Rep. Sablan blasts Pete A. land policy

Rep. Vinson Sablan (Ind-Saipan) has responded to allegations of “misconceptions” in a House resolution he authored and was passed unanimously by the House in July.

Sablan, in a statement yesterday, was referring to Department of Public Lands Secretary Pete A. Tenorio’s letter to Kan Pacific that claimed the CNMI Constitution prevents DPL from entering into a new lease with Mariana Resort before their lease expires and before the land reverts back to the government.

DPL announced in June this year its decision to seek competitive bids for the Mariana Resort property. In July, Sablan filed House Resolution 19-29, “encouraging the administration and the secretary of Public Lands to negotiate a new lease [for] Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.”

“Secretary Tenorio stated that there were some misconceptions but failed to elaborate on any. I am aware that the resolution cannot bind DPL to negotiate or enter into a new lease with Kan Pacific. In fact, the language used in the resolution states ‘to encourage.’ I’m sure we all understand what that term entails, so I feel there are no misconceptions in regards to that general statement,” Sablan said.

Tenorio declined to comment on the Kan Pacific issue yesterday.

The “whereas clauses” that were stated in HR 19-26 referenced several correspondences between DPL and Kan Pacific Ltd., Sablan said.

“Let’s start with the resolution which garnered a 17-0 vote on the floor. All supporting documents for the resolution were provided to each voting member. So, if there were any misconceptions, I’m sure one of us would have identified them. Second, in May 2013, DPL started communicating with Kan Pacific. In fact, Secretary Tenorio wrote a letter to Kan Pacific dated May 16, 2013, which is clearly negotiating. There is a clear difference between negotiating and signing a lease agreement. Secretary Tenorio stated that he is prohibited from negotiating “a new lease with Kan Pacific” until the lease reverts back to DPL.

Sablan noted content in the contract between DPL and Kan Pacific that states DPL must inform Kan Pacific five years before the lease is terminated.

“Against the Constitution?” Sablan asked, referring to DPL’s claim it is prohibited from entering into a new lease with Kan Pacific. “First, Section 5 in Article 11states that “The corporation may not transfer an interest in public land that exceeds 25 years, including renewal rights. An extension of not more than 15 years may be given upon approval of three-fourths of the members of the Legislature.”

“There were several correspondences between DPL and Kan Pacific where the term ‘extend’ was used. The May 16, 2013, letter from Secretary Tenorio is one of them. Nothing in the Constitution mentions anything about a new lease; it only states an extension. Nothing in the statute states anything about a new lease either. There is also no place where the statute states that the land must revert back to DPL before any negotiations take place.”

In light of the Kan Pacific-DPL controversy, Sablan now says that the question to be asked is: “Is this the way we are going to handle all the leases of public land?”

“Is Secretary Tenorio saying that we need to wait for the 11th hour to negotiate new leases? If this is the case, I’m not sure if any investor will see this as good business practice. It is very clear that DPL led Kan Pacific into thinking that a new lease was going to be the outcome. All we are concerned about here is consistency in how public lands are dealt with. We can’t keep jumping all over the place. One day we talk about an extension, the next a new lease, and then an RFP. Personally, I am unaware of any misconceptions in HR 19-26,” he said.