The Kaua’i County Council has rejected Colorado developer John McCloskey’s proposed gift to the county of 59 acres of eastside beachfront acreage, including Donkey Beach. Before their decision Thursday, which came almost seven hours after their 1 p.m. meeting began,
The Kaua’i County Council has rejected Colorado developer John McCloskey’s proposed gift to the county of 59 acres of eastside beachfront acreage, including Donkey Beach.
Before their decision Thursday, which came almost seven hours after their 1 p.m. meeting began, council members listened to almost five hours of testimony from citizens. None of the approximately 30 speakers suggested accepting the McCloskey proposal.
Before the day began, it appeared the council might take the offer. But testimony that his private security guards were driving on the beach in all-terrain vehicles and harassing beachgoers swayed council members who had previously spoken of accepting the acreage.
Photos of uniformed private guards standing over beachgoers, and snapshots of ATVs on the beach (it’s illegal to drive vehicles on county beaches) were shown to the council by citizens opposing the Donkey Beach proposal.
McCloskey is building a 29-lot subdivision, Kealia Kai, on the bluffs above the beach. He had a clause in the deed mandating private security for what would have become public land.
Councilman Gary Hooser claimed the county administration mishandled the issue.
“The administration has not required the developer to comply” with subdivision permit approval and other permits for the project, Hooser said.
On Friday, Mayor Maryanne Kusaka disagreed with Hooser’s assessment.
“As far as we know, all laws have been followed, and we will continue to observe and enforce the law as it relates to this development. Any documented problems or violations will continue to be addressed by the county,” Kusaka said.
She said the “allegations of violations by security guards were a complete surprise and are already being investigated. I think it’s equally important to keep the big picture in mind — finding an acceptable way for the county to receive the gift so that it can be enjoyed by our entire population.”
McCloskey now has a variety of options. The developer’s local attorney, Lorna Nishimitsu, didn’t return calls seeking comment.
But Councilman Ron Kouchi laid out what he considers McCloskey’s possible next moves.
“There are two easy and clear options. One option is to submit a new deed that would be deemed acceptable to the council,” Kouchi said.
He said the new proposal, in order to be passed by the council, would have to revisit the private security and a reversion clause McCloskey had included that would cause his gift to be returned if the county didn’t make use of easements for a two-year period.
The second option for McCloskey “would be to submit an application to the Planning Commission. If he feels he has made a good faith attempt to comply” with the conditions for conveying the land to the county, “he could ask the commission to relieve him,” Kouchi explained.
But Kouchi said the developer could also try to give the land to either the state or the federal government.
The fourth possibility is that McCloskey could sue for relief. He did that previously during a land and public access dispute in Aspen, Colo.
Staff writer Dennis Wilken can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 252) and mailto:dwilken@pulitzer.net
