09/29/2026
An important Maui County legal opinion regarding Hulopoʻe Beach Park deserves attention.
In 2003, the Maui County Department of the Corporation Counsel addressed who is responsible for enforcing the rules at Hulopoʻe Beach Park. The County's legal position was clear: Lānaʻi Company—not Maui County—has the primary responsibility for enforcing the Park Rules.
But there's an equally important limitation on that authority.
The opinion quotes the 1987 Unilateral Agreement, which requires the Park Rules to be administered and amended by Lānaʻi Company in a “reasonable, nondiscriminatory and nonarbitrary manner.”
That means the conversation shouldn't simply end with, “It's private property, so they can do whatever they want.” The property is privately owned, but the County's own legal opinion recognizes that Hulopoʻe Beach Park was dedicated for park use for public purposes, with the Park Rules established to ensure that public use continues in perpetuity.
Even more significant, Corporation Counsel stated that if Maui County were to take enforcement action under the Unilateral Agreement, that enforcement would be against Lānaʻi Company for failing to comply with the agreement.
The opinion also confirms that Lānaʻi Company can ask someone who violates the Park Rules to leave and can seek police assistance if that person refuses. However, the company is expected to first use its own security and enforcement resources, and Maui Police should not serve as the park's primary enforcement authority.
This brings us directly back to the current controversy over trespass notices.
The issue isn't necessarily whether Pūlama Lānaʻi has any authority to enforce the rules—it clearly does. The question is how that authority is being exercised.
If someone is excluded from a park dedicated to public use for six months, what written standard determines that six-month penalty? What violations warrant a warning versus removal versus a lengthy exclusion? Who makes that determination? What safeguards ensure enforcement is consistent from one person to another?
Those are important questions because the governing agreement itself requires administration to be reasonable, nondiscriminatory and nonarbitrary.
And perhaps the most important part of this 2003 opinion is that Maui County's own attorneys recognized that the County may have an enforcement role when Lānaʻi Company itself fails to comply with the Unilateral Agreement.
That's exactly why I'm asking Maui County to review what is happening at Hulopoʻe today.
Accountability isn't about preventing enforcement of legitimate park rules. It's about making sure enforcement itself complies with the agreement governing this unique, privately owned park dedicated to public use.
