LIHU‘E — The fate of the Ohana Kauai charter amendment will not be known until at least Tuesday, Dec. 14, as Fifth Circuit Court Judge George M. Masuoka continued motions yesterday that could have decided whether the Kaua‘i County charter
LIHU‘E — The fate of the Ohana Kauai charter amendment will not be known until at least Tuesday, Dec. 14, as Fifth Circuit Court Judge George M. Masuoka continued motions yesterday that could have decided whether the Kaua‘i County charter amendment is legal.
Masuoka continued a motion to intervene on behalf of Ohana Kauai and four Kaua‘i residents who are Ohana Kauai members: Walter Lewis, Dr. Monroe Richman, Gordon Smith, and Ming Fang, allowing their joint attorney, Harold Bronstein, two weeks to re-file his motion.
County attorneys have until Friday, Dec. 10 to respond to the complaint, and the hearing will be held at 1 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 14, in Circuit Court.
Ohana Kauai and the four residents should be made the defendants in the case, so as to allow hearing of both sides of the complaint, Bronstein argued.
The current defendants Mayor Bryan J. Baptiste, the County of Kaua‘i, Director of Finance Michael H. Tresler and the Kaua‘i County Council publicly came out against the proposal, Bronstein said, and would not defend the public, who voted for the amendment, Bronstein said.
“There is a conflict of interest. There is only one interest. The defendants want what the plaintiffs are seeking,” Bronstein said of the current lawsuit. “There is a right way and a wrong way. This is the wrong way. It is unfair to decide the issue without someone representing the voters.”
The Ohana amendment to the Kaua‘i County Charter, which was passed by an overwhelming majority on election day earlier this month, would roll back property taxes for Kaua‘i residents who occupy their homes to the tax amount they paid in 1998.
Masuoka appeared to agree in part with Bronstein’s argument, but he said he would not consider Ohana Kauai as a proper party, he said, since the entity does not pay property taxes.
“The plaintiff is against it and the defendant is against it,” Masuoka said of the amendment. “The court has interest in seeing both sides.”
Masuoka also chided the county, represented in court by Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson and Honolulu attorney Corlis J. Chang, for waiting so long to file the lawsuit. As Chang began to argue her case, Masuoka cut her off, saying “You had a lot of time to bring the case to court before the election,” instead of filing the complaint the week before the election.
“Don’t you think you should have brought the action a long time ago?” Masuoka added.
Chang continued that the county had met state law requirements by filing before the election. She continued her argument that Ohana Kauai and the residents do not have standing, since they do not create tax policy.
Masuoka also refused to dismiss the complaint, saying the motion was “premature.”
A hearing on the county’s motion for summary judgment, scheduled for yesterday afternoon, was withdrawn by the county. No date for judgment or trial has been set.
The complaint, filed in October, asks the judge to stop Baptiste, members of the Kaua‘i County Council and the county finance director from implementing the Ohana Kauai amendment.
It asks Masuoka to rule the amendment illegal, because it violates the state constitution, the Kaua‘i County Charter, and because it is vague.
Ohana Kauai folks said their measure also helps longtime residents stay on their land, and was needed to give immediate tax relief.
If the measure stands the legal test and is implemented, affected residents will see lower tax bills in the early part of fiscal year 2005-2006.
Tom Finnegan, staff writer, may be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 252) or mailto:tfinnegan@pulitzer.net.
