Fundraising Campaign

Keep the North Shore Country needs your help to raise $50,000!

We have spent more than a quarter million dollars trying to force a supplemental environmental impact statement for the Turtle Bay Resort expansion project.  The developer and the City and Country of Honolulu argue that an environmental report from 1985 is adequate and they have fought us all the way.

The case is still alive in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals and our costs are still mounting.  We have had excellent support from the community and most of our bills have been paid.  Still, there remains a substantial balance of legal fees and we need help from all our supporters to pay off our obligations  and to prepare for the likely possibility that the case will proceed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Our current fundraising goal of $50,000 will pay most of our remaining debt and help us continue this important legal effort through the Supreme Court, if necessary.  Every donation, $25, $100, $1000 and more, goes entirely to support the legal effort.  All other time and talents are volunteered.

Will you help us with a tax-deductible donation today?

 

T-Shirt Sales End

Keep the North Shore Country will no longer sell t-shirts and other supporter merchandise.  While these products have been well received and sold as far away as Europe and Australia, it is more important for this organization to focus on the pending litigation and direct fundraising activities.

The popular green "Keep the Country COUNTRY" and white "Aole" t-shirts are still very much available through Defend Oahu Coalition 's website and at community events around the island.

Please remember that our legal challenge of the environmental study at Kuilima has run up substantial attorney fees.  We need your help today.
 

Appellate Court Hears Oral Arguments

Our lawsuit to force the City and Country of Honolulu to order a supplemental environmental impact statement for the Turtle Bay Resort subdivision application may soon be ruled on by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.

Listen to the Oral Arguments from April 9, 2008
(Large MP3 file)

Honolulu Star Bulletin
Honolulu Advertiser
KHON-2
KITV-4
CNN

  The case is this simple: 

• The City's Department of Planning and Permitting has an obligation to require a Supplemental EIS when new circumstances or evidence have brought to light different or likely increased environmental impacts not previously dealth with.  DPP must make an independant determination whether new circumstancces and evidence require an SEIS.

• Kuilima applied for subdivision approval, which requires discretionary consent from the City.

• New circumstances and evidence have brough to light likely increased significant environmental impacts.

• DPP failed to take a hard look at new circumstances and evidence.

Keep the North Shore Country is committed to ensuring the City's compliance with Hawaii enironmental law.  This application for subdivision approval is the classic example of when a Supplemental EIS should be conducted.

This legal challenge against a well funded developer and the City is expensive, yet so very important to the future of Oahu and the State of Hawaii.

 Please help with a donation to the legal fund.

Appeal Documents

Opening Brief
Answering Brief - City
Answering Brief - Kuilima
Reply Brief 1
Reply Brief 2
Denial of Motion to Postpone
Amicus Curiae from Conservation Council for Hawaii

Circuit Court Documents

First Amended Complaint   Part Two
Kuilima's 1st Motion for Summary Judgment - Statute of Limitations
    City Joinder                Our Reply               KRC Reply
Kuilima's 2nd Motion for Summary Judgment - NonDiscretionary Actions
    City No Position         Our Reply   Pt 2     KRC Reply
Kuilima's 3rd Motion for Summary Judgment - Burden of Proof
    City Joinder                Our Reply               KRC Reply
Kuilima's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
    City Joinder                Our Reply               KRC Reply
Kuilima's Motion for Protective Order
    City Joinder                Our Reply               KRC Reply
Our Motion for Summary Judgment
    KRC Reply                 City Reply              Our Reply
Transcript of November 13, 2006 Hearing
Declaratory Judgment - December 5, 2006
Final Judgement - December 15, 2006

Related News, Projects and Efforts

Governor's Task Force

The Governor has put together an impressive task force to determine how best to proceed.  Click here for the latest Task Force News.
Get on the distribution list for updates at TurtleBayAWG@gmail.com.

Ko`olauloa-North Shore Alliance

A new network of 26 supporting organizations have come together to support the Turtle Bay Initiative.   Go to the Alliance website

Read "A Vision For Turtle Bay: Forever Country"

  Help Fund Our Legal Efforts

With so much news about the Governor's plan to buy the Turtle Bay Resort and preserve the adjoining lands, the foreclosure action and our strong legal challenge for a supplemental EIS, it might be easy to forget that our legal efforts require a substantial amount of money.

Everyone has a different ability to help.  Some help by volunteering their time, while others donate what they can comfortably give.  Some folks have greater means and have donated thousands of dollars.  Others have helped out with donations as small as one dollar.

What is it worth to you to help Keep the North Shore Country?

Another way to look at it is this: If someone can afford to go out to dinner from time to time, they can probably afford to donate the equivalent of one night out, can't they?

Thank you for Clicking Here and helping right now!

"Save Kawela Bay"
Watch this seven minute video!

Intuitively, logically, ethically and responsibly, everyone knows that a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) should be prepared before the developers at Turtle Bay Resort are allowed to proceed.  We believe the courts will add “legally” to this list of reasons.

According to Kuilima Resort Company, the folks who want to expand Turtle Bay Resort on Oahu’s North Shore from 500 to 4000 hotel and condo units, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in 1985 is as valid today as it may have been 21 years ago.

Inconveniently for the developers, virtually nobody has come out in support of the project as proposed, while the list of opponents is overwhelming.