SB120, f passed would reduce the distribution of a portion of the conveyance tax to the Land Conservation Fund.

Argument in favor:
The State needs money.

Argument against:
Frequently it’s assumed that environmental protection is a luxury, expendable in times of economic distress. This is false. The funds designated to Legacy Land Conservation (LLC) have been extremely effective in leveraging matching grants from the federal government and private donors. Cut the state dollars and we lose those other funds – many of which come from out of state. Net result: less money coming into Hawaii.

The funds pay staff salaries. Eliminate the fund, the jobs disappear. The multiplier effect in our economy of the workers’ spending disappears. Net result: less economic activity and lower tax revenues.

The funds support programs in the watershed that reduce the need to treat drinking water and for erosion and flood control. Eliminate the LLC funds and within a short period we‘ll be forced to spend more to treat our water and remediate the effects of erosion and flooding. Net result: lower water quality, more costs for the state, more environmental damage.

Finally, as tourist industry leaders have repeatedly warned, the #1 complaint by visitors to Hawaii is over-development and suburban sprawl. If we do not fund conservation we are eating our seed corn. We undermine our biggest industry with inevitable economic consequences. Net result: fewer tourists and less tourism income.

The rational thing to do would be to ramp up this program now to seize advantage of lower land prices. It may be a long time before conservation of vital farmland and scenic coastal areas is this affordable again.

You can express your view on this by writing to the Senate members of the conference committee (House members have not yet been named) : David Ige, Chair; Carol Fukunaga, Michelle Kidani, Donna Mercado Kim, Sam Slom.