Act. <u>17</u>/ However, a
 
1979 audit of the DLNR indicated that
 
1979 audit of the DLNR indicated that
 
the trust has not been administered in
 
the trust has not been administered in
 
conformance with the Admission Act.
 
conformance with the Admission Act.
−
18/ The DLNR has failed to properly
+
<u>18</u>/ The DLNR has failed to properly
 
dispose of the revenue and income from
 
dispose of the revenue and income from
−
the public land t r u s t . Hawaii Revised
+
the public land trust. Hawaii Revised
−
S t a t u t e s , section 171-18, the
+
Statutes, section 171-18, the
−
implementation l e g i s l a t i o n for section
+
implementation legislation for section
 
5(f) of the Admission Act, established
 
5(f) of the Admission Act, established
−
a public land t r u s t fund for the
+
a public land trust fund for the
−
r e c e i p t of funds derived from the
+
receipt of funds derived from the
−
s a l e , lease, or other disposition of
+
sale, lease, or other disposition of
−
ceded lands. 19/ Hawaii Revised
+
ceded lands. <u>19</u>/ Hawaii Revised
−
S t a t u t e s section 171-19, created a
+
Statutes section 171-19, created a
 
separate fund, the special land and
 
separate fund, the special land and
−
development fund, for a l l proceeds
+
development fund, for all proceeds
 
from the disposition of non-ceded
 
from the disposition of non-ceded
 
lands (lands which the State may have
 
lands (lands which the State may have
 
acquired by condemnation, purchase or
 
acquired by condemnation, purchase or
−
other means). 20/ This second fund
+
other means). <u>20</u>/ This second fund
 
was established for the maintenance
 
was established for the maintenance
−
and development of a l l public lands.
+
and development of all public lands.
 
These two funds were intended to serve
 
These two funds were intended to serve
−
d i f f e r e n t purposes. Monies deposited
+
different purposes. Monies deposited
−
in the public land t r u s t fund were to
+
in the public land trust fund were to
 
come from the disposition of ceded
 
come from the disposition of ceded
 
lands and were to be expended in a
 
lands and were to be expended in a
−
manner consistent with the d i r e c t i o ns
+
manner consistent with the directions
 
of section 5(f) of the Admission Act.
 
of section 5(f) of the Admission Act.
 
Monies deposited in the special land
 
Monies deposited in the special land
Line 36: Line 36:
 
the disposition of non-ceded lands
 
the disposition of non-ceded lands
 
(lands not subject to the section 5(f)
 
(lands not subject to the section 5(f)
−
t r u s t ) and were to be expended to
+
trust) and were to be expended to
−
maintain and develop a l l public
+
maintain and develop all public
 
lands.
 
lands.
 +
 
However, since statehood, DLNR has
 
However, since statehood, DLNR has
−
f a i l e d to make this d i s t i n c t i on
+
failed to make this distinction
 
between the two funds and instead has
 
between the two funds and instead has
−
deposited monies from the leases of
+
deposited monies from the <u>leases</u> of
−
a l l public lands into the public land
+
all public lands into the public land
−
t r u s t fund and monies from the sale of
+
trust fund and monies from the <u>sale</u> of
−
a l l public lands into .the special land
+
all public lands into the special land
 
ana development fund. 21/ Thus, in
 
ana development fund. 21/ Thus, in
 
depositing money in the two funds, the
 
depositing money in the two funds, the
−
d i s t i n c t i o n between ceded lands (lands
+
distinction between ceded lands (lands
−
subject to the section 5(f) t r u s t ) and
+
subject to the section 5(f) trust) and
 
non-ceded lands (lands not subject to
 
non-ceded lands (lands not subject to
−
the 5(f) t r u s t ) has been ignored;
+
the 5(f) trust) has been ignored;
 
instead, monies have been deposited on
 
instead, monies have been deposited on
 
the basis of a lease/sale dichotomy.
 
the basis of a lease/sale dichotomy.
−
The reason given for the f a i l u r e to
+
 
 +
The reason given for the failure to
 
conform to the mandate of § 5(f) of
 
conform to the mandate of § 5(f) of
 
the Admission Act is even more
 
the Admission Act is even more
−
d i s t u r b i n g . No inventory of public
+
disturbing. No inventory of public
 
lands exists and the DLNR has been
 
lands exists and the DLNR has been
 
unable to distinguish between ceded
 
unable to distinguish between ceded
−
and non-ceded public lands. 22/ A
+
and non-ceded public lands. <u>22</u>/ A
−
recent a r t i c l e on Hawaii's ceded lands
+
recent article on Hawaii's ceded lands
 
observed that:
 
observed that:
−
In fact, between statehood and
+
: In fact, between statehood and 1979, no attempt had been made by the Department to compile a comprehensive inventory of the state's public lands, much less one distinguishing between its ceded and non-ceded portions. Notwithstanding the difficulty of assembling such an inventory given the deficiencies in existing records, it is still curious, in light of the requirements of the section 5( f ) , that such an inventory does not exist at the present time. <u>23</U>/
−
1979, no attempt had been made
+
That same article concluded that the
−
by the Department to compile a
 
−
comprehensive inventory of the
 
−
s t a t e ' s public lands, much less
 
−
one distinguishing between i ts
 
−
ceded and non-ceded portions.
 
−
Notwithstanding the d i f f i c u l ty
 
−
of assemblinq such an invent'"y
 
−
given the deficiencies in
 
−
e x i s t i n g records, it is s t i ll
 
−
curious, in light of the
 
−
requirements of the section
 
−
5 ( f ) , that such an inventory
 
−
does not exist at the present
 
−
time. 23/
 
−
That same a r t i c l e concluded that the
 
 
absence of an inventory and the
 
absence of an inventory and the
 
confusion of funds have impeded the
 
confusion of funds have impeded the
 
administration of the section 5(f)
 
administration of the section 5(f)
−
public t r u s t in several ways. 24/
+
public trust in several ways. <u>24</u>/
−
F i r s t , because the DLNR cannot use the
+
First, because the DLNR cannot use the
−
ceded/non-ceded d i s t i n c t i o n in
+
ceded/non-ceded distinction in
−
recording r e c e i p t s , there is no way of
+
recording receipts, there is no way of
−
knowing the accuracy of i t s figures
+
knowing the accuracy of its figures
 
for each fund or of determining which
 
for each fund or of determining which
−
monies belong to wh:ch fund. Since
+
monies belong to which fund. Since
 
most of the income from public lands
 
most of the income from public lands
 
is derived from ceded lands, this
 
is derived from ceded lands, this
−
f a i l u r e to distinguish ceded and
+
failure to distinguish ceded and
 
non-ceded lands has probably worked to
 
non-ceded lands has probably worked to
 
the disadvantage of the public land
 
the disadvantage of the public land
−
t r u s t fund. Secondly, the wrongful
+
trust fund. Secondly, the wrongful
 
deposits may have resulted in
 
deposits may have resulted in
−
expenditures of public t r u s t monies
+
expenditures of public trust monies
 
for the purposes of the special land
 
for the purposes of the special land
 
and development fund and vice versa.
 
and development fund and vice versa.
Line 103: Line 90:
 
extent to which the expenditures may
 
extent to which the expenditures may
 
have been wrongfully applied until a
 
have been wrongfully applied until a
−
438
+
{{p|438}}

Latest revision as of 14:18, 20 June 2006

been charged with the receipt and administration of the public land trust established by this section of the Admission Act. 17/ However, a 1979 audit of the DLNR indicated that the trust has not been administered in conformance with the Admission Act. 18/ The DLNR has failed to properly dispose of the revenue and income from the public land trust. Hawaii Revised Statutes, section 171-18, the implementation legislation for section 5(f) of the Admission Act, established a public land trust fund for the receipt of funds derived from the sale, lease, or other disposition of ceded lands. 19/ Hawaii Revised Statutes section 171-19, created a separate fund, the special land and development fund, for all proceeds from the disposition of non-ceded lands (lands which the State may have acquired by condemnation, purchase or other means). 20/ This second fund was established for the maintenance and development of all public lands. These two funds were intended to serve different purposes. Monies deposited in the public land trust fund were to come from the disposition of ceded lands and were to be expended in a manner consistent with the directions of section 5(f) of the Admission Act. Monies deposited in the special land and development fund were to come from the disposition of non-ceded lands (lands not subject to the section 5(f) trust) and were to be expended to maintain and develop all public lands.

However, since statehood, DLNR has failed to make this distinction between the two funds and instead has deposited monies from the leases of all public lands into the public land trust fund and monies from the sale of all public lands into the special land ana development fund. 21/ Thus, in depositing money in the two funds, the distinction between ceded lands (lands subject to the section 5(f) trust) and non-ceded lands (lands not subject to the 5(f) trust) has been ignored; instead, monies have been deposited on the basis of a lease/sale dichotomy.

The reason given for the failure to conform to the mandate of § 5(f) of the Admission Act is even more disturbing. No inventory of public lands exists and the DLNR has been unable to distinguish between ceded and non-ceded public lands. 22/ A recent article on Hawaii's ceded lands observed that:

In fact, between statehood and 1979, no attempt had been made by the Department to compile a comprehensive inventory of the state's public lands, much less one distinguishing between its ceded and non-ceded portions. Notwithstanding the difficulty of assembling such an inventory given the deficiencies in existing records, it is still curious, in light of the requirements of the section 5( f ) , that such an inventory does not exist at the present time. 23/

That same article concluded that the absence of an inventory and the confusion of funds have impeded the administration of the section 5(f) public trust in several ways. 24/ First, because the DLNR cannot use the ceded/non-ceded distinction in recording receipts, there is no way of knowing the accuracy of its figures for each fund or of determining which monies belong to which fund. Since most of the income from public lands is derived from ceded lands, this failure to distinguish ceded and non-ceded lands has probably worked to the disadvantage of the public land trust fund. Secondly, the wrongful deposits may have resulted in expenditures of public trust monies for the purposes of the special land and development fund and vice versa. However, it is impossible to know the extent to which the expenditures may have been wrongfully applied until a

-p438-
Retrieved from "https://grihwiki.kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Template:Nhsc-v1-438&oldid=4626"