Kauaʻi residents and advocates tell DHHL they may be violating federal relocation law

Advocates and residents told the Hawaiian Homes Commission on June 15 that DHHL’s relocation practices at the Courtyards at Wōli on Kauaʻi may be inconsistent with the federal Uniform Relocation Act, and that multiple lawsuits now pending ask courts to halt relocations.

Sar Gibson, who said the litigation has been assigned to Kauaʻi, reported that residents have received 90‑day notices to vacate without being shown truly comparable replacement housing. "According to the Uniform Relocation Act, they are to be given 42 months of the difference," Gibson said, citing an example in which a replacement unit was $500 per month more than a resident’s current housing and calculating the 42‑month liability at about $21,000.

Gibson summarized three core concerns raised by residents: (1) short notice periods and lack of comparable replacements, (2) relocation offers that do not meet the leasehold or financing terms residents expect, and (3) beneficiaries not being fully informed about financial obligations when offered leasehold opportunities that used NAHADA funds and have income requirements. Gibson asked the commission to consider bringing Melissa Man, the relocation specialist for Wōli Courtyards, to a meeting to explain the department’s approach.

Colani Fonda (land development) and other staff were present during testimony; commissioners and department officials did not announce an immediate formal investigation during the meeting, but the testimony and Gibson’s description of four consolidated lawsuits make the issue a live legal and programmatic risk for DHHL.

The commission approved other consent items at the meeting that include lease awards at Courtyards at Wōli (five rent‑with‑option‑to‑purchase awards were presented as part of the E items), but the public testimony suggests friction between award timelines and relocation‑law compliance. Advocates said more transparent communications and documentation of comparable‑housing searches and relocation budgets are necessary to show federal compliance.

The commission did not vote on this matter during public testimony; staff indicated they would continue to engage with beneficiaries and legal counsel as required by ongoing processes.