text: I strongly disagree with the assertion that Hawaiians/Kanaka Maoli do not get involved ("visits or cares") until someone proposes some alternative use for the parcel.  On the contrary, Hawaiians are actively involved - it's only when the land use takes a drastic shift that Hawaiians then take to drastic measures in opposition.  
  
  More often than not, the land at issue is agricultural land, which is later slated for rezoning and eventually urban development.  In a natural state, the land still possesses cultural value for Hawaiians.  Obviously, the same cannot be said when urban development levels a parcel and wipes out all traces of Hawaiian existence. 
  
  If a parcel of land, covered with ancient Hawaiian archaeological sites, is left alone to grow grass, then the likelihood of those sites being disturbed is at minimal.  Clearly, that likelihood increases by leaps and bounds when a developer proposes to turn the parcel into a golf course or subdivision.