The Public Lands Development Corporation (PLDC): The future(s) of Hawai'i's 'ceded' lands

Aubrey Yee POLS740Spring 2013

The Public Lands Development Corporation (PLDC):

The future(s) of Hawai’i’s ‘ceded’ lands

1


Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono

The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness (Hawaii State motto)

On July 1, 2011, SB1555, also known as Act 55, officially became law in

Hawai’i. This bill created what was to be known as the Public Lands

Development Corporation, the PLDC for short. With a stated mission to “create a

vehicle and process to make optimal use of public land for the economic,

environmental, and social benefit of the people of Hawaii,” (“SB1555.pdf,” p. 1)

the newly formed PLDC was given direct access to some 1.8 million acres of

Hawai’i’s ceded lands and tasked to engage private partners in developing these

lands to in order to produce a profit for the Department of Land and Natural

Resources. The language of the bill exempted this corporation from all standard

development processes including the need to apply for building permits, follow

established land use codes and indicted no structure for public input or dispute

relating to which lands would be developed. The charter of the corporation called

for a total of five individuals to oversee all operations. Three of these slots were

designated to government appointed Directors from three government agencies:

the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism; the

Department of Budget and Finance; and the Department of Land and Natural

Resources. The remaining two members were also to be appointed, one by the

speaker of the House of Representatives, and one by the president of Senate.

There was no provision for public election or oversight of any of the PLDC

2


directors. State lands, private partnerships, no public input and no public

oversight.

The 1.8 million acres in question are those lands that were the ‘crown

lands’ belonging to the Hawaiian monarchy prior to Hawai’i’s forced annexation

by the United States government in 1898. When Hawai’i officially became a state

in the American union in 1959, these ‘crown lands’ were automatically and

forcibly transferred to the United States government in trust with the expressed

purpose that they be used for the benefit of the public, specifically the Native

Hawaiian people. At that point the lands ceased being referred to as ‘crown’

lands and began being referred to as ‘ceded’ lands. The implication that the

lands were ‘ceded’ to the U.S. and the ultimate ownership or trusteeship of these

lands is highly contested, not least because the historical overthrow of the

Hawaiian Kingdom is considered by many to be illegal and illegitimate.

Embedded in neoliberal capitalist discourses of enclosure, privatization and

accumulation by dispossession, SB1555/Act55, the bill that created the PLDC, is

the most recent assault in a long line of aggressive maneuvers aimed at

dispossessing Native Hawaiians of their ancestral lands. This state sponsored

process of genealogical erasure was an attempt to advance the processes of

accumulation by dispossession that started with the colonization of the Hawaiian

islands by Europeans. (Harvey, 2003, 45), Invoking discourses of economic crisis

and economic emergency to activate a state of exception, the proponents of

Act55 attempted to push through legislation that would have enabled virtually

uninhibited private development of Hawai’i’s crown lands, in absolute violation of

3


their stated trust for the public good of the Native Hawaiian people.

The Meta-Narrative of Empire

Act55 is premised on the argument that the Department of Land and

Natural Resources (DLNR) should remedy its declining budget through the

private development of public lands. To justify this discourse, the authors of the

bill portray the lands in question as underutilized. “The legislature finds that

certain public lands under the jurisdiction of the department of land and natural

resources are not used effectively. Public lands in certain areas may serve the

State and its people better if managed and developed into suitable recreational

and leisure centers where the public can congregate and where visitors to our

State can go as part of their holiday experience.” (“SB1555.pdf,” p. 1) Positioning

the lands as ‘underutilized,’ undesirable, decaying the proponents of the bill

aimed to activate a process that David Harvey terms “accumulation by

dispossession.” This process of territorialization has its roots in colonial

imperialism and has historically enabled the “extraction of tribute from the

colonies in some of the most oppressive and violently exploitative forms of

imperialism ever invented.” (Harvey, 2003, 45) In the late-20th and early-21st

centuries, the political project of accumulation by dispossession has continued to

flourish under the guise of privatization of the public sphere(s). In neoliberal

terms, “Devalued capital assets can be bought up at fire-sale prices and

profitably recycled back into the circulation of capital by overaccumulated

capital.” (Harvey, 2003,150) This process relies upon the logics philosopher

4


Giorgio Agamben’s ‘state of exception’ whereby extraordinary state powers are

legitimized through a sense of crisis, allowing the state of exception to be

normalized in service of empire (Agamben, 2003). In the case of the PLDC, the

logics of exception were activated through discourses of economic emergency

and failing infrastructure.

This meta-narrative of modern empire, which is not exclusive to Hawai’i,

must be understood as a ‘new enclosure movement.’ As Harvey explains, “The

corporatization and privatization of hitherto public assets…that has swept the

world, indicate a new wave of ‘enclosing the commons,’” whereby “the power of

the state is frequently used to force such processes through even against

popular will.” (Harvey, 2003) The PLDC charter enabled privatized development

on public lands with virtually no public oversight and spectacular exemptions

from the normal development procedures:

projects pursuant to this chapter shall be exempt from all statutes,

ordinances, charter provisions, and rules of any government agency

relating to special improvement district assessments or requirements; land

use, zoning, and construction standards for subdivisions, development,

and improvement of land; and the construction, improvement, and sale of

homes thereon;

(sb1555.cd1.pdf, 29)

In a matter of 36 pages of legislative language, this new entity was given the

keys to the kingdom.

The PLDC’s capacity for nepotism and corruption became almost

5


immediately transparent. In hindsight, the genealogy of Act55 is plagued with

serious mismanagement and a series of back room dealings that repeatedly

subverted democratic process. The original bill was focused on public education

and finding profitable use for the land beneath public schools that have been

closed down. In a series of revisions, what is known in legislation as ‘gut and

replace’, the text of the bill changed drastically as it passed through different

committees in the legislature. On February 8th 2011, DLNR director William Aila

presented testimony on a version of the bill, which referred to “limited issuance of

commercial use permits for vessels in Ala Wai and Keehi harbors” as the PLDC’s

stated mission. Meanwhile, language buried deeper in the text revealed that all

DLNR lands would be opened to public-private partnerships with the objective to

develop “commercial uses; hotel, residential, and timeshare uses; fueling

facilities; storage and repair facilities; and seawater air conditioning plants.”

(Arnie, statehoodhawaii.org, 2011) At the 11th hour, the bill’s hyper-aggressive

development language was inserted with barely time for appropriate reading and

review before a vote had to be cast by legislators.

One of the first people to sound the alarm bells about Act 55 and the

PLDC was blogger and political activist Ian Lind. On June 22, 2011, after the bill

was passed but before it became law, Lind wrote, “DBEDT [Department of

Business and Economic Development and Tourism] director Richard Lim’s recent

speech at a meeting of the Hawaii Economic Association spelled out his view

that public lands represent a significant resource and opportunity for private

development. Now a bill signed into law by Governor Abercrombie provides

6


muscle to move Lim’s vision towards reality.” (Lind, 2011) Lim himself depicted

the ceded lands in question as a ‘drain’ on state resources, representing

‘underutilized facilities’ in a ‘state of disrepair.’ (Lind, 2011) Richard Lim was to

be one of the five people appointed to the first board of the PLDC.

Roots of Imperialism

Jodi Byrd writing of Captain Cook’s “discovery” of the Hawaiian islands in

the late 18th century, explains how the Captain “exemplified the magical thinking

of European imperialism that sought to resurrect “discovered” lands into imperial

ownership.” (Byrd, 2011) It was this same ‘magical thinking’ that led multiple

legislators and supporters of the PLDC to believe that 1.8 million acres of land,

land that was once set aside for the King himself, could be portrayed as a ‘drain’

on resources, a commodity to be reabsorbed into the cycle of capital

accumulation and developed for profit without public oversight.

When Neil Abercrombie was elected to the office of Governor of Hawaii in

2010, he released a plan called A New Day for Hawaii. Filled with language of

equity, transparency and responsibility to the public good, A New Day for Hawaii

portrays Abercrombie as a politician concerned with the plight of the weak, a

champion of the environment and an advocate for open government. And yet,

just two years prior, Abercrombie gave his testimony to Congress regarding the

Akaka Bill and exposed a decisively imperialist perspective. The Akaka Bill was

legislation that would have created a process of federal recognition for Native

Hawaiians. Opponents of the bill argued that such a process of recognition would

7


complicate Native Hawaiian claims to the illegality of overthrown and diminish the

building momentum towards more legitimate sovereignty. As Jon Goldberg-Hiller

argues, “the grand projects of recognition and apology fail to resolve historical

violence in forms acceptable to many native Hawaiians because of the

constraints of the legal form in both alternatives, a legality that has served as a

tool of colonization and subordination.” (Hiller, 2011, 485) What Goldberg-Hiller

makes clear in this argument is that legal processes such as apology for past

violence and recognition for native peoples can be important in establishing

rights and precedence, as we will see later, but that these legal frameworks

alone do not erase the prejudices, the violence, the memory, the loss of culture

experienced and they can not be viewed as wholly sufficient redress for the

legacy of colonialism. We still live in a material world and there are material

resonances that we inherit as a result of our colonial heritage. One very

importance material resonance is land ownership. There are many wealthy

missionary families in Hawai’i whose family fortunes are built upon the legacy of

colonialism and lands received as a result of indigenous dispossession. And the

‘crown’ lands of the State of Hawai’i are a critical resonance of the colonial

experience as well as a tool for expanding imperialist agendas. It almost seems

as though Abercrombie’s testimony before Congress resonates directly from Jodi

Byrd’s interpretation of the field of indigenous politics when she says that

indigenous critical theory aims to “make visible what imperialism and its resultant

settler colonialisms and diasporas have sought to obscure.” (Byrd, 2011, xxx) At

the Akaka Bill testimony in 2010, then representative Abercrombie sat with a

8


smug smile on his face and stated:

The 1.8 million acres [of crown lands] essentially were seen [at the time of

the overthrow] as something the merchant bankers didn’t need. So, the

1.8 million acres weren’t seen as worth anything…we’ll just give that to the

Hawaiians, nobody wants it, there’s no water, there’s no infrastructure,

there’s nothing useful to anyone who wants to make money out of it so

we’ll give that to the Native Hawaiians. Now, come to 2010, how would

you like to have 1.8 million acres of land in Hawaii today (laughter from the

audience)… when you get right down to the nitty gritties of all of this, this

has nothing to do with the constitution, this has nothing to do with race,

this has to do with assets, land and money.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gs-pKQHP7I&feature=youtu.be)

The specific issue of race that Abercrombie mentions is in reference to a case

brought before the Hawai’i Supreme Court by Harold “Freddy” Rice in 1996. Rice

claimed to be the victim of discrimination based on race because at that time only

Native Hawaiians were allowed to cast votes in the election of trustees to the

Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). OHA presides over some 200,000 acres of

public lands, known as homestead lands, for the benefit of the Hawaiian people.

In Rice v. Cayetano the logic of discrimination was used to argue that Native

Hawaiians were enacting injustices upon the non-Native citizens of Hawai’i. R.

Hokulei Lindsey argues that contrary to Rice’s claim of discrimination, “The State

of Hawai'i does not hold these lands as a state would hold public-domain lands. It

9


has been argued that the State has only ‘naked’ title to the ceded lands and

holds these lands as a trustee. Because ‘Congress has recognized . . . that

Native Hawaiians are beneficiaries of the illegally taken Ceded Lands,’ native

Hawaiians hold a property interest analogous to that of American Indians,

whereby the government holds land "for the benefit of all members of the tribe."

(Lindsey, 2009, 225) This critical distinction of the ‘ceded’ lands as lands in trust

to be used expressly for the benefit of all Native Hawaiians runs entirely counter

to the logic of the PLDC.

The Great Mahele

The historical process of land division at the heart of the ‘ceded lands’

debate is known as The Great Mahele. The Great Mahele of 1848 and

subsequent Kuleana Act of 1850 were both greatly contested events fraught with

complex and highly politicized historiographies. Prior to these two landmark

events, land in the Kingdom of Hawai’i had for generations been divided among

the people in a system known as the Ahupua’a land tenure system. Each island

was divided into pie shaped sections, which today we know were based upon

naturally occurring boundaries such as streams or ridgelines. Within each

Ahupua’a there was everything that one would need to survive from the

mountains to the ocean. A konohiki, or member of the elite, would be appointed

by the Ali’i, royalty, to preside over a given Ahupua’a and all the commoners

within that division would have different kuleana or areas of responsibility. The

fruits of the land and sea were shared in common and if a konohiki was not doing

10


their job well they could be forced to move by the commoners of the area. This

subsistence based, communal form of land tenure allowed the Hawaiian people

to flourish until the arrival of the Europeans.

The Great Mahele of 1848 was a land division by decree of the King that

broke up the old system and created a new system more akin to the European

notion of private property. Professor Jonathan Osorio has argued that the Mahele

“was a foreign solution to the problem of managing lands increasingly empied of

people,” as a result of epidemics brought by colonizers and low birthrates. (Silva,

2004, 41) In most accounts, the Mahele is understood as an attempt by the ruling

monarchy to update their traditional land division system to a more ‘modern’

process. The essential outcome of the process was a new division of land

previously held in common among Ali’i (royalty), their appointed konohiki

(headman of a land division) and the maka’ainana (commoners). Notably there

were many foreigners who also benefitted from this division lands previously held

in common. Dr. Noenoe Silva explains that prior to the Mahele, “the ali’i ‘ai moku,

now the mo’i of the entire archipelago, had interests in all lands; the appointed

konohiki had interests in all lands under their control; and the maka’ainana had

interests in the lands that they worked.” (Silva, 2004, 41) This commonly held

responsibility for the land was (and is) a core ontology of the Native Hawaiian

cosmogrophy.

Dr. Umi Perkins’s work on the kuleana titles granted during the Great

Mahele sheds critical light on the often arbitrary and chaotic nature of the

process. Kuleana in Hawaiian language means ‘right, responsibility or privilege.’

11


During and just after the Mahele, the kuleana lands were those lands that

maka’ainana families were granted by the Kingdom based on their geneaological

heritage. Each family had a certain amount of time to claim their lands, but the

process was fraught with miscommunication and inconsistencies. (Perkins, 2013)

Perkins explains that contrary to the general understanding of the Mahele, “the

Government held an undivided right in both the domain and dominium of the

kingdom that comprised roughly four million acres, until individual chiefs of the

Konohiki class divided out their interests and acquired fee simple title in the

domain. The Konohiki class included Kamehameha III in his private capacity,

which has come to be known as Crown Lands.” (Perkins, 2006) These crown

lands are what eventually became the ‘ceded’ lands at the time of the annexation

of Hawai’i by the United States. As Perkins and other scholars have pointed out,

“Because no treaty was ever ratified between the US and the Hawaiian

government (neither the Hawaiian Kingdom nor the illegal Republic of Hawai`i),

the argument could be made that there are no ‘ceded’ lands.” (Perkins, 2006)

The lands that were transferred to the United States government in 1959 when

Hawai’i became a state remain contested. There has been a consistent and

concerted effort to conceal this history. Dr. Noenoe Silva’s work aims to overturn

the normalized histories of the Hawaiian overthrow and the misunderstanding

surrounding Native Hawaiian forms of resistance to occupation. She explains,

“One of the most persistent myths of Hawaiian history is that the Kanaka Maoli

(Native Hawaiians) passively accepted the erosion of their culture and the loss of

their nation.” (Silva, 2004, 1) In fact there was an extensive Native Hawaiian

12


resistance to the overthrow, but since much of it was in Hawaiian and through

means such as mo’olelo (song) and dance it has been consistently overlooked by

settler colonial historians and those interested in the expansion of empire. As

Silva argues, “Hawai’i is not a postcolonial but a (neo?) colonial state, and

historiography is one of the most powerful discourses that justifies the continued

occupation of Hawai’i by the United States today.” (Silva, 2004, 9) So, if the

nation of Hawai’i was never officially ceded, as argued by Perkins and others,

and the historiography of Hawai’i conceals a strong native resistance to the

overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, then in fact it can be strongly argued, as

many scholars have done, that the ‘ceded’ lands were never really ‘ceded’ in the

first place.

OHA v. Hawaiian Affairs

The 2008 case Hawaii vs. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which reached the

Hawai’i Supreme Court further complicates and undermines the legitimacy of the

PLDC. When the state of Hawaii attempted to build a residential development on

the former crown lands on the island of Maui, the Leiali’i parcel, OHA demanded

a disclaimer that preserved any native Hawaiian claims to the land in perpetuity

in exchange for the State’s right to develop it. The state refused and attempted to

proceed without honoring OHA’s demands. OHA sued the State and when the

case reached the Supreme Court of Hawai’i, the justices looked to the Apology

Resolution of 1993 as grounds for their decision to reject the State’s attempt to

remove lands from trust for the purpose of commercial development. In 1993, the

13


United States Congress under then President Bill Clinton ‘apologized’ for the

country’s role in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy. The Hawai’i Supreme

Court’s ruling established a significant precedent that Kanaka Maoli have an un-

relinquished claim to the crown lands in Hawai’i. (Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian

Affairs, 2008) As Dr. Jon Goldberg-Hiller argues, the Apology has been itself

contested among Native Hawaiian scholars and activists, “For many who have

turned away from reconciliation efforts through the Apology and the Akaka Bill,

rejection has been aimed at the timing of recognition, the legal fiction of an Indian

nation through which recognition must constitutionally take place, the harms

which are to be apologized for, the English language in which recognition is to be

made and the forums in which justice is to be sought.” (Goldberg-Hiller, 2011,

170) In this case, however, the Apology served to establish a critical legal

precedent, which I argue, thoroughly undermines the legitimacy of the PLDC as

an apparatus of the state.

The PLDC and 21st Century Imperialism

In light of these scholarly arguments and legal histories, I argue that the

attempt to privatize and develop Hawai’i’s crown lands for profit should be seen

as a present day manifestation of imperialism based in neoliberal ideologies and

discourses in line with what David Harvey would call “the cutting edge of

accumulation by dispossession.” (Harvey, 2003, 147) This is a dispossession

couched in the terms of state sovereignty and public good, which in fact aims to

finalize the settler colonial project, started long ago. Proponents of the PLDC

14


allege that the organization was created with good intentions and that the

organization’s target would be decrepit and unutilized public spaces for

development. As PLDC primary author and legislator Donavon Dela Cruz

explained, “I think change is a scary thing. But sticking to the status quo is more

frightening. We need to create more opportunities for housing, for economic

development and create a committed revenue stream for DLNR." (Cocke,

civilbeat.com, 2012)

In the 2012 legislative session, as public outrage over the PLDC was

building to a fever pitch, several bills were introduced to limit the powers of the

PLDC. With Dela Cruz on the Senate Committee on Water, Land and Housing,

there was little hope of any of them passing. In fact, in an article for

CivilBeat.com, Sophie Cocke revealed that Dela Cruz had authored five bills that

would enhance and expand the powers of the PLDC, despite his public

assurances to the media that he would not be introducing any legislation related

to the organization. (Cocke, civilbeat.com, 2012) In Fall of 2012, eleven Oahu

Democrats filed a complaint and request for censure against Dela Cruz for his

continued support of various legislation that they said was harmful to the

environment and thus in direct opposition to the Democratic party platform. The

bill that ultimately pushed these legislators to press for censure was SB2927,

which would have given developers a fast-track for both commercial and

residential developments, exempted projects from environmental review and

zoning among a host of other exceptional allowances. (James, civilbeat.com,

2012) With little respect for democratic process and with the speed of modernity

15


at his back, Dela Cruz continues to push for an advance of settler colonial

violences and an erosion of the potential for sovereignty, all in the name of

development. As author Choon James, himself a real estate broker for over 20

years, lamented, “With anti-open government legislators like him, who needs

emirs, ayatollahs, sultans, kings, and emperors?” (James, civilbeat.com, 2012)

Saskia Sassen writes of the ‘financialization of non-financial domains’:

“One way of putting it is that capitalism is undergoing a deepening of advanced

capitalism predicated on the destruction of more traditional forms of capitalism.

The financializing of non-financial domains is one such form of deepening.”

(Sassen, 2012, 76) In the PLDC charter, the logics of neoliberal development are

laid bare. With regards to “Public lands optimization projects” the corporation was

tasked to “develop and implement public lands optimization projects where

appropriate public lands may be developed or managed to create appropriate

leisure or recreational areas to create revenue-generating centers or where,

through detailed analysis, opportunities exist to exploit potential local, national,

and international markets.” (SB1555.pdf, 2011) As Gary Hooser of the Kauai

County Council pointed out, Act55 was passed without the required readings in

each House and the public was only given two hours public notice before the bill

was passed into law, clearly violating due process. And while some 80%, of the

lands in question are not on Oahu, there was no neighbor island representation

on the PLDC board. (http://garyhooser.wordpress.com/2013/02/08)

Riddled with ambiguity and rhetoric, Act55 and the PLDC were met with

fierce opposition, most notably from the neighbor islands. Around the state

16


multiple protest marches commenced, petitions were signed, and groups like the

Sierra Club set up websites, www.grandtheftaina.com, and Facebook pages to

educate and inform the public about the PLDC. Every neighbor island council

voted to repeal Act 55 in entirety. In the face of intense push-back and the repeal

votes from neighbor islands, Governor Abercrombie continued to support the

legislation, stating in an October 2 article in the Star Advertiser, Hawai’i’s only

major newspaper, that the PLDC “is one of our best opportunities to work

cooperatively and align public and private interests toward the enhancement,

protection, conservation and management of public lands for Hawai‘i’s people.”

(Borrecca, staradvertiser.com, 2012)

As Patrick Wolfe famously wrote, “the road to oppression has consistently

been paved with good intentions.” (Wolfe, 1999, 213) And as he further

postulated, “Settler colonies were (are) premised on the elimination of native

societies…The colonizers come to stay – invasion is a structure, not an event.”

(Wolfe, 1999, 2) The 21st century land grab that was pursued under the guise of

the PLDC is a recent political move in a long and complex history of imperialist

structures including enclosure, colonialism and empire. James Scott writes about

the “illegibility of communal tenure” explaining that in the case of pre-industrial

Europe, “It was claimed, although the evidence is not convincing, that common

property was less productive than freehold property.” (Scott, 1998, 38-39) And

Michel Foucault has attempted to address “the interest of all as opposed to

private interest.” (Foucault, 2007, 355) These and numerous other scholars have

analyzed the tension that exists between public good and the push for

17

http://www.grandtheftaina.com/


privatization as a means of advancing empire. In the throes of late late

capitalism, as the need for expanding territory to feed the engine of empire

grows, the reach of capital pushes ever deeper into the public domain. This trend

is worrisome for the future of Hawai’i and the future of the Native Hawaiian

people.

Indigenous Cosmologies

For Kanaka Maoli, the relationship to land runs infinitely deeper than that

of a resource from which to take and profit. Dr. Noenoe Silva explains the

Kanaka Maoli relationship to land as reciprocal, the land takes care of the people

and in return the people take care of the land, or ‘aina. “Land tenure…was based

on obligations as well as bonds of affection.” (Silva, 2004, 40) Silva explains:

Where nationalism and patriotism tend to exalt the virtues of a people or

race, aloha ‘aina exalts the land. It refers to the appreciation of the beauty

of the land, about which both ali’i and maka’ainana have composed

hundreds, perhaps thousands, of songs…but aloha ‘aina goes beyond

love of beauty as well. The Kanaka Maoli have a genealogical, familial

relationship to the land. The islands are said to have been conceived and

born like human beings. (Silva, 2004, 11)

This genealogical relationship with and responsibility to land is absent in the

settler colonial, neoliberal apparatus of the State of Hawaii. Modern discourses of

sustainability and respect for resources remain enmeshed in the networks of a

deep and abiding nature-culture divide that sees the natural world the world of

18


man as permanently and wholly separate. The PLDC was a naked attempt to

advance what Umi Perkins has called the project of ‘erasure’, rendering Kanaka

Maoli claims to land and heritage illegible through dissemination and

development.

Building on a foundation of settler colonialism and employing the

neoliberal rhetoric of development as justification for a wholesale land grab, the

authors and proponents of the PLDC participated in the lineage of colonial

violence towards both the Native Hawaiian people and the islands of Hawai’i.

Whether the intentions of the bill were good or not, by situating this piece of

legislation within the global lineages of colonialism, enclosure and privatization, it

is grossly apparent that democracy was suspended in service of expanding the

terrain of empire. Thankfully, the moment of crisis was averted as Act55 was

repealed in April of 2013. But the residues of the politics that envisioned such a

future for Hawai’i remain. As the 2012 and 2013 legislative sessions have shown,

there are still pressures within the state apparatus to privatize and colonize public

spaces. Until there is a paradigm shift in governance and a privileging of the

Kanaka Maoli ontology -aloha ‘aina – love and respect for the land – there will be

continued attempts at dispossession of land, erasure of genealogy and

privatization of the public sphere.

19


Bibliography:

Arnie. “PLOP: Act 55–DLNR’s Public Land Optimization Plan” Statehood.org.

http://www.statehood.org/2011/06/28/dlnr_plop (accessed April 30, 2013)

Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. State of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell. 1st ed. University Of

Chicago Press.

Arvin, Maile Renee. 2009. “Sovereignty Will Not Be Funded : Indigenous Citizenship in Hawai’i’s

Non-profit Industrial Complex” (January 1). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/91042730

(accessed April 30, 2013)

Boyle, James. 2003. “Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain,

The.” Law & Contemp. Probs. 66: 33.

Bryant, Elena. 2011. “Innovation or Degradation: An Analysis of Hawai’i’s Cultural Impact

Assessment Process as a Vehicle of Environmental Justice for Kanaka Maoli.” Asian-Pacific

Law and Policy Journal 13: 230.

Cocke, Sophie. “Hawaii Land Development Corp still controversial.” Civilbeat.com

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/02/08/14759-hawaii-land-development-corp-still-

controversial/ (accessed April 25, 2013)

Foucault, Michel, François Ewald, Alessandro Fontana, and Arnold I. I. Davidson. 2009. Security,

Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977--1978. Edited by Michel

SenellartTranslated by Graham Burchell. 1st ed. Picador.

Fujikane, Candace. 2012. “Asian American Critique and Moana Nui 2011: Securing a Future

Beyond Empires, Militarized Capitalism and APEC.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 13 (2): 189–

210. doi:10.1080/14649373.2012.659808.

Goldberg-Hiller, Jonathan. 2011. “Reconciliation and Plasticity in a Postcolonial Hawai‘i.” Law,

Culture and the Humanities (June 30). doi:10.1177/1743872111404809.

http://lch.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/06/22/1743872111404809.

Harvey, David. 2005. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press, USA.

———. 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. 1st ed. Verso.

Iaukea, Sydney Lehua, and Curtis Piʻehu ʻIaukea. 2011. The Queen and I: A Story of

Dispossessions and Reconnections in Hawai’i. University of California Press.

James, Choon. “Open Government Lockdown.” Civilbeat.com

http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2012/03/08/15121-open-government-lock-down/ (accessed

May 2, 2013)

Kauanui, J. Kehaulani. 2008. Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and

Indigeneity. Duke University Press Books.

20

http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2012/03/08/15121-open-government-lock-down/

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/02/08/14759-hawaii-land-development-corp-still-controversial/

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/02/08/14759-hawaii-land-development-corp-still-controversial/

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/91042730

http://www.statehood.org/2011/06/28/dlnr_plop


Lind, Ian. “State moves towards privatization and development of public lands without regard to

zoning or land-use laws.” http://www.ilind.net/2011/06/22/state-moves-towards-privatization-

and-development-of-public-lands-without-regard-to-zoning-or-land-use-laws/

#sthash.IrxgT1ld.dpuf (accessed May 2, 2013)

Lindsey, R. Hōkūlei. 2009. “NATIVE HAWAIIANS AND THE CEDED LANDS TRUST: APPLYING

SELF-DETERMINATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION

ANALYSIS.” American Indian Law Review 34 (2) (January 1): 223–257.

doi:10.2307/41148652.

Nandy, Ashis. 2010. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. 2nd ed.

Oxford University Press.

Ouden, Amy E. Den, and Jean O’Brien, ed. 2013. Recognition, Sovereignty Struggles, and

Indigenous Rights in the United States: A Sourcebook. The University of North Carolina

Press.

Petras, James, and Henry Veltmeyer. 2001. Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st

Century. Zed Books.

Perkins, Umi. 2013. Kuleana: A Genealogy of Native Tenant Rights. University of Hawaii at

Manoa Dissertation Defense.

Perkins, Umi. 2006. Teaching Land and Sovereignty. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Sassen, Saskia. 2008. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages.

Updated. Princeton University Press.

———. 2010. “A Savage Sorting of Winners and Losers: Contemporary Versions of Primitive

Accumulation.” Globalizations 7 (1-2) (June): 23–50. doi:10.1080/14747731003593091.

———. 2012. “Expanding the Terrain for Global Capital.” Subprime Cities: The Political Economy

of Mortgage Markets: 74–96.

S.B. NO. 1555. Hawai’I Senate. Twenty-sixth Legislature, 2011, State of Hawaii H.D. 2,C.D. 1

Schachter, Judith, and Albrecht Funk. 2012. “Sovereignty, Indigeneity, Identities: Perspectives

from Hawai’i.” Social Identities 18 (4): 399–416. doi:10.1080/13504630.2012.673869.

Scott, James C. 1999. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human

Condition Have Failed. New edition. Yale University Press.

Silva, Noenoe K. 2004. Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism.

Duke University Press Books.

Wolfe, Patrick. 1998. Settler Colonialism. Bloomsbury Academic.

You Tube. “Abercrombie Testifies on Akaka Bill.” You Tube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=1gs-pKQHP7I&feature=youtu.be (accessed May 1, 2013)

21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gs-pKQHP7I&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gs-pKQHP7I&feature=youtu.be

http://www.ilind.net/2011/06/22/state-moves-towards-privatization-and-development-of-public-lands-without-regard-to-zoning-or-land-use-laws/#sthash.IrxgT1ld.dpuf




22

Date post:	25-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hawaii
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The Public Lands Development Corporation (PLDC): The future(s) of Hawai'i's 'ceded' lands

Documents