Oka Point is not surplus land; It is a promise to the people of Guam

Admin
May 5
3 min read

By David Babauta Herrera

There are moments in our island’s history when a single decision will define

not just today, but generations to come. The proposed passage of Bill 32-38 is one of those moments.

At the center of this issue is a 37.9-acre parcel in Tamuning known as Oka Point, which many of us remember as the former site of Guam Memorial Hospital.

Today, this land is part of the CHamoru Land Trust Commission, held in trust

for more than 60,000 CHamoru beneficiaries who are victims of the unjust land taking by the U.S. naval government between 1898 to 1968.

And now, it is at risk of being taken out of that trust.

What is really at stake? This is not simply about returning land to a family. It is

about whether public trust land can be removed and transferred through legislation, even after it was legally sold to the government and used for public purposes.

The historical record shows that in 1951, this land was formally conveyed to the government of Guam. That transaction was completed, recorded and relied upon for decades, including its use as a hospital serving our island.

If we undo that history today, we are not just changing ownership; we are

changing the rules. A dangerous precedent.

If Bill 32-38 becomes law, it raises a serious question: What prevents any

future legislature from removing other CHamoru Land Trust properties and transferring them elsewhere?

The CHamoru Land Trust exists for one purpose: to provide land and

opportunity for the CHamoru people who are victims of the unjust land-taking perpetrated by the U.S. naval government from 1898 to 1968. It is not a land bank to be reduced when politically convenient.

If this parcel can be removed, then no parcel is truly protected.

Oka Point is not idle land. It is one of the most strategically located and

infrastructure-ready sites on Guam.

It has already proven its value. It supported a hospital for decades. It is centrally located and accessible. It has existing infrastructure that reduces development costs.

At a time when Guam faces urgent healthcare needs, removing this land from

public use eliminates one of the most practical options for future development.

This decision is being considered in an election year, when many of the same

leaders supporting this bill are asking the public for their trust and their vote.

The people of Guam are paying attention. This is not about political parties. It

is about whether decisions are being made for the public good—or for private benefit.

Let me be clear: this is not an attack on any family. Every family on Guam has

history, dignity and connection to land. But public trust land must remain public trust land. We cannot solve one historical concern by creating a new and

lasting harm to 60,000 beneficiaries and future generations.