- Email: [email protected]
Hana revisited: development and controversy in a Hawaiian tourism community
Tourism Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 171-178, 1998 © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0261-5177/98 $19.0(I+ (I.00
Pergamon PIh S0261-5177(97)00109-X
Case study
Hana revisited: development and controversy in a Hawaiian tourism community Robert W Wyllie Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 Following an attempt to develop a sustainable, integrated tourism operation in Hana, Maui, a change of company ownership and a new approach to the problem of economic viability led to public protest and a deterioration of relations among residents. A proposal to strengthen the operation by building a resort golf course split the community and divided families, friends and neighbours. As the proposal proceeded through the public review process, frictions also developed between different County authorities, between the County Council and the company, and between company officials. The Hana controversy highlights the importance of inter-resident relations and illustrates some of the difficulties of implementing 'community-sensitive tourism' in destinations where people are sharply divided in their views on tourism development. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Hana, Maul, community-responsive tourism, public controversy
visions are not simply reflections of people's economic dependence on, or independence from, a single large employer. They are also shaped by the understandings people have of their community as a distinctive, special place and of their own personal investments in its past, present and future. The Hana case also points up some of the difficulties involved in developing 'community-responsive' tourism when community consensus seems unattainable and residents face each other as members of mutually antagonistic groups. An extensive literature exists showing that residents often hold conflicting ideas about tourism development in their communities and several studies indicate that involvement in or dependence on the industry is a key factor shaping pro-tourism attitudes. 2-~ In their Hawaiian survey Liu and Var" found that appreciation of tourism's economic benefits was also expressed by people working outside the industry and suggested this was a consequence of their experience of Hawaii as a mature destination. Along similar lines, some researchers have noted more favourable attitudes among residents with greater knowledge of tourism and emphasize tourism education as a means of
Introduction The small community of Hana, which lies on the east coast of Maul island in Hawaii, was the site of a 1984-1989 experiment in sustainable, integrated tourism development carried out by Rosewood Corporation as owners of the local hotel and ranch. This project was the subject of an important case study by Farrell,' who described some of the problems encountered by Rosewood as well as the ambivalent nature of community reaction to the experiment. The present study covers the period 1989-1993 when new Japanese owners introduced a controversial proposal to build a resort golf course and when public debate on Hana shifted towards questions of economic viability and community survival. It is based on qualitative research conducted between 1991 and 1995 involving analysis of public documents (primarily public testimonies and minutes of public hearings and meetings) as well as interviews with key players in the controversy. Besides up-dating Farrell's account, this study shows how people with equally strong community attachments can hold quite different visions of what needs to be done to preserve that community. These 171
Hana revisited: R W Willie
positively influencing people's views.7," Several prescriptive studies of community-responsive tourism have stressed the need for direct resident involvement in tourism planning to generate lasting local support for tourism projects." '~ However, some recent writing on community-responsive tourism has taken a more sceptical approach, citing social heterogeneity, factionalism, competing interest groups and power inequalities as major obstacles to the development of community consensus and cooperation. '2 ,4 A number of writers have proposed 'collaborative planning' strategies to manage, reconcile or overcome differences between various stakeholders in tourism destinations. '~-'7 While recognizing the merits of such strategies, Reed '~ has shown how power relations between stakeholders can change the outcome of collaborative planning or even render it unworkable, and Prentice'" has pointed out that the elimination of dissension may not be possible in all situations. Exchange theory has been used by Ap TM in analyzing residents' perceptions of tourism impacts and illuminating some of the processes at work as people try to assess and balance anticipated costs and rewards. Although this is an interesting approach, it focuses attention somewhat narrowly on residents as discrete, calculating individuals rather than as members of oppositional, emotionally-charged groups. Green et al. zl have applied local dependency theory in explaining why permanent residents in a Wisconsin vacation area had more positive views on local economic growth than did seasonal residents. This theory postulates that residents' support for local growth is not simply a function of their economic dependence on businesses actively promoting growth, but also expresses a dependence rooted in their own community investments (for example, home ownership and social investments in community life and relationships):
Background Beginning in the late 1960s, tourism expanded rapidly in Maui County (which includes the islands of Maui, Lanai, Molokai and Kaho'olawe) with development concentrated primarily along the dry west and south coasts of Maui island. This was due mainly to state efforts to ease pressure on the main tourist centre in Waikiki on the island of Oahu and to tourism ventures by major Maui landowners seeking more profitable alternatives to sugar and pineapple production. 22 In this they were joined by Japanese investors who by 1991 owned 72% of Maui hotel rooms and were the source of all foreign investment in Maui golf course development during the 1970s and 1980s.23 Between 1967 and 1994 visitor arrivals increased'from 304,437 to 2.3 million, while visitor accommodations grew from 2,415 units in 1969 to 19,024 in 1994.24 Tourism helped Maui 172
recover from economic problems occasioned by the decline of its traditional sugar and pineapple industries, but it was not an unmixed blessing. The new industry helped fuel a dramatic growth in the county's resident population from 46,156 in 1970 to 113,030 in 1994, the main component of this increase being in-migration from the US mainland and abroad?~ Public concerns about tourism-driven growth were acknowledged in the County General Plan Update of 1990, which stressed the need to limit tourism growth and protect shoreline, agricultural land and rural identity.2' Since the late 1980s a number of tourism-related projects have become focal points of public controversy in Maul County and have exposed deep social and ideological divisions among residents. In several cases, including the one dealt with in this study, the controversies have centred on golf resort development by Japanese owners. For example, at Pukalani on Maui island a group of residents tried to prevent development of a hotel and apartment complex by Japanese owners of the local Golf and Country Club; and on Molokai public outcry and legal action by the Sierra Club halted construction of a water pipeline and golf course development by Tokyo Kosan, owners of the Kalua Koi golf resort. More generalized concern with Japanese-driven tourism development surfaced in public opposition to a planned extension of the runway at Kahului Airport, the county's main point of entry for visitors. The lengthening of the runway from 7000 to 9600 feet, proposed by the State Department of Transportation as a means of relieving congestion and avoiding flight transfers at Honolulu International Airport, was seen by critics as opening up Maul to direct flights from Japan by wide-body jets. Because Hana represents for many the 'old Hawaii' that has been lost elsewhere on the islands, economic and socio-cultural changes here assume considerable extra-local significance. Often referred to as 'the last Hawaiian place', it was in pre-contact times a major political centre and is the birthplace of Queen Ka'ahumanu, favourite wife of King Kamehameha I. In the immediate vicinity of Hana are 32 recorded heiau (Hawaiian temples), including the restored Pi'ilanihale, the largest in Hawaii. The preservation of these and numerous other traditional structures has been attributed mainly to the rugged terrain and the presence of a sizeable native Hawaiian population with many small land claims. 27 On the map Hana looks not at all remote, but much of the 50 miles of highway linking it to Kahului (Maui's chief commercial centre) is narrow and winding as it hugs the steep, north-eastern coastline, with single-lane sections as it approaches numerous bridges over deep ravines and gullies. The magnificent scenery and the challenge of driving the Hana highway attract thousands of day-trippers, who stop briefly in Hana before either returning to the resort
Hana revisited: R W Willie
areas or driving on a few miles further to visit Seven Pools or the grave of the famous aviator, Charles Lindbergh. Tourism of an exclusive, up-market type offered an economic lifeline for Hana following the closure of the local sugar mill in 1945 and the sale of sugar lands the following year. The purchaser was Paul Fagan, a rich San Francisco industrialist who turned the land over to cattle ranching and built the small Kauiki Inn to accommodate his friends and other wealthy visitors. Fagan's lands and inn were sold in 1968 to a Delaware lumber company and in 1984 were bought by the Rosewood Corporation, owned by the Caroline Hunt Trust Estate. With the active involvement of Caroline Hunt and Rosewood Hotels president Robert Zimmer, Fagan's inn was developed into the luxurious, 108-room Hotel Hana Maui. Jeff Goebei, a specialist in holistic ranch management, was hired to plan and oversee the integration of the ranch and hotel operations, and Zimmer introduced 'Project Kina'ole', which had employees evaluate their personal and professional goals in workshops with Dr George Kanahele, the noted Hawaiian historian. 2~-~'' Rosewood's wideranging plans for Hana embraced economic diversification and self-sufficiency, environmental and cultural preservation, and the provision of educational facilities and affordable housing. While progress was registered on several of these fronts, the experiment in sustainable, integrated development was unfinished when Rosewood abandoned Hana in 1989. The hotel and ranch operations had not registered an operating profit since 1965 and Rosewood was no more successful in this respect than previous owners? ~
The controversy In 1989 Rosewood's Hana assets were purchased by Keola Hana Maul Inc. (KHM), a group of foreign and local investors headed by the Kato brothers, owners of Imaike Building Corporation of Tokyo, Japan. The purchase was funded through loans by two Japanese banks, the Long-Term Credit Bank and the Bank of Nagoya. Like the previous owners, KHM was the largest economic entity in the Hana area: in 1993 it employed 265 residents out of a total estimated population of 1 000 and had a payroll and benefits total of $7.4 million; it leased space to 12 local businesses which employed an additional 51 people; and the value of its local expenditures on various goods and services was estimated at over $1 million. 32 From the outset KHM's plans for returning the Hotel Hana Maui to profitability centred on the construction of a golf course on approximately 201 acres of agricultural land owned by the company about 2 miles south of Hana. In 1991 KHM applied to Maui County Council for a Hana Community
Plan amendment (changing the land designation from 'Agricultural' to 'Park') and a zoning change (from 'Agriculture' to 'PK-4 Golf Course Park District'). A preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was prepared for KHM and submitted in 1992, and a final EIS followed in 1993. The estimated $200 million cost of the project was to be raised through the sale, in Japan, of 1,000 golf club corporate memberships at $200,000 each. However, an extant Council moratorium on new golf course development delayed official consideration of KHM applications until early in 1993. The process of official and public consideration of KHM's proposal lasted approximately nine months and involved the following steps: (i) review and recommendations by the County Planning Department; (ii) review and recommendations by the Hana Community Advisory Committee; (iii) review and recommendations by the County Cultural Resources Committee; (iv) review and recommendations by the County Planning Commission; (v) review and recommendations by the County Planning Committee; (vi) first reading by Council of legislation approving the proposal; (vii) second review and recommendations by the County Planning Committee; (viii) second and final reading by Council of legislation approving the proposal; and (ix) approval of the legislation by the Mayor. With the exception of the initial and final stages, meetings (some of which were held in Hana itself) were open to members of the public, who could also present oral or written testimonies. Apart from these official forums, public discussion of the proposal also took place in meetings sponsored by the Hana Community Association. It is not possible to measure accurately the respective numerical strengths of local opponents and supporters of the golf course project. At the various public meetings speakers against the project tended to outnumber those in favour, but not to a degree that indicated overwhelming local opposition. With funds donated by the Hollywood actor Kris Kristofferson, who owns a home near Hana, an opinion poll of 738 residents was conducted by the local Community Association in April of 1993. Asked if they approved or disapproved of the golf course development, 42% were in favour and 58% were opposed? ~ The reliability of the results was later challenged by KHM, which hired SMS Research of Honolulu to examine the survey methods used and the competence of those involved. What is clear is that KHM's plan divided the community more sharply and bitterly than it had ever been divided during the Rosewood period. Opposition to the golf course came from local groups such as the Hana Community Association, the Hana Community Advisory Committee and the Kauiki Council (a native Hawaiian rights organization). It also came from organizations such as Maui 173
Hana revisited: R W Willie
Tomorrow (a citizens' watchdog group promoting sustainable development) and Friends of the Hana Coast (a Maui society concerned with protecting the environment and culture of the Hana area). The arguments of golf course opponents focussed primarily on the need to preserve and protect Hana's rural, 'uniquely Hawaiian' lifestyle from environmental, social and cultural impacts and to safeguard the traditional rights of native Hawaiians. Underlying such arguments was a feeling of uncertainty about KHM's long-term agenda for Hana and a suspicion that, despite Council's insistence on a 'buffer zone' around the golf course, luxury fairway homes would eventually be constructed for Japanese buyers. A lively correspondence was conducted in The M a u i N e w s throughout 1993, with the 'Letters' section being dominated by persons opposed to the golf course. The following is a fairly typical example: The thought of a golf course in Hana is obscene. It is clear that the majority of people don't want it. County Council members are elected representatives of the people and therefore an extension of the public's will, so how is it that the Council Planning Committee approved it? Are there no controls and do these members want to turn Hana into another man-made high-rise-condo-townhouse asphalt jungle? I sincerely hope not. Perhaps the members are misguided and blinded by the fancy mouthwork of these self-serving greedy denizens of disaster. Yes, disaster! Golf courses are notorious for their high density aftermath ... What every person on this island and elsewhere should be cognizant of is that there is only one Hana and people should do everything possible to keep Hana out of the hands of developers whose only interest is greed. No, the golf course will not increase jobs or save them. All the hype on the good it will do for Hana is just vaporware--a balloon filled with it would rise to the stratosphere and burst (hopefully the people who proposed the golf coqrse would go with it). 34 |n public testimony opposition was usually expressed in more measured tones, although the same kinds of issues were addressed. In her testimony before the Hana Community Advisory Committee, the Chair of the Hana Community Association covered a wide range of concerns, including: prohibiting the use of chemicals on the golf course; preservation of archaeological sites; pressure on local schools and medical facilities; an unfulfilled KHM promise to provide affordable housing; the viability of KHM's plan to sell golf club memberships in Japan; guarantees of long-term job security; the prohibition of luxury fairway homes; and guarantees against future development by KHM. She also asked that KHM accept some responsibility for the deterioration of social relations in Hana: The social impact of the proposed golf course project is already being felt by the community. Division and 174
fear have become commonplace within our community during this process. Why? Please request that Keola acknowledge the social changes that will take place, and devise a proposal for helping the community cope with these changes. 35 The possible impacts of the project on traditional Hawaiian culture was a concern of many who offered ~ublic testimony, such impacts usually being linked to environmentalist fears about chemical contamination o f near-shore fishing grounds from golf course run-off. This concern, however, was expressed in a broader political and legal context by the Kauiki Council in a judicial public notice claiming that: THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, through the actions of its agents, and in the Administrative proceedings, is in criminal violation of US Public Law 100-606, THE PROXMIRE ACT--GENOCIDE 18 USC 1091, wherein it is criminal to deliberately manipulate conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a specific group such as a nation, a culture, and/or a religious group?" A local teenager saw the current plight of Hana's native Hawaiians as another chapter in a long history of dependence on foreign plantation owners and ranchers: Here we are today, depending on this one particular business. We are having this sole business decide whether we will succeed as a community or not. We have become dependent instead of an independent people. We have lost our Hawaiian values, we have lost our independence, we have lost what it is to be a Hawaiian. We are now fighting for a moral principle rather than our economical well-being. This struggle has become a moral obligation to once again co-exist with the land. 37 For the Chair of the Hana Community Association long-standing dependence on 'the Company' had resulted in a stifling of local initiative and creativity and encouraged acceptance of KHM plans: The trouble is, people here are mentally dependent on the hotel. It's been here so long it's part of the local culture. People can't imagine what life would be like without the hotel. But (in the event the hotel closed) the 200-plus wouldn't be out of work for long. They have talents and skills. Many could make a decent living making Hawaiian crafts. Maybe the closing of the hotel would be a blow in the short run, but in the long run it could be good for Hana. 3" Supporters of the golf course proposal, most of whom were KHM employees or members of employees' families, argued that the economic wellbeing of the community depended upon a profitable company operation in Hana. Without the golf course, hotel occupancy rates would continue to be low, the company would continue to lose money, and KHM's operations would have to close down. Jobs and incomes would be lost and, with them, the means whereby many people could afford to live in
liana revisited: R W Wyllie
Hana. The local e c o n o m y would be so weakened that large numbers of residents, including many native Hawaiians, would be forced to leave the community. Far from being a threat to H a n a ' s continued existence as a 'unique Hawaiian place', it was argued that K H M ' s golf course would be a means of perpetuating it. O p p o n e n t s were characterized as being selfish and u n c o n c e r n e d with the consequences of a K H M financial collapse, having offered no alternative e c o n o m i c plan for Hana. These arguments were spelled out most clearly by the C o r p o r a t e Controller of K H M , the most articulate p r o p o n e n t of the golf course proposal. Testifying before the Maul Planning Commission, he stressed the historical d e p e n d e n c e of H a n a on K H M and its predecessors and linked K H M ' s e c o n o m i c viability with Hana's physical and cultural preservation: We need a golf course to give us a chance to make this Company profitable again--even though the last time was nearly 30 years ago! It was only during the last few months that I felt we could be profitable again. Since the present owners have taken over, and with the guidance and leadership of our present management team, we are running our business more efficiently. In addition, employees have sacrificed wages and benefits, and we have made drastic cost cuts in other areas to bring us closer to profitability. We know of no other activity for Hana that could generate the consistent revenue that is needed to sustain the $7,000,000 in wages and benefits that we pay our workers. Those of you who oppose the Golf Course have not made any suggestions as to how our employees will survive if the Company goes out of business. Keola employs 265 people in Hana, and the salaries and benefits they earn support a total of 760 lives. The bulk of our employees were born and raised in Hana--probably 80-90%. Many of their brothers and sisters would have loved to stay in Hana, but there were no jobs. The Golf Course will create new jobs and bring prosperity and security back to our employees. Nobody knows the future, or if the Golf Course will succeed. Without the Golf Course, we will have uncertainty, insecurity and possibly mass exodus. The Hana that is left will certainly not be that unique Hawaiian place that everyone wants. With a Golf Course, we have a chance to keep a lot of Hawaiians in Hana. The consequences of a vote for the Golf Course will have little effect on the livelihood of those who oppose the project. On the other hand, a vote against the Golf Course could have a devastating effect on the lives of at least 760 people. Which choice is least harmful to the people of Hana? Please support the golf course. Let Hana live? ~ A major t h e m e of project supporters was the 'obstructive' or 'selfish' role played by those who were relative newcomers to Hana. This theme received poignant expression by one resident in a p o e m entitled 'Tita's Lament', which included the following verses: Outsiders exclaim, 'Keep Hana for Hana'.
What do they mean? Do they refer to keeping Hana For the rich and famous For the part time residents For the occasional visitors? These outsiders do have a safe haven To retreat to in other parts of Maui Where they can enjoy comfort and security. I hear strange voices calling out, 'Keep Hana Hawaiian!' I am a Hawaiian. Am I to believe they mean Keep Hana for me? Their sounds are driven with Anger, hostility, ridicule and scorn Bitterness and sometime, hatred. I am just one voice Crying in the wilderness. Hear my plea, hear my lament, feel my pain. I am not afraid to work. I trust, my company will do good for me and many others. I do not want to be uprooted. Hana is my home, my beloved home. It's where I was born. It's where I live. It's where I want my future to be. It's where I wish to die#' Such expressions of resentment were directed mainly against retired people now settled in Hana, 'part-time' residents who wintered in the community, and 'interfering' organizations like Maui T o m o r r o w and Friends of the H a n a Coast. However, even residents who imagined they had shed their 'outsider' status could b e c o m e targets, as is evident in the experience of Dawn Lono. She had moved to H a n a from the mainland in 1980 and had been a hotel employee during the R o s e w o o d period before starting her own business making Hawaiian crafts. Married to a local Hawaiian and assuming acceptance as a respected and valued m e m b e r of the community, she was surprised and saddened by the response of friends and heighbours when she b e c a m e a vocal o p p o n e n t of the K H M project: Things are not back to the way they were. That will take a long time, if ever. There are some people in the community who will never forget and forgive. But there are others who love each other, no matter what side they were on. I was very sad when an old Hawaiian lady I had known and respected for a long time called me 'an interfering haole (foreign, white) outsider' for opposing the golf course proposal, even although I had lived in Hana for 15 years and was married into a Hana family.4~ It would be a gross over-simplification to interpret the controversy as essentially a clash between 'insiders' and 'outsiders', since persons of both kinds were found a m o n g project o p p o n e n t s and supporters. Moreover, the 'outsider' label was also a 175
Hana revisited." R W Willie
weapon used against project supporters, one which might hopefully be blunted by the display of 'local credentials' of various kinds. These ranged from fairly amorphous attestations of being spiritually at home in Hana, to more concrete claims concerning length of residence, marriage ties, activities indicating community commitment, etc. The need to establish local legitimacy was especially important for those at the forefront of the controversy in Hana. Although KHM's Corporate Controller was very well-known in the community, he still felt it necessary to preface his public testimony with a reminder that his wife was a native Hawaiian who had been born and raised in Hana and that he had worked in Hana for 30 years. Some of Hana's wellestablished and better-known 'outsiders' stayed out of the public debate, fearing that direct involvement would damage the good relations they enjoyed with residents on both sides of the issue. In interviews with seven such persons three voiced strong opposition to the golf course project, while four said they supported it reluctantly as the only way of ensuring Hana's survival. In all cases, the informants expressed their opinions only after receiving firm assurances that anonymity would be guaranteed. The golf course proposal not only strained interpersonal and community relations in Hana, but also took its toll among County officials and KHM principals. Following initial review of the proposal in February 1993, the County Planning Director, with the support of Maui's Mayor, recommended that a 1,000 ft easement or buffer zone around the course be made a condition of approval. Masamachi Kato, KHM's vice-president, objected to this on the grounds that it would lead to a depreciation of the value of Japanese banks' collateral in the property and weaken the company's borrowing position. In March the County Planning Commission amended the original recommendation and proposed instead a buffer zone of 300 ft, although the maximum width of buffer zones around other golf courses in Maui was 200ft. The Commission's amendment was accepted in May by the nine-member Maui County Council, meeting in its capacity as County Planning Committee. Later that month and despite the continued opposition of the Mayor and Planning Director, this recommendation was included in the conditional approval legislation passed on First Reading by Council. A dramatic turn of events took place in June when Libert Landgraf, the manager of Hotel Hana Maui and KHM's Chief Operating Officer in Hana, directly contradicted the position previously taken by Masamichi Kato. Facing stiff opposition to the project from Hana residents, Landgraf tried to appease local opponents and win the Mayor's support by suggesting that KHM might be able to work with a buffer zone wider than 300 ft. This forced Council to reconsider the buffer zone condi176
tion and, feeling they had been deceived by Kato's earlier arguments, recommended a buffer zone of 1,500ft (even wider than that advocated by the Mayor and Planning Director) as a condition of project approval. This meant that the matter had to go again to the County Planning Committee where, not surprisingly, the new buffer zone width was approved. Relations between Council and KHM were further strained when Kato informed the Planning Committee that the Japanese government had enacted legislation prohibiting the sale of golf club memberships for courses that were not completed (this legislation was actually passed more than a year earlier); and he suggested that KHM might be forced to sell parcels of its Hana lands to improve its financial position. 42 In July Landgraf was fired by KHM, a move widely regarded as inevitable after he had publicly compromised his superiors. Despite several appeals from Kato to have the 1,500 ft buffer zone modified, it was part of the legislation passed by Council on Second and Final Reading in September. In all, some 21 conditions of approval were specified in the 'Unilateral Agreement' section of the legislation. Accepted reluctantly by KHM, these constituted the most stringent set of requirements ever attached to a golf course project in Hawaii. They reflected not only the concerns of an environmentally-sensitive Planning Director and an angry Council, but also many of the objections voiced by Hana's residents.
Conclusion At the most fundamental level the controversy among Hana residents was a public dispute between those who felt economically dependent on KHM and those who did not. But it was also a clash between groups of people with heavy social and emotional investments in the community who differed sharply in their ideas about how these investments might best be protected. Project supporters were mainly KHM employees or their relatives who felt the security of their community investments depended crucially on the economic health of the company. However, some residents who were economically independent of KHM also supported the project, fearing that the company's collapse would result in community decay and disintegration. Most opponents were people with few economic ties to KHM who could anticipate a satisfying community life in Hana without KHM or, for that matter, any hotel operation. Yet opposition also came from people who recognized the company's pivotal importance to Hana but regarded the threat of hotel closure as a pressure tactic that should be discounted. And there were still others in opposition who believed a KHM collapse was possible but that new owners could be found to run the hotel successfully without building a resort golf course.
Hana revisited: R W Wyllie
From a social constructionist perspective, the controversy can be viewed as a process whereby a situation, initially regarded as threatening by some residents, acquires the status of a 'public problem' requiring public action and remedy. As it does, public discourse produces and reflects judgements about its factual dimensions (legalities, economics, etc.) as well as its moral aspects (community values, democracy, integrity or legitimacy of protagonists, etc.) while major interest groups struggle for 'ownership' of the problem, or the power to define its factitive and moral character and determine its solution? T M In Hana this struggle was complicated by internal disagreements within KHM management and within Maui County Council. For a time the company and its supporters seemed well on the way to victory, but suffered a fatal setback when KHM's mixed signals on the buffer zone caused council members to toughen their position and close ranks with the Mayor and Planning Director. With this, Council secured firmer control of the problem and was able to move toward a solution. As the Hana case demonstrates, planning tourism in harmony with the local community is no easy matter if the community itself is fractured along lines that divide supporters and opponents of projects into mutually antagonistic camps. A cautionary approach to community-responsive tourism is suggested by the Hana experience, where a lengthy process of open discussion, public review and consultation failed to produce community consensus. Exposure to a variety of opinions on the project did not cause many residents to alter their views and, as an exercise in tourism education, the process was a failure. Indeed, it may be suggested that public participation not only failed to reconcile differences, but served to harden attitudes and deepen animosities among residents. The various public meetings became arenas where each group sought to advance its own arguments and demolish those of its opponents, even while many on both sides of the issue shared similar views of Hana as a 'special place' that had to be preserved. In approving the golf course proposal with stringent conditions, Council's solution to the problem was an attempt at compromise, one that recognized the importance of a successful hotel operation in Hana while responding to the various concerns and objections of residents. Under the circumstances it is difficult to see how it could have produced anything very different, but it was a solution that satisfied few residents and provided little encouragement to KHM. The company never did proceed with the golf course and this was a great disappointment for those residents who had supported the project. It was especially disappointing for those who expected to acquire land on 15 acres Council had required KHM to set aside for housing when the golf course was completed. Throughout 1994 Hana was rife with
speculation that KHM was ready to sell the hotel and ranch and in March of the following year it reached a preliminary agreement to sell its Hana assets to Apuhuaa Partners, a New York-based investment firm. Negotiations over the sale broke down after nearly two years, for reasons which remain obscure. Officially, the main stumbling block was Apahuaa Partners' inability to obtain clear title to KHM properties, but popular rumour alleged the prospective buyers withdrew after realizing that their business activities would be subject to an unusual degree of public scrutiny and criticism in a place like Hana. At present, speculation and uncertainty continues regarding KHM's future in Hana. Relations among residents are less rancourous than they were at the time of the controversy, but many of the wounds have not yet healed and a good deal of bitterness among residents still remains. The publication of Smith's seminal work on hosttourist relations established this area as the primary object of enquiry in sociological and anthropological studies of tourism communities; 4~ and in a subsequent evaluation of the anthropology of tourism, Nash identified the encounter between working hosts and leisured tourists, approaching each other as Simmelian 'strangers', as the core of a touristic system#' However, as this case study demonstrates, tourism in host communities also shapes and modifies relationships between residents, some of whom are not directly engaged in commercial hosting. The Hana controversy suggests that these inter-resident relations form an integral part of the local touristic system and are not merely peripheral to a more central set of encounters between hosts and tourists. Somewhat ironically, the most significant strangers in Hana were not the wealthy tourists who vacation at the hotel, but those 'resident strangers' whose interventions in a major community crisis were perceived as illegitimate or inappropriate. Conceptually, they are much closer to Simmel's notion of the stranger than are the tourists: The stranger is thus being discussed here, not in the sense often touched upon in the past, as the wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow, but rather as the person who comes today and stays tomorrow. He is, so to speak, the potential wanderer: although he has not moved on, he has not quite overcome the freedom of coming and going. He is fixed within a particular spatial group, or within a group whose boundaries are similar to spatial boundaries. But his position in this group is determined, essentially, by the fact that he has not belonged to it from the beginning, that he imparts qualities into it, which do not and cannot stem from the group itself.~7
References 1. Farrell, B. 'Tourism as an agent in sustainable development: Hana, Maui' in Smith, V. L. and Eadington, W. R. (eds)
177
Hana revisited: R W Wyllie Tourism Alternatives University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1992. 2. Keogh, B., L'impact social du tourisme: le cas de Shediac. Nouveau-Brunswick Canadian Geographer 1982, 26, 318-331. 3. Garland, B. R. and West, S. J., The social impacts of tourism in New Zealand. Massey Journal of Asian and Pacific Business 1985, 1, 34-39. 4. Milman, A. and Pizam, A., Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research 1988, 15, 191-204. 5. Lankford, S. V. and Howard, D. R., Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research 1994, 21, 121-139. 6. Liu, J. and Var, T., Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research 1986, 13, 193-214. 7. Davis, D., Allen, J. and Cosenza, R. M., Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research 1988, 27, 2-8. 8. Brayley, R., Var, T. and Sheldon, P., Perceived influence of tourism on social issues. Annals of Tourism Research 1990, 17, 285-289. 9. Cook, K., Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism development in British Columbia. Journal of Travel Research 1982, 21, 22-28. 10. D'Amore, L. J 'Guidelines to planning in harmony with the host community' in Murphy, P. E. (ed) Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options University of Victoria, Victoria BC, 1983. 11. Murphy, P. E. Tourism: A Community Approach Methuen, London, 1985. 12. Ryan, C. and Montgomery, D., The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tourism Management 1994, 15, 358-369. 13. Taylor, G., The community approach: does it work? Tourism Management 1995, 16, 487-489. 14. Joppe, M., Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management 1996, 17, 475-479. 15. Selin, S. and Beason, K., Interorganizational relations in tourism. Annals of Tourism Researeh 1991, 18, 639-652. 16. Selin, S., Collaborative alliances: new interorganizational forms in tourism. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 1993, 2, 217-227. 17. Jamal, T. B. and Getz, B., Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 1994, 21, 186-204. 18. Reed, M. R., Power relations and community-based tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 1997, 24, 566-591. 19. Prentice, R., Community-driven tourism planning and resident preferences. Tourism Management 1993, 14, 218-227. 20. Ap, J., Residents' perceptions of tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 1992, 19, 665-690. 21. Green, G. P., Marcouiller, D., Deller, S., Erkkila, D. and Sumathi, N. R., Local dependency, land use attitudes, and
178
economic development: comparisons between seasonal and permanent residents. Rural Sociology 1996, 61, 427-445. 22. Farrell, op cit, Ref 1, p 120. 23. State of Hawaii State o( Hawaii Data Book 1995 Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Honolulu (1996) 596, 598. 24. County of Maui Maui County Data Book 1995 Office of Economic Development, Kihei (1996) 148. 25. County of Maui op cit, Ref 24, p 18. 26. County of Maui The General Plan of the County of Maui 1990 Update Department of Planning, Wailuku (1990) iii, iv. 27. County of Maul Hana Community Development Plan 1994 Department of Planning, Wailuku (1994) 8. 28. Wenkham, R. Maui No Ka Oi Rand McNally, Chicago, 1980. 29. Farrell op cit, Ref 1. 30. Jokiel, L. 'Holding on to Hana' Hawaii Business 1988 (May) 42-53. 31. Waring, R. Testimony beJore the Maui County Planning Commission 1993 (March). 32. Waring, R. Testimony before the Maui County Planning Committee 1993 (May). 33. Perry, B. 'Golf foes top Hana survey' The Maui News 1993 (April 29). 34. Wilson, S. D. 'Letter to the Editor' The Maui News 1993 (May 28). 35. Lono, D. Testimony before the Hana Community Advisory Committee 1993 (March). 36. Kauiki Council Declaration and Judicial Pub6c Notice 1993 (March). 37. Kanakaole, E. Testimony before the Hana Community Advisory Committee 1993 (March). 38. Lono, D. Interview 1995 (March). 39. Waring op cit, Ref 31. 40. Blair, J. C. Testimony submitted to the Maui County Planning Committee 1993 (June). 41. Lono op cit, Ref 38. 42. Kato, M. Testimony before the Maui County Planning Committee 1993 (August). 43. Gusfield, J. R. The Culture of Public Problems. DrinkingDriving and the Symbolic Order University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981. 44. Gusfield, J. R. Contested Meanings. The Construction of Alcohol Problems University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1996. 45. Smith, V. L. (ed) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1977. 46. Nash, D., Tourism as an anthropological subject. Current Anthropology 1981, 22, 561-581. 47. Simmel, G. (Translated and edited by Wolff, K. H.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel Free Press, Glencoe (1950 [1908]) 402. Received June 1997 Accepted September 1997
Pergamon PIh S0261-5177(97)00109-X
Case study
Hana revisited: development and controversy in a Hawaiian tourism community Robert W Wyllie Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 Following an attempt to develop a sustainable, integrated tourism operation in Hana, Maui, a change of company ownership and a new approach to the problem of economic viability led to public protest and a deterioration of relations among residents. A proposal to strengthen the operation by building a resort golf course split the community and divided families, friends and neighbours. As the proposal proceeded through the public review process, frictions also developed between different County authorities, between the County Council and the company, and between company officials. The Hana controversy highlights the importance of inter-resident relations and illustrates some of the difficulties of implementing 'community-sensitive tourism' in destinations where people are sharply divided in their views on tourism development. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Hana, Maul, community-responsive tourism, public controversy
visions are not simply reflections of people's economic dependence on, or independence from, a single large employer. They are also shaped by the understandings people have of their community as a distinctive, special place and of their own personal investments in its past, present and future. The Hana case also points up some of the difficulties involved in developing 'community-responsive' tourism when community consensus seems unattainable and residents face each other as members of mutually antagonistic groups. An extensive literature exists showing that residents often hold conflicting ideas about tourism development in their communities and several studies indicate that involvement in or dependence on the industry is a key factor shaping pro-tourism attitudes. 2-~ In their Hawaiian survey Liu and Var" found that appreciation of tourism's economic benefits was also expressed by people working outside the industry and suggested this was a consequence of their experience of Hawaii as a mature destination. Along similar lines, some researchers have noted more favourable attitudes among residents with greater knowledge of tourism and emphasize tourism education as a means of
Introduction The small community of Hana, which lies on the east coast of Maul island in Hawaii, was the site of a 1984-1989 experiment in sustainable, integrated tourism development carried out by Rosewood Corporation as owners of the local hotel and ranch. This project was the subject of an important case study by Farrell,' who described some of the problems encountered by Rosewood as well as the ambivalent nature of community reaction to the experiment. The present study covers the period 1989-1993 when new Japanese owners introduced a controversial proposal to build a resort golf course and when public debate on Hana shifted towards questions of economic viability and community survival. It is based on qualitative research conducted between 1991 and 1995 involving analysis of public documents (primarily public testimonies and minutes of public hearings and meetings) as well as interviews with key players in the controversy. Besides up-dating Farrell's account, this study shows how people with equally strong community attachments can hold quite different visions of what needs to be done to preserve that community. These 171
Hana revisited: R W Willie
positively influencing people's views.7," Several prescriptive studies of community-responsive tourism have stressed the need for direct resident involvement in tourism planning to generate lasting local support for tourism projects." '~ However, some recent writing on community-responsive tourism has taken a more sceptical approach, citing social heterogeneity, factionalism, competing interest groups and power inequalities as major obstacles to the development of community consensus and cooperation. '2 ,4 A number of writers have proposed 'collaborative planning' strategies to manage, reconcile or overcome differences between various stakeholders in tourism destinations. '~-'7 While recognizing the merits of such strategies, Reed '~ has shown how power relations between stakeholders can change the outcome of collaborative planning or even render it unworkable, and Prentice'" has pointed out that the elimination of dissension may not be possible in all situations. Exchange theory has been used by Ap TM in analyzing residents' perceptions of tourism impacts and illuminating some of the processes at work as people try to assess and balance anticipated costs and rewards. Although this is an interesting approach, it focuses attention somewhat narrowly on residents as discrete, calculating individuals rather than as members of oppositional, emotionally-charged groups. Green et al. zl have applied local dependency theory in explaining why permanent residents in a Wisconsin vacation area had more positive views on local economic growth than did seasonal residents. This theory postulates that residents' support for local growth is not simply a function of their economic dependence on businesses actively promoting growth, but also expresses a dependence rooted in their own community investments (for example, home ownership and social investments in community life and relationships):
Background Beginning in the late 1960s, tourism expanded rapidly in Maui County (which includes the islands of Maui, Lanai, Molokai and Kaho'olawe) with development concentrated primarily along the dry west and south coasts of Maui island. This was due mainly to state efforts to ease pressure on the main tourist centre in Waikiki on the island of Oahu and to tourism ventures by major Maui landowners seeking more profitable alternatives to sugar and pineapple production. 22 In this they were joined by Japanese investors who by 1991 owned 72% of Maui hotel rooms and were the source of all foreign investment in Maui golf course development during the 1970s and 1980s.23 Between 1967 and 1994 visitor arrivals increased'from 304,437 to 2.3 million, while visitor accommodations grew from 2,415 units in 1969 to 19,024 in 1994.24 Tourism helped Maui 172
recover from economic problems occasioned by the decline of its traditional sugar and pineapple industries, but it was not an unmixed blessing. The new industry helped fuel a dramatic growth in the county's resident population from 46,156 in 1970 to 113,030 in 1994, the main component of this increase being in-migration from the US mainland and abroad?~ Public concerns about tourism-driven growth were acknowledged in the County General Plan Update of 1990, which stressed the need to limit tourism growth and protect shoreline, agricultural land and rural identity.2' Since the late 1980s a number of tourism-related projects have become focal points of public controversy in Maul County and have exposed deep social and ideological divisions among residents. In several cases, including the one dealt with in this study, the controversies have centred on golf resort development by Japanese owners. For example, at Pukalani on Maui island a group of residents tried to prevent development of a hotel and apartment complex by Japanese owners of the local Golf and Country Club; and on Molokai public outcry and legal action by the Sierra Club halted construction of a water pipeline and golf course development by Tokyo Kosan, owners of the Kalua Koi golf resort. More generalized concern with Japanese-driven tourism development surfaced in public opposition to a planned extension of the runway at Kahului Airport, the county's main point of entry for visitors. The lengthening of the runway from 7000 to 9600 feet, proposed by the State Department of Transportation as a means of relieving congestion and avoiding flight transfers at Honolulu International Airport, was seen by critics as opening up Maul to direct flights from Japan by wide-body jets. Because Hana represents for many the 'old Hawaii' that has been lost elsewhere on the islands, economic and socio-cultural changes here assume considerable extra-local significance. Often referred to as 'the last Hawaiian place', it was in pre-contact times a major political centre and is the birthplace of Queen Ka'ahumanu, favourite wife of King Kamehameha I. In the immediate vicinity of Hana are 32 recorded heiau (Hawaiian temples), including the restored Pi'ilanihale, the largest in Hawaii. The preservation of these and numerous other traditional structures has been attributed mainly to the rugged terrain and the presence of a sizeable native Hawaiian population with many small land claims. 27 On the map Hana looks not at all remote, but much of the 50 miles of highway linking it to Kahului (Maui's chief commercial centre) is narrow and winding as it hugs the steep, north-eastern coastline, with single-lane sections as it approaches numerous bridges over deep ravines and gullies. The magnificent scenery and the challenge of driving the Hana highway attract thousands of day-trippers, who stop briefly in Hana before either returning to the resort
Hana revisited: R W Willie
areas or driving on a few miles further to visit Seven Pools or the grave of the famous aviator, Charles Lindbergh. Tourism of an exclusive, up-market type offered an economic lifeline for Hana following the closure of the local sugar mill in 1945 and the sale of sugar lands the following year. The purchaser was Paul Fagan, a rich San Francisco industrialist who turned the land over to cattle ranching and built the small Kauiki Inn to accommodate his friends and other wealthy visitors. Fagan's lands and inn were sold in 1968 to a Delaware lumber company and in 1984 were bought by the Rosewood Corporation, owned by the Caroline Hunt Trust Estate. With the active involvement of Caroline Hunt and Rosewood Hotels president Robert Zimmer, Fagan's inn was developed into the luxurious, 108-room Hotel Hana Maui. Jeff Goebei, a specialist in holistic ranch management, was hired to plan and oversee the integration of the ranch and hotel operations, and Zimmer introduced 'Project Kina'ole', which had employees evaluate their personal and professional goals in workshops with Dr George Kanahele, the noted Hawaiian historian. 2~-~'' Rosewood's wideranging plans for Hana embraced economic diversification and self-sufficiency, environmental and cultural preservation, and the provision of educational facilities and affordable housing. While progress was registered on several of these fronts, the experiment in sustainable, integrated development was unfinished when Rosewood abandoned Hana in 1989. The hotel and ranch operations had not registered an operating profit since 1965 and Rosewood was no more successful in this respect than previous owners? ~
The controversy In 1989 Rosewood's Hana assets were purchased by Keola Hana Maul Inc. (KHM), a group of foreign and local investors headed by the Kato brothers, owners of Imaike Building Corporation of Tokyo, Japan. The purchase was funded through loans by two Japanese banks, the Long-Term Credit Bank and the Bank of Nagoya. Like the previous owners, KHM was the largest economic entity in the Hana area: in 1993 it employed 265 residents out of a total estimated population of 1 000 and had a payroll and benefits total of $7.4 million; it leased space to 12 local businesses which employed an additional 51 people; and the value of its local expenditures on various goods and services was estimated at over $1 million. 32 From the outset KHM's plans for returning the Hotel Hana Maui to profitability centred on the construction of a golf course on approximately 201 acres of agricultural land owned by the company about 2 miles south of Hana. In 1991 KHM applied to Maui County Council for a Hana Community
Plan amendment (changing the land designation from 'Agricultural' to 'Park') and a zoning change (from 'Agriculture' to 'PK-4 Golf Course Park District'). A preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was prepared for KHM and submitted in 1992, and a final EIS followed in 1993. The estimated $200 million cost of the project was to be raised through the sale, in Japan, of 1,000 golf club corporate memberships at $200,000 each. However, an extant Council moratorium on new golf course development delayed official consideration of KHM applications until early in 1993. The process of official and public consideration of KHM's proposal lasted approximately nine months and involved the following steps: (i) review and recommendations by the County Planning Department; (ii) review and recommendations by the Hana Community Advisory Committee; (iii) review and recommendations by the County Cultural Resources Committee; (iv) review and recommendations by the County Planning Commission; (v) review and recommendations by the County Planning Committee; (vi) first reading by Council of legislation approving the proposal; (vii) second review and recommendations by the County Planning Committee; (viii) second and final reading by Council of legislation approving the proposal; and (ix) approval of the legislation by the Mayor. With the exception of the initial and final stages, meetings (some of which were held in Hana itself) were open to members of the public, who could also present oral or written testimonies. Apart from these official forums, public discussion of the proposal also took place in meetings sponsored by the Hana Community Association. It is not possible to measure accurately the respective numerical strengths of local opponents and supporters of the golf course project. At the various public meetings speakers against the project tended to outnumber those in favour, but not to a degree that indicated overwhelming local opposition. With funds donated by the Hollywood actor Kris Kristofferson, who owns a home near Hana, an opinion poll of 738 residents was conducted by the local Community Association in April of 1993. Asked if they approved or disapproved of the golf course development, 42% were in favour and 58% were opposed? ~ The reliability of the results was later challenged by KHM, which hired SMS Research of Honolulu to examine the survey methods used and the competence of those involved. What is clear is that KHM's plan divided the community more sharply and bitterly than it had ever been divided during the Rosewood period. Opposition to the golf course came from local groups such as the Hana Community Association, the Hana Community Advisory Committee and the Kauiki Council (a native Hawaiian rights organization). It also came from organizations such as Maui 173
Hana revisited: R W Willie
Tomorrow (a citizens' watchdog group promoting sustainable development) and Friends of the Hana Coast (a Maui society concerned with protecting the environment and culture of the Hana area). The arguments of golf course opponents focussed primarily on the need to preserve and protect Hana's rural, 'uniquely Hawaiian' lifestyle from environmental, social and cultural impacts and to safeguard the traditional rights of native Hawaiians. Underlying such arguments was a feeling of uncertainty about KHM's long-term agenda for Hana and a suspicion that, despite Council's insistence on a 'buffer zone' around the golf course, luxury fairway homes would eventually be constructed for Japanese buyers. A lively correspondence was conducted in The M a u i N e w s throughout 1993, with the 'Letters' section being dominated by persons opposed to the golf course. The following is a fairly typical example: The thought of a golf course in Hana is obscene. It is clear that the majority of people don't want it. County Council members are elected representatives of the people and therefore an extension of the public's will, so how is it that the Council Planning Committee approved it? Are there no controls and do these members want to turn Hana into another man-made high-rise-condo-townhouse asphalt jungle? I sincerely hope not. Perhaps the members are misguided and blinded by the fancy mouthwork of these self-serving greedy denizens of disaster. Yes, disaster! Golf courses are notorious for their high density aftermath ... What every person on this island and elsewhere should be cognizant of is that there is only one Hana and people should do everything possible to keep Hana out of the hands of developers whose only interest is greed. No, the golf course will not increase jobs or save them. All the hype on the good it will do for Hana is just vaporware--a balloon filled with it would rise to the stratosphere and burst (hopefully the people who proposed the golf coqrse would go with it). 34 |n public testimony opposition was usually expressed in more measured tones, although the same kinds of issues were addressed. In her testimony before the Hana Community Advisory Committee, the Chair of the Hana Community Association covered a wide range of concerns, including: prohibiting the use of chemicals on the golf course; preservation of archaeological sites; pressure on local schools and medical facilities; an unfulfilled KHM promise to provide affordable housing; the viability of KHM's plan to sell golf club memberships in Japan; guarantees of long-term job security; the prohibition of luxury fairway homes; and guarantees against future development by KHM. She also asked that KHM accept some responsibility for the deterioration of social relations in Hana: The social impact of the proposed golf course project is already being felt by the community. Division and 174
fear have become commonplace within our community during this process. Why? Please request that Keola acknowledge the social changes that will take place, and devise a proposal for helping the community cope with these changes. 35 The possible impacts of the project on traditional Hawaiian culture was a concern of many who offered ~ublic testimony, such impacts usually being linked to environmentalist fears about chemical contamination o f near-shore fishing grounds from golf course run-off. This concern, however, was expressed in a broader political and legal context by the Kauiki Council in a judicial public notice claiming that: THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, through the actions of its agents, and in the Administrative proceedings, is in criminal violation of US Public Law 100-606, THE PROXMIRE ACT--GENOCIDE 18 USC 1091, wherein it is criminal to deliberately manipulate conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a specific group such as a nation, a culture, and/or a religious group?" A local teenager saw the current plight of Hana's native Hawaiians as another chapter in a long history of dependence on foreign plantation owners and ranchers: Here we are today, depending on this one particular business. We are having this sole business decide whether we will succeed as a community or not. We have become dependent instead of an independent people. We have lost our Hawaiian values, we have lost our independence, we have lost what it is to be a Hawaiian. We are now fighting for a moral principle rather than our economical well-being. This struggle has become a moral obligation to once again co-exist with the land. 37 For the Chair of the Hana Community Association long-standing dependence on 'the Company' had resulted in a stifling of local initiative and creativity and encouraged acceptance of KHM plans: The trouble is, people here are mentally dependent on the hotel. It's been here so long it's part of the local culture. People can't imagine what life would be like without the hotel. But (in the event the hotel closed) the 200-plus wouldn't be out of work for long. They have talents and skills. Many could make a decent living making Hawaiian crafts. Maybe the closing of the hotel would be a blow in the short run, but in the long run it could be good for Hana. 3" Supporters of the golf course proposal, most of whom were KHM employees or members of employees' families, argued that the economic wellbeing of the community depended upon a profitable company operation in Hana. Without the golf course, hotel occupancy rates would continue to be low, the company would continue to lose money, and KHM's operations would have to close down. Jobs and incomes would be lost and, with them, the means whereby many people could afford to live in
liana revisited: R W Wyllie
Hana. The local e c o n o m y would be so weakened that large numbers of residents, including many native Hawaiians, would be forced to leave the community. Far from being a threat to H a n a ' s continued existence as a 'unique Hawaiian place', it was argued that K H M ' s golf course would be a means of perpetuating it. O p p o n e n t s were characterized as being selfish and u n c o n c e r n e d with the consequences of a K H M financial collapse, having offered no alternative e c o n o m i c plan for Hana. These arguments were spelled out most clearly by the C o r p o r a t e Controller of K H M , the most articulate p r o p o n e n t of the golf course proposal. Testifying before the Maul Planning Commission, he stressed the historical d e p e n d e n c e of H a n a on K H M and its predecessors and linked K H M ' s e c o n o m i c viability with Hana's physical and cultural preservation: We need a golf course to give us a chance to make this Company profitable again--even though the last time was nearly 30 years ago! It was only during the last few months that I felt we could be profitable again. Since the present owners have taken over, and with the guidance and leadership of our present management team, we are running our business more efficiently. In addition, employees have sacrificed wages and benefits, and we have made drastic cost cuts in other areas to bring us closer to profitability. We know of no other activity for Hana that could generate the consistent revenue that is needed to sustain the $7,000,000 in wages and benefits that we pay our workers. Those of you who oppose the Golf Course have not made any suggestions as to how our employees will survive if the Company goes out of business. Keola employs 265 people in Hana, and the salaries and benefits they earn support a total of 760 lives. The bulk of our employees were born and raised in Hana--probably 80-90%. Many of their brothers and sisters would have loved to stay in Hana, but there were no jobs. The Golf Course will create new jobs and bring prosperity and security back to our employees. Nobody knows the future, or if the Golf Course will succeed. Without the Golf Course, we will have uncertainty, insecurity and possibly mass exodus. The Hana that is left will certainly not be that unique Hawaiian place that everyone wants. With a Golf Course, we have a chance to keep a lot of Hawaiians in Hana. The consequences of a vote for the Golf Course will have little effect on the livelihood of those who oppose the project. On the other hand, a vote against the Golf Course could have a devastating effect on the lives of at least 760 people. Which choice is least harmful to the people of Hana? Please support the golf course. Let Hana live? ~ A major t h e m e of project supporters was the 'obstructive' or 'selfish' role played by those who were relative newcomers to Hana. This theme received poignant expression by one resident in a p o e m entitled 'Tita's Lament', which included the following verses: Outsiders exclaim, 'Keep Hana for Hana'.
What do they mean? Do they refer to keeping Hana For the rich and famous For the part time residents For the occasional visitors? These outsiders do have a safe haven To retreat to in other parts of Maui Where they can enjoy comfort and security. I hear strange voices calling out, 'Keep Hana Hawaiian!' I am a Hawaiian. Am I to believe they mean Keep Hana for me? Their sounds are driven with Anger, hostility, ridicule and scorn Bitterness and sometime, hatred. I am just one voice Crying in the wilderness. Hear my plea, hear my lament, feel my pain. I am not afraid to work. I trust, my company will do good for me and many others. I do not want to be uprooted. Hana is my home, my beloved home. It's where I was born. It's where I live. It's where I want my future to be. It's where I wish to die#' Such expressions of resentment were directed mainly against retired people now settled in Hana, 'part-time' residents who wintered in the community, and 'interfering' organizations like Maui T o m o r r o w and Friends of the H a n a Coast. However, even residents who imagined they had shed their 'outsider' status could b e c o m e targets, as is evident in the experience of Dawn Lono. She had moved to H a n a from the mainland in 1980 and had been a hotel employee during the R o s e w o o d period before starting her own business making Hawaiian crafts. Married to a local Hawaiian and assuming acceptance as a respected and valued m e m b e r of the community, she was surprised and saddened by the response of friends and heighbours when she b e c a m e a vocal o p p o n e n t of the K H M project: Things are not back to the way they were. That will take a long time, if ever. There are some people in the community who will never forget and forgive. But there are others who love each other, no matter what side they were on. I was very sad when an old Hawaiian lady I had known and respected for a long time called me 'an interfering haole (foreign, white) outsider' for opposing the golf course proposal, even although I had lived in Hana for 15 years and was married into a Hana family.4~ It would be a gross over-simplification to interpret the controversy as essentially a clash between 'insiders' and 'outsiders', since persons of both kinds were found a m o n g project o p p o n e n t s and supporters. Moreover, the 'outsider' label was also a 175
Hana revisited." R W Willie
weapon used against project supporters, one which might hopefully be blunted by the display of 'local credentials' of various kinds. These ranged from fairly amorphous attestations of being spiritually at home in Hana, to more concrete claims concerning length of residence, marriage ties, activities indicating community commitment, etc. The need to establish local legitimacy was especially important for those at the forefront of the controversy in Hana. Although KHM's Corporate Controller was very well-known in the community, he still felt it necessary to preface his public testimony with a reminder that his wife was a native Hawaiian who had been born and raised in Hana and that he had worked in Hana for 30 years. Some of Hana's wellestablished and better-known 'outsiders' stayed out of the public debate, fearing that direct involvement would damage the good relations they enjoyed with residents on both sides of the issue. In interviews with seven such persons three voiced strong opposition to the golf course project, while four said they supported it reluctantly as the only way of ensuring Hana's survival. In all cases, the informants expressed their opinions only after receiving firm assurances that anonymity would be guaranteed. The golf course proposal not only strained interpersonal and community relations in Hana, but also took its toll among County officials and KHM principals. Following initial review of the proposal in February 1993, the County Planning Director, with the support of Maui's Mayor, recommended that a 1,000 ft easement or buffer zone around the course be made a condition of approval. Masamachi Kato, KHM's vice-president, objected to this on the grounds that it would lead to a depreciation of the value of Japanese banks' collateral in the property and weaken the company's borrowing position. In March the County Planning Commission amended the original recommendation and proposed instead a buffer zone of 300 ft, although the maximum width of buffer zones around other golf courses in Maui was 200ft. The Commission's amendment was accepted in May by the nine-member Maui County Council, meeting in its capacity as County Planning Committee. Later that month and despite the continued opposition of the Mayor and Planning Director, this recommendation was included in the conditional approval legislation passed on First Reading by Council. A dramatic turn of events took place in June when Libert Landgraf, the manager of Hotel Hana Maui and KHM's Chief Operating Officer in Hana, directly contradicted the position previously taken by Masamichi Kato. Facing stiff opposition to the project from Hana residents, Landgraf tried to appease local opponents and win the Mayor's support by suggesting that KHM might be able to work with a buffer zone wider than 300 ft. This forced Council to reconsider the buffer zone condi176
tion and, feeling they had been deceived by Kato's earlier arguments, recommended a buffer zone of 1,500ft (even wider than that advocated by the Mayor and Planning Director) as a condition of project approval. This meant that the matter had to go again to the County Planning Committee where, not surprisingly, the new buffer zone width was approved. Relations between Council and KHM were further strained when Kato informed the Planning Committee that the Japanese government had enacted legislation prohibiting the sale of golf club memberships for courses that were not completed (this legislation was actually passed more than a year earlier); and he suggested that KHM might be forced to sell parcels of its Hana lands to improve its financial position. 42 In July Landgraf was fired by KHM, a move widely regarded as inevitable after he had publicly compromised his superiors. Despite several appeals from Kato to have the 1,500 ft buffer zone modified, it was part of the legislation passed by Council on Second and Final Reading in September. In all, some 21 conditions of approval were specified in the 'Unilateral Agreement' section of the legislation. Accepted reluctantly by KHM, these constituted the most stringent set of requirements ever attached to a golf course project in Hawaii. They reflected not only the concerns of an environmentally-sensitive Planning Director and an angry Council, but also many of the objections voiced by Hana's residents.
Conclusion At the most fundamental level the controversy among Hana residents was a public dispute between those who felt economically dependent on KHM and those who did not. But it was also a clash between groups of people with heavy social and emotional investments in the community who differed sharply in their ideas about how these investments might best be protected. Project supporters were mainly KHM employees or their relatives who felt the security of their community investments depended crucially on the economic health of the company. However, some residents who were economically independent of KHM also supported the project, fearing that the company's collapse would result in community decay and disintegration. Most opponents were people with few economic ties to KHM who could anticipate a satisfying community life in Hana without KHM or, for that matter, any hotel operation. Yet opposition also came from people who recognized the company's pivotal importance to Hana but regarded the threat of hotel closure as a pressure tactic that should be discounted. And there were still others in opposition who believed a KHM collapse was possible but that new owners could be found to run the hotel successfully without building a resort golf course.
Hana revisited: R W Wyllie
From a social constructionist perspective, the controversy can be viewed as a process whereby a situation, initially regarded as threatening by some residents, acquires the status of a 'public problem' requiring public action and remedy. As it does, public discourse produces and reflects judgements about its factual dimensions (legalities, economics, etc.) as well as its moral aspects (community values, democracy, integrity or legitimacy of protagonists, etc.) while major interest groups struggle for 'ownership' of the problem, or the power to define its factitive and moral character and determine its solution? T M In Hana this struggle was complicated by internal disagreements within KHM management and within Maui County Council. For a time the company and its supporters seemed well on the way to victory, but suffered a fatal setback when KHM's mixed signals on the buffer zone caused council members to toughen their position and close ranks with the Mayor and Planning Director. With this, Council secured firmer control of the problem and was able to move toward a solution. As the Hana case demonstrates, planning tourism in harmony with the local community is no easy matter if the community itself is fractured along lines that divide supporters and opponents of projects into mutually antagonistic camps. A cautionary approach to community-responsive tourism is suggested by the Hana experience, where a lengthy process of open discussion, public review and consultation failed to produce community consensus. Exposure to a variety of opinions on the project did not cause many residents to alter their views and, as an exercise in tourism education, the process was a failure. Indeed, it may be suggested that public participation not only failed to reconcile differences, but served to harden attitudes and deepen animosities among residents. The various public meetings became arenas where each group sought to advance its own arguments and demolish those of its opponents, even while many on both sides of the issue shared similar views of Hana as a 'special place' that had to be preserved. In approving the golf course proposal with stringent conditions, Council's solution to the problem was an attempt at compromise, one that recognized the importance of a successful hotel operation in Hana while responding to the various concerns and objections of residents. Under the circumstances it is difficult to see how it could have produced anything very different, but it was a solution that satisfied few residents and provided little encouragement to KHM. The company never did proceed with the golf course and this was a great disappointment for those residents who had supported the project. It was especially disappointing for those who expected to acquire land on 15 acres Council had required KHM to set aside for housing when the golf course was completed. Throughout 1994 Hana was rife with
speculation that KHM was ready to sell the hotel and ranch and in March of the following year it reached a preliminary agreement to sell its Hana assets to Apuhuaa Partners, a New York-based investment firm. Negotiations over the sale broke down after nearly two years, for reasons which remain obscure. Officially, the main stumbling block was Apahuaa Partners' inability to obtain clear title to KHM properties, but popular rumour alleged the prospective buyers withdrew after realizing that their business activities would be subject to an unusual degree of public scrutiny and criticism in a place like Hana. At present, speculation and uncertainty continues regarding KHM's future in Hana. Relations among residents are less rancourous than they were at the time of the controversy, but many of the wounds have not yet healed and a good deal of bitterness among residents still remains. The publication of Smith's seminal work on hosttourist relations established this area as the primary object of enquiry in sociological and anthropological studies of tourism communities; 4~ and in a subsequent evaluation of the anthropology of tourism, Nash identified the encounter between working hosts and leisured tourists, approaching each other as Simmelian 'strangers', as the core of a touristic system#' However, as this case study demonstrates, tourism in host communities also shapes and modifies relationships between residents, some of whom are not directly engaged in commercial hosting. The Hana controversy suggests that these inter-resident relations form an integral part of the local touristic system and are not merely peripheral to a more central set of encounters between hosts and tourists. Somewhat ironically, the most significant strangers in Hana were not the wealthy tourists who vacation at the hotel, but those 'resident strangers' whose interventions in a major community crisis were perceived as illegitimate or inappropriate. Conceptually, they are much closer to Simmel's notion of the stranger than are the tourists: The stranger is thus being discussed here, not in the sense often touched upon in the past, as the wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow, but rather as the person who comes today and stays tomorrow. He is, so to speak, the potential wanderer: although he has not moved on, he has not quite overcome the freedom of coming and going. He is fixed within a particular spatial group, or within a group whose boundaries are similar to spatial boundaries. But his position in this group is determined, essentially, by the fact that he has not belonged to it from the beginning, that he imparts qualities into it, which do not and cannot stem from the group itself.~7
References 1. Farrell, B. 'Tourism as an agent in sustainable development: Hana, Maui' in Smith, V. L. and Eadington, W. R. (eds)
177
Hana revisited: R W Wyllie Tourism Alternatives University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1992. 2. Keogh, B., L'impact social du tourisme: le cas de Shediac. Nouveau-Brunswick Canadian Geographer 1982, 26, 318-331. 3. Garland, B. R. and West, S. J., The social impacts of tourism in New Zealand. Massey Journal of Asian and Pacific Business 1985, 1, 34-39. 4. Milman, A. and Pizam, A., Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research 1988, 15, 191-204. 5. Lankford, S. V. and Howard, D. R., Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research 1994, 21, 121-139. 6. Liu, J. and Var, T., Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research 1986, 13, 193-214. 7. Davis, D., Allen, J. and Cosenza, R. M., Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research 1988, 27, 2-8. 8. Brayley, R., Var, T. and Sheldon, P., Perceived influence of tourism on social issues. Annals of Tourism Research 1990, 17, 285-289. 9. Cook, K., Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism development in British Columbia. Journal of Travel Research 1982, 21, 22-28. 10. D'Amore, L. J 'Guidelines to planning in harmony with the host community' in Murphy, P. E. (ed) Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options University of Victoria, Victoria BC, 1983. 11. Murphy, P. E. Tourism: A Community Approach Methuen, London, 1985. 12. Ryan, C. and Montgomery, D., The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tourism Management 1994, 15, 358-369. 13. Taylor, G., The community approach: does it work? Tourism Management 1995, 16, 487-489. 14. Joppe, M., Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management 1996, 17, 475-479. 15. Selin, S. and Beason, K., Interorganizational relations in tourism. Annals of Tourism Researeh 1991, 18, 639-652. 16. Selin, S., Collaborative alliances: new interorganizational forms in tourism. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 1993, 2, 217-227. 17. Jamal, T. B. and Getz, B., Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 1994, 21, 186-204. 18. Reed, M. R., Power relations and community-based tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 1997, 24, 566-591. 19. Prentice, R., Community-driven tourism planning and resident preferences. Tourism Management 1993, 14, 218-227. 20. Ap, J., Residents' perceptions of tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 1992, 19, 665-690. 21. Green, G. P., Marcouiller, D., Deller, S., Erkkila, D. and Sumathi, N. R., Local dependency, land use attitudes, and
178
economic development: comparisons between seasonal and permanent residents. Rural Sociology 1996, 61, 427-445. 22. Farrell, op cit, Ref 1, p 120. 23. State of Hawaii State o( Hawaii Data Book 1995 Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Honolulu (1996) 596, 598. 24. County of Maui Maui County Data Book 1995 Office of Economic Development, Kihei (1996) 148. 25. County of Maui op cit, Ref 24, p 18. 26. County of Maui The General Plan of the County of Maui 1990 Update Department of Planning, Wailuku (1990) iii, iv. 27. County of Maul Hana Community Development Plan 1994 Department of Planning, Wailuku (1994) 8. 28. Wenkham, R. Maui No Ka Oi Rand McNally, Chicago, 1980. 29. Farrell op cit, Ref 1. 30. Jokiel, L. 'Holding on to Hana' Hawaii Business 1988 (May) 42-53. 31. Waring, R. Testimony beJore the Maui County Planning Commission 1993 (March). 32. Waring, R. Testimony before the Maui County Planning Committee 1993 (May). 33. Perry, B. 'Golf foes top Hana survey' The Maui News 1993 (April 29). 34. Wilson, S. D. 'Letter to the Editor' The Maui News 1993 (May 28). 35. Lono, D. Testimony before the Hana Community Advisory Committee 1993 (March). 36. Kauiki Council Declaration and Judicial Pub6c Notice 1993 (March). 37. Kanakaole, E. Testimony before the Hana Community Advisory Committee 1993 (March). 38. Lono, D. Interview 1995 (March). 39. Waring op cit, Ref 31. 40. Blair, J. C. Testimony submitted to the Maui County Planning Committee 1993 (June). 41. Lono op cit, Ref 38. 42. Kato, M. Testimony before the Maui County Planning Committee 1993 (August). 43. Gusfield, J. R. The Culture of Public Problems. DrinkingDriving and the Symbolic Order University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981. 44. Gusfield, J. R. Contested Meanings. The Construction of Alcohol Problems University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1996. 45. Smith, V. L. (ed) Hosts and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1977. 46. Nash, D., Tourism as an anthropological subject. Current Anthropology 1981, 22, 561-581. 47. Simmel, G. (Translated and edited by Wolff, K. H.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel Free Press, Glencoe (1950 [1908]) 402. Received June 1997 Accepted September 1997