In plain words: Part of the govOS civic record — public information, gathered so any Maui or Hawaiian person can see it plainly.
Government
View
pick a government to begin
12 Stones Global · Kilo Aupuni · news vs record
News & the Record — the balancing pair
Every story sits as a pair: our truth — the primary record, sourced and cited —
laid beside their angle, the outlet's framing, captured and labeled. The sourced facts lead;
the framing is tracked alongside, never presented as fact. The Kumulipo checksum tells you whether the
two agree (Pono) or the frame tilts past the record (Hewa) — and you can see it, because both sit side by side.
Outlet framing is labeled “how the news told it — not fact.” The 12 Stones read is labeled
“position / analysis — not law.” Sourced-only. Lead with the primary source.
Mākena (Makena) State Park improvements
maui · event 2026-06-23 · DEFERRED — state to report back 2026-07-14
PARTIAL
OUR TRUTH primary-sourced fact + 12 Stones position (analysis, not law)
On Tue 2026-06-23 the Maui Planning Commission DEFERRED a decision on the proposed Makena State Park improvements after divided testimony; the meeting ran ~9:00 AM to after 6:00 PM.
The State (DLNR) proposal: two permanent restrooms (replacing porta-potties); two outdoor showers + a water-refill station; paving the gravel shoulders of the north/south access driveways; toll booths / pay stations charging OUT-OF-STATE visitors (FREE for residents).
Commissioners deferred AND asked the state to explore alternatives — including non-asphalt, eco-friendly PERMEABLE pavement for stormwater runoff.
The state is to report back at the next meeting, 2026-07-14.
testified for Sam Garcia Jr., Tiare Lawrence, Kai Nishiki
testified against Ryan Quinn, Kimberly Ferrari, Earl Bialeck
12 Stones position 12 Stones reads the DEFER-for-alternatives outcome as PONO: the commission heard the people and chose to malama the place over paving it. The questions worth keeping ahead of any single frame — (1) Does permeable/eco pavement protect the stormwater + the reef the way asphalt would not? (2) In a drought, are outdoor showers + a refill station the right water trade? (3) The resident-free / out-of-state-visitor toll is a sovereignty-aligned management lever — who decides, and does the revenue return to the aina? Sourced facts first; values, not accusations.
Primary sources
Maui Planning Commission agenda + minutes, meeting of 2026-06-23 (Maui County Planning Dept — to link/confirm at the agenda portal)
DLNR / Division of State Parks — Makena State Park master plan & improvement docs
THEIR ANGLE outlet framing — how the news told it, not fact
Hawaii News Now (Gray Media — KHNL/KGMB) · Chelsea Davis
“Maui Planning Commission defers decision on Makena State Park improvements”
divided / heated testimony; leads on the sanitation need + tourism management
emphasized
sanitation (porta-potties -> permanent restrooms)
tourism/visitor management
the management case for the improvements
underweighted / omitted
the drought / water-waste objection's weight
that the commission AGREED with the opposition enough to defer + demand eco alternatives
the resident-vs-out-of-state-visitor toll equity angle as a sovereignty lever
Kumulipo checksum PARTIAL — the outlet's 'divided testimony' frame is accurate, but it underweights that the commission SIDED toward the wild/eco objection (deferred + demanded permeable alternatives). The truth side restores that balance.
Kumulipo Makena is makai (Kanaloa's edge, the land-meets-sea boundary) — the same wa-4 'crawl to shore / water-earth boundary' theme: what we build at that boundary is the test of pono.
Maui SMA (Special Management Area) coastal-development rules overhaul
maui · event 2026-06-18 · PENDING — Hawaiʻi Supreme Court took the case under advisement after 2026-06-18 oral argument
PARTIAL
OUR TRUTH primary-sourced fact + 12 Stones position (analysis, not law)
On Thu 2026-06-18 the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether Maui County exceeded its authority when it overhauled its Special Management Area (SMA) permitting rules. Case: Maui Tomorrow Foundation v. Maui Planning Commission & County of Maui.
Maui's 2024 revised SMA rules created 15 categorical EXEMPTIONS from SMA permitting for activities the County classifies as minor or routine.
Maui Circuit Judge Kirstin Hamman ruled in Nov 2024 that the revised rules 'impermissibly delegate Commission obligations to SMA users'; the County appealed and the Supreme Court took the case directly, bypassing the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The County (Deputy Corporation Counsel Brian Bilberry) argues the exemptions mirror state law and merely guide owners on minor/routine activities (analogized to washing machines, countertops, a laundry room), still carry a $205 assessment fee, and are 'not development.'
Maui Tomorrow (attorney Lance Collins) argues the revision removed the safeguard that an activity is exempt ONLY if the County first finds no significant or cumulative coastal harm — turning a conditional exemption into an automatic one, with no notice, process, or review ('wholesale deregulation').
Justices were skeptical of the County: Ginoza asked 'What is the proper role of the commission here?'; CJ Devens noted the burden appears shifted onto the public; Eddins said the amended rules 'eliminated any mechanism for the authority' to find cumulative impact.
Gov. Josh Green signed legislation this month amending the state Coastal Zone Management (CZM) statute to clarify that certain excluded activities do not require an SMA permit; the County says this supports its position.
The court took the matter under advisement (no decision date set). Panel: CJ Devens, JJ McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Circuit Judge Paul Wong sitting by designation.
12 Stones position 12 Stones reads this as the pono test at the shoreline. The SMA exists so that someone with the duty to look asks, BEFORE the work happens, whether it harms the coast or adds to cumulative damage. The live question is not whether a washing machine needs a permit — it is whether a categorical exemption removes the FINDING of no-harm that made the activity safe to exempt in the first place. Questions to hold ahead of any single frame: (1) Does the revised rule still require a no-significant/no-cumulative-harm finding, or does it presume it? (2) Who carries the burden — the developer to show no harm, or the public to prove harm after the fact? (3) Does mirroring state CZM language actually authorize the county's exemptions, or just describe them? Sourced facts first; this is analysis, not law — and the court has not yet ruled.
Hawaiʻi Coastal Zone Management Act, HRS Chapter 205A (SMA permitting authority) + 2026 amending act signed by Gov. Green
THEIR ANGLE outlet framing — how the news told it, not fact
Courthouse News Service · Jeremy Yurow
“Maui rewrote coastal development rules, and advocates say it handed developers the keys”
Legal-news outlet, largely factual; the headline leads with the advocates' frame ('handed developers the keys') — i.e. the loss-of-oversight / deregulation angle — while fairly presenting the County's 'minor, routine activities' argument lower down.
emphasized
environmental / coastal-oversight loss as the lede
Kumulipo checksum PARTIAL — Courthouse News reports the facts accurately, but the headline ('handed developers the keys') adopts the advocates' conclusion and reads as a settled outcome. The record restores two things the frame underweights: the County's mirror-of-state-law rationale, AND that the court has NOT ruled — it is under advisement. Pair is detectable: lay the headline beside the docket and the tilt shows.
Kumulipo SMA is the makai boundary — Kanaloa's edge, where water meets land (wā-4, the crawl to shore). What we permit to be built at that boundary, and whether anyone with the kuleana looks before it is built, is the exact pono test the chant marks at the land-sea seam.