To: County of Hawaii
Finance Committee Chairwomen,
Virginia Isbell and Committee Members April 30, 2006
TESTIMONY FOR Bill 268 Fair and Equitable Access to Governmental Process.
I am in SUPPORT BILL 268 - FAIR AND EQUITABLE ACCESS TO GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS
Bill 268 will open the door for a fair and balanced government process. The tax payers of the west side pay over 70% of the entire Counties budget.
The County Council meetings being held in Hilo are out of reach for a majority of the tax payers. To drive 100 miles to a county council meeting is
Leaving the west side without a say.
This is the fair way to have 6 meetings on the west side and 6 meetings on the east side. This should be a fair and balanced government. Our constitution does read “We the People” and not “we the people of Hilo”.
If this bill doesn’t pass; then it means the process of splitting the County will have to become a major focus. Work with us so we don’t have to march forward and split the County in two.
Any county council members that vote against bill this should get the boot. It flat out says “we don’t want to be fair or equal to all tax payers”.
Decisions about Kona should be heard and responded to within the reach of the tax payers.
This is so important that we act now so we can have local decisions on what is happening in Kona.
We need TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION.
Respectfully,
Susan McGeachy
Hawaii Island Tax Payer since 1988
Concerned Citizen of west Hawaii
mcgeachy@hawaii.rr.com
808-325-7576
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Aaron responds to ltr to Editor
Rory Flynn's Letter To The Editor in WHT
Rory Flynn, a former legislative auditor for the County of Hawaii, had a letter to the editor in WHT in response to Henry Scroggin's letter on April 10,2006.Mr. Flynn why are you trying to defend the Democrats ? Thats what it appeared you tried to do by posting all the funded projects this year for the Big Island in your letter to the editor.Yes the State is finally addressing the infrastructure woes in West Hawaii (and the Big Island). But where is the county ? In the past 6 years the county built two new roads in Hilo, Puainako Extension and Mohouli Street Extension.But in Kona no new roads have been built by the county. In short both the state and county acted with malfeasance in approving all these developments in Kona without adequate infrastructure. I've lived here my entire life, and seen how both the county and state put the needs of developers over the citizens of this island.That practice needsto stop now.
posted by Aaron Stene @ 4:19:00 PM
Rory Flynn, a former legislative auditor for the County of Hawaii, had a letter to the editor in WHT in response to Henry Scroggin's letter on April 10,2006.Mr. Flynn why are you trying to defend the Democrats ? Thats what it appeared you tried to do by posting all the funded projects this year for the Big Island in your letter to the editor.Yes the State is finally addressing the infrastructure woes in West Hawaii (and the Big Island). But where is the county ? In the past 6 years the county built two new roads in Hilo, Puainako Extension and Mohouli Street Extension.But in Kona no new roads have been built by the county. In short both the state and county acted with malfeasance in approving all these developments in Kona without adequate infrastructure. I've lived here my entire life, and seen how both the county and state put the needs of developers over the citizens of this island.That practice needsto stop now.
posted by Aaron Stene @ 4:19:00 PM
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Testimony on Bill 268 50%of Council mtgs in West Hawaii
Aloha:
This is to register my strong support of Bill268. It is imperative that council meetings are held on the West side of the Island, as well as the East side, in order to fairly discuss issues related to the West side. The time has come; let's be fair.
Mahalo,
Karen Lopossa
Kailua-Kona
This is to register my strong support of Bill268. It is imperative that council meetings are held on the West side of the Island, as well as the East side, in order to fairly discuss issues related to the West side. The time has come; let's be fair.
Mahalo,
Karen Lopossa
Kailua-Kona
Friday, April 28, 2006
This is the MOST Important Call to West Hawaii Citizens
WAKE UP 80,000 PEOPLE OF WEST HAWAII. THIS IS IT!!!!
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANAT BILL TO COME IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL SINCE HAWAII BECAME A STATE. THIS IS A CALL TO ALL OF WEST HAWAII. NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO TESTIFY FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. IF THIS PASSES IT WILL GO ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER AND WE WILL ALL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON HAVING EVERY OTHER COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE WEST SIDE.
Read And pass on to every one you know.
Thank you and let's have some decisions for West Hawaii be made in West Hawaii.
Aloha, Susan McGeachy
Please forward to your contacts!!
SUPPORT FAIR AND EQUITABLE ACCESS TO GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS.
Councilman K. Angel Pilago has introduced Bill 268 A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO HAVE EQUAL NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEETINGS IN WEST HAWAI'I & EAST HAWAI'I
Why is it important?
* Rapid growth and development is occurring in W. Hawai'i
* Increased citizen involvement in planning process
* Constitutional to enable and empower a well - informed citizenry.
*
* What will it accomplish?
* Foster continued citizen participation in government.
* Give fair and equitable access to governmental process.
* Opportunity for meaningful public testimony and discussion.
* Enable council to make informed public policy.
* Allows council to reach out to every segment of the community
* Diminish public's frustration, alienation, and divisiveness.
* Bridge the E/W Rift
When will it be heard?
* Will be heard in Finance Committee May 1st @ 9:00 AM
* Needs 2/3 Majority to pass
* Must pass 3 readings in Council
* Then introduce resolution to put it on the Ballot
* Will go on ballot in November
* If majority votes for it...Take effect March 2007
YOU MAY TESTIFY AT THE KONA COUNCIL OFFICE OR THE WAIMEA COUNCIL OFFICE VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE AT 9:00 AM Monday, May 1, 2006
Please send written testimony to:
Finance Committee Chairwomen, Virginia Isbell And Committee Members
via email:
counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
and cc to:
kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us
(to be sure we receive a copy)
or
fax:
329-4786 - Kona
and
961-8912 - Hilo
HAWAI'I COUNTY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
34th Session
DATE: May 1, 2006 (Monday)
PLACE: Council room
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
Comm. 825: (Bill 268) AN ORDINANCE TO INITIATE A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3-7, OF THE HAWAI'I COUNTY CHARTER (2000) RELATING TO MEETINGS (provides for Council meetings to be held in West Hawai'i on
even-numbered months) From Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, dated April
13, 2006, transmitting the above bill, which would require an equal amount of County Council meetings between East and West Hawai'i to assure fair and
equitable access to meetings.
Mahalo a nui loa for your support
Maile
Angel
Karen
Karen
Karen Eoff, Aide to
Councilman K. Angel Pilago
District 8, North Kona
808-327-3642
http://www.blogger.com/www.angelcouncil.org
Susan, for your mailing list, let the residents know they can testify at Councilman Pete Hoffmann's office in Waimea which is directly across the street from the police department's parking lot and next door to the big feed store.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Regards, Marjorie Mrasek
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANAT BILL TO COME IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL SINCE HAWAII BECAME A STATE. THIS IS A CALL TO ALL OF WEST HAWAII. NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO TESTIFY FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. IF THIS PASSES IT WILL GO ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER AND WE WILL ALL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON HAVING EVERY OTHER COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE WEST SIDE.
Read And pass on to every one you know.
Thank you and let's have some decisions for West Hawaii be made in West Hawaii.
Aloha, Susan McGeachy
Please forward to your contacts!!
SUPPORT FAIR AND EQUITABLE ACCESS TO GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS.
Councilman K. Angel Pilago has introduced Bill 268 A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO HAVE EQUAL NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEETINGS IN WEST HAWAI'I & EAST HAWAI'I
Why is it important?
* Rapid growth and development is occurring in W. Hawai'i
* Increased citizen involvement in planning process
* Constitutional to enable and empower a well - informed citizenry.
*
* What will it accomplish?
* Foster continued citizen participation in government.
* Give fair and equitable access to governmental process.
* Opportunity for meaningful public testimony and discussion.
* Enable council to make informed public policy.
* Allows council to reach out to every segment of the community
* Diminish public's frustration, alienation, and divisiveness.
* Bridge the E/W Rift
When will it be heard?
* Will be heard in Finance Committee May 1st @ 9:00 AM
* Needs 2/3 Majority to pass
* Must pass 3 readings in Council
* Then introduce resolution to put it on the Ballot
* Will go on ballot in November
* If majority votes for it...Take effect March 2007
YOU MAY TESTIFY AT THE KONA COUNCIL OFFICE OR THE WAIMEA COUNCIL OFFICE VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE AT 9:00 AM Monday, May 1, 2006
Please send written testimony to:
Finance Committee Chairwomen, Virginia Isbell And Committee Members
via email:
counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
and cc to:
kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us
(to be sure we receive a copy)
or
fax:
329-4786 - Kona
and
961-8912 - Hilo
HAWAI'I COUNTY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
34th Session
DATE: May 1, 2006 (Monday)
PLACE: Council room
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
Comm. 825: (Bill 268) AN ORDINANCE TO INITIATE A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3-7, OF THE HAWAI'I COUNTY CHARTER (2000) RELATING TO MEETINGS (provides for Council meetings to be held in West Hawai'i on
even-numbered months) From Councilmember K. Angel Pilago, dated April
13, 2006, transmitting the above bill, which would require an equal amount of County Council meetings between East and West Hawai'i to assure fair and
equitable access to meetings.
Mahalo a nui loa for your support
Maile
Angel
Karen
Karen
Karen Eoff, Aide to
Councilman K. Angel Pilago
District 8, North Kona
808-327-3642
http://www.blogger.com/www.angelcouncil.org
Susan, for your mailing list, let the residents know they can testify at Councilman Pete Hoffmann's office in Waimea which is directly across the street from the police department's parking lot and next door to the big feed store.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Regards, Marjorie Mrasek
Thursday, April 27, 2006
2% for Open Space
2% for Open Space at the Kona Brew Pub and Around the IslandGathering Signatures on the Petitions: It is time to turn in completed petitions for the 1st Round. Don't forget the Affidavit on the back of the Petitions needs to be notarized. The 2nd round of petitions are due May 28th. We need 10,000 signatures total and we need another 5, 000 signatures in the next 4 weeks. Don't stop now!!****Working together we can get this on the ballot in November**** • Sunday April 30th- 4:30 to 8:00pm- Come to the Kona Brew Pub and hear Lawakua, contemporary Hawaiian music, sign the petition and find out about the 2% Initiative Petition Drive to get on the Ballot whether Big Island voters want to set aside 2% of Hawaii County property taxes each year to protect access to our beaches and mountains, preserve historic and culturally important sites, and to protect watershed areas, forests, coastal areas, and agricultural lands. • Thursday, May 4th Notary Parties 4:30 to 6:30 pm- Sign and get the Petitions Notarized (bring photo ID) at: o Kona Brew Pub o The Na'alehu Community Center o The Historic Hawaii Foundation Building, Waimea o Sakamoto Building at the Lifespace Office in Kapa'au (call Terra Sutton 889-1010)YOU CAN SEND NOTARIZED PETITIONS TO ME AT: PO BOX 4148, KAILUA-KONA, HI 96745 There are notaries at most banks. Mahalo for your help! For questions- please call 989-3222, Debbie Hecht, Coordinator, Save Our Lands Committee or hecht.deb@gmail.com
Bill to let voters decide access makes sense, Ikeda doesn't
by Reed FlickingerWest Hawaii TodayThursday, April 27, 2006 8:34 AM HST
It's philosophy time again as we are subject to ethics and logic handed down from Hilo Councilman Donald Ikeda.Consider this a primer to dispel all doubt about why our county is in the dire straits of poor government that has manifested so many of the problems with which we grapple today.Kona Councilman Angel Pilago introduced Bill 268 as a proposed Hawaii County Charter amendment that would allow the island's voters to decide an important question regarding government access: Should the County Council meet as frequently in West Hawaii as it does in Hilo?Understand this bill does not determine the answer to that question, rather it will -- if passed by a two-thirds majority of the County Council -- allow voters to answer the question in November.Simply stated, Pilago's bill calls for the County Council to meet in Kona on even-numbered months.It is a long overdue effort to compel the council to meet in West Hawaii as frequently as it does in Hilo, something this newspaper has long lobbied to see. When we supported funding of Harry Kim's proposed West Hawaii civic center, it was with the caveat that the building comes with a mandate to force the council to convene in West Hawaii with regularity equal to its Hilo meeting presence.This newspaper has for more than a decade advocated the council meeting in West Hawaii as frequently as it does in Hilo, allowing meetings in other areas, as well.After all, with more than 70 percent of the county's real property tax revenues collected in West Hawaii and the majority of the negative impacts resulting from government decisions affecting West Hawaii, it is only fair to have the council convene here. That compulsion is supportable for several sound reasons: When East Hawaii council members are stuck in traffic for hours, or face the inconvenience of their poor planning decisions, they might exercise more wisdom and caution in future decision making. Also it would place more of the decisions regarding West Hawaii in a West Hawaii venue, allowing residents reasonable access to government and disallowing unpopular decisions to be made in the relative insulation of Hilo. It is harder to look someone in the eye when you vote against his or her wishes than it is to disregard their closed-circuit presence.
Pilago described his measure's goal as "the responsible and correct thing to do. We need to do this in order to heal the divisiveness that prevails between East Hawaii and West Hawaii. We must alleviate the public's frustration and alienation, and we must be all-inclusive in the work we do."He also defused the argument about "additional expense" by offering to defray those costs with his county contingency relief funds.Sound thinking and common sense, it's called logic and is very sensible.Enter the foil, logic from an illogical perspective in the person of Donald Ikeda.Ikeda responded to Bill 268 negatively because of the inconvenience to the six East Hawaii council members who would have to travel to the west side. He also said Hilo residents wouldn't be able to participate in meetings when they are held on the west side.Nonsense.How can Ikeda say it is wrong to inconvenience Hilo residents, those who benefit from our contribution of more than 70 percent of the county's real property tax revenues, yet it is fine and dandy to inconvenience everybody in West Hawaii -- in perpetuity.Can he be so callous as to care only about travel time for East Hawaii council members? Representatives from West Hawaii have been traveling to Hilo for decades.Ikeda said, "I don't think Angel gave it much thought."No. Angel gave it plenty of thought. It's Ikeda who gave it no thought and it is this very thoughtlessness and disregard that has a lot of people in West Hawaii fed up with the mistreatment and disrespect they are handed down by Ikeda and those of like (narrow) mind.Council Chairman Stacy Higa took a far wiser approach to Bill 268, avoiding the direct shot to the foot that rang out in Ikeda's office: Higa said he will vote for the bill. His logic makes sense. While he said he disagrees with having the council meet in West Hawaii, he believes it should be up to voters to decide.Looking forward, in anticipation perhaps, we must ask: Why would voters in East Hawaii, or any other area, feel compelled to vote against allowing West Hawaii equal access to government? Would they vote against the measure if the tables were turned, if government lived in West Hawaii and rarely ventured outside?Access to government should be made more equal. We realize we pay more in taxes, but should we suffer less access to those who spend our money and decide our future? No.Pilago was correct. This single measure, if passed by the council and approved by the voters, would do much to heal the ever-increasing rift between East and West Hawaii. It would reveal that island wide, narrow-minded thinking, like that demonstrated by Ikeda, will not lead this island forward in unity, but continue to drive us apart.rflickinger@westhawaiitoday.com
It's philosophy time again as we are subject to ethics and logic handed down from Hilo Councilman Donald Ikeda.Consider this a primer to dispel all doubt about why our county is in the dire straits of poor government that has manifested so many of the problems with which we grapple today.Kona Councilman Angel Pilago introduced Bill 268 as a proposed Hawaii County Charter amendment that would allow the island's voters to decide an important question regarding government access: Should the County Council meet as frequently in West Hawaii as it does in Hilo?Understand this bill does not determine the answer to that question, rather it will -- if passed by a two-thirds majority of the County Council -- allow voters to answer the question in November.Simply stated, Pilago's bill calls for the County Council to meet in Kona on even-numbered months.It is a long overdue effort to compel the council to meet in West Hawaii as frequently as it does in Hilo, something this newspaper has long lobbied to see. When we supported funding of Harry Kim's proposed West Hawaii civic center, it was with the caveat that the building comes with a mandate to force the council to convene in West Hawaii with regularity equal to its Hilo meeting presence.This newspaper has for more than a decade advocated the council meeting in West Hawaii as frequently as it does in Hilo, allowing meetings in other areas, as well.After all, with more than 70 percent of the county's real property tax revenues collected in West Hawaii and the majority of the negative impacts resulting from government decisions affecting West Hawaii, it is only fair to have the council convene here. That compulsion is supportable for several sound reasons: When East Hawaii council members are stuck in traffic for hours, or face the inconvenience of their poor planning decisions, they might exercise more wisdom and caution in future decision making. Also it would place more of the decisions regarding West Hawaii in a West Hawaii venue, allowing residents reasonable access to government and disallowing unpopular decisions to be made in the relative insulation of Hilo. It is harder to look someone in the eye when you vote against his or her wishes than it is to disregard their closed-circuit presence.
Pilago described his measure's goal as "the responsible and correct thing to do. We need to do this in order to heal the divisiveness that prevails between East Hawaii and West Hawaii. We must alleviate the public's frustration and alienation, and we must be all-inclusive in the work we do."He also defused the argument about "additional expense" by offering to defray those costs with his county contingency relief funds.Sound thinking and common sense, it's called logic and is very sensible.Enter the foil, logic from an illogical perspective in the person of Donald Ikeda.Ikeda responded to Bill 268 negatively because of the inconvenience to the six East Hawaii council members who would have to travel to the west side. He also said Hilo residents wouldn't be able to participate in meetings when they are held on the west side.Nonsense.How can Ikeda say it is wrong to inconvenience Hilo residents, those who benefit from our contribution of more than 70 percent of the county's real property tax revenues, yet it is fine and dandy to inconvenience everybody in West Hawaii -- in perpetuity.Can he be so callous as to care only about travel time for East Hawaii council members? Representatives from West Hawaii have been traveling to Hilo for decades.Ikeda said, "I don't think Angel gave it much thought."No. Angel gave it plenty of thought. It's Ikeda who gave it no thought and it is this very thoughtlessness and disregard that has a lot of people in West Hawaii fed up with the mistreatment and disrespect they are handed down by Ikeda and those of like (narrow) mind.Council Chairman Stacy Higa took a far wiser approach to Bill 268, avoiding the direct shot to the foot that rang out in Ikeda's office: Higa said he will vote for the bill. His logic makes sense. While he said he disagrees with having the council meet in West Hawaii, he believes it should be up to voters to decide.Looking forward, in anticipation perhaps, we must ask: Why would voters in East Hawaii, or any other area, feel compelled to vote against allowing West Hawaii equal access to government? Would they vote against the measure if the tables were turned, if government lived in West Hawaii and rarely ventured outside?Access to government should be made more equal. We realize we pay more in taxes, but should we suffer less access to those who spend our money and decide our future? No.Pilago was correct. This single measure, if passed by the council and approved by the voters, would do much to heal the ever-increasing rift between East and West Hawaii. It would reveal that island wide, narrow-minded thinking, like that demonstrated by Ikeda, will not lead this island forward in unity, but continue to drive us apart.rflickinger@westhawaiitoday.com
Testimony on Palamanui
As citizens, we have obligations and rights. The obligations include obeying local, state and federal laws, and our rights include the expectation others will do the same. We also have a right to know our elected and appointed leaders and lawmakers will obey and enforce our laws. None of us has a right to decide, without ramifications, which laws or portions of them we will abide by and/or enforce.
So why can a developer in Hawaii County select the portions of the laws they wish to follow? Ordinance 93-45, effective May 12, 1993, required an 80 foot right of way mauka-makai road that was to be extended to Queen Kaahumanu Highway when development occurred in what is now Palamanui. This same requirement was part of Ordinance 850, effective February 15, 1983, and was restated in Ordinance 88-23, effective February 29, 1988. Yet the road required by three laws for over twenty years was never built.
Instead, we’re saddled with a substandard road not built to applicable standards per our own County officials and therefore, according to the Hawaii Supreme Court in the recently decided case of Kienker vs. Bauer and the State of Hawaii, one that leaves the residents of Hawaii County exposed to significant legal liability as a public road. The existing road was designed, constructed and designated by the County as a minor road. Per the County Code, it may be used exclusively for access to abutting property and not as the required mauka-makai connector. It should therefore not be accepted by the County as the County Code requires roads accepted by dedication meet all appropriate standards.
Using the figures presented in the March 21st edition of West Hawaii Today, the anticipated value of Palamanui at build out will be $958 million. With land costs of $4.6 million and $300 million in infrastructure, the resulting $658 million is a return on investment of over 14,200%. The $25 million estimate provided by County Planning Director Chris Yuen for an alternate mauka-makai connector represents but 3.8% of that. Guy Lam’s own estimate of $15 million is only 2.3%. Either estimate is a small price for a properly designed and constructed safe road that meets the County’s standards as legally required.
While we’re told Hiluhilu is “actively pursuing” alternatives, it is unconscionable to grant any zoning changes and/or variances as requested in Bills 224 and 225 without a firm and binding commitment to meet its existing obligations. Anything less will leave us with another high density subdivision with lots of promise and excuses why promises can’t be kept after the fact, exactly as has happened with the mauka-makai road. While Bill 225 contains a “housekeeping” component, the combined effect of the two bills relieves the developer of its obligations to build the road that meets County standards as has been legally required since 1983. This goes way beyond mere “housekeeping”.
The University is in question. The once promised hospital and golf course are gone. One acre lots have been replaced by high density lots. The required road doesn’t exist. Concurrency must start someplace. Please, make it here. Require this developer to meet its existing legal obligations to the citizens of Hawaii County.
Jerry Schneyer
So why can a developer in Hawaii County select the portions of the laws they wish to follow? Ordinance 93-45, effective May 12, 1993, required an 80 foot right of way mauka-makai road that was to be extended to Queen Kaahumanu Highway when development occurred in what is now Palamanui. This same requirement was part of Ordinance 850, effective February 15, 1983, and was restated in Ordinance 88-23, effective February 29, 1988. Yet the road required by three laws for over twenty years was never built.
Instead, we’re saddled with a substandard road not built to applicable standards per our own County officials and therefore, according to the Hawaii Supreme Court in the recently decided case of Kienker vs. Bauer and the State of Hawaii, one that leaves the residents of Hawaii County exposed to significant legal liability as a public road. The existing road was designed, constructed and designated by the County as a minor road. Per the County Code, it may be used exclusively for access to abutting property and not as the required mauka-makai connector. It should therefore not be accepted by the County as the County Code requires roads accepted by dedication meet all appropriate standards.
Using the figures presented in the March 21st edition of West Hawaii Today, the anticipated value of Palamanui at build out will be $958 million. With land costs of $4.6 million and $300 million in infrastructure, the resulting $658 million is a return on investment of over 14,200%. The $25 million estimate provided by County Planning Director Chris Yuen for an alternate mauka-makai connector represents but 3.8% of that. Guy Lam’s own estimate of $15 million is only 2.3%. Either estimate is a small price for a properly designed and constructed safe road that meets the County’s standards as legally required.
While we’re told Hiluhilu is “actively pursuing” alternatives, it is unconscionable to grant any zoning changes and/or variances as requested in Bills 224 and 225 without a firm and binding commitment to meet its existing obligations. Anything less will leave us with another high density subdivision with lots of promise and excuses why promises can’t be kept after the fact, exactly as has happened with the mauka-makai road. While Bill 225 contains a “housekeeping” component, the combined effect of the two bills relieves the developer of its obligations to build the road that meets County standards as has been legally required since 1983. This goes way beyond mere “housekeeping”.
The University is in question. The once promised hospital and golf course are gone. One acre lots have been replaced by high density lots. The required road doesn’t exist. Concurrency must start someplace. Please, make it here. Require this developer to meet its existing legal obligations to the citizens of Hawaii County.
Jerry Schneyer
UH refuses to commit to Palamanui
Kealakehe site still an option
by Bobby CommandWest Hawaii Todaybcommand@westhawaiitoday.com Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:35 AM
HSTThe developer was offering space for a college and many in the audience said a commitment from the school would make it much easier to welcome 1,000 more homes in Kona.But a representative of the University of Hawaii Wednesday night still could not formally commit to Hiluhilu Development's plans to build a turn-key first phase of a campus for West Hawaii on UH property North of Kaiminani Drive.Rockne Freitas, chancellor of Hawaii Community College, could only offer a "maybe" after being pressed by Hawaii County Councilman K. Angel Pilago for a binding commitment from the Board of Regents."Personally, I like the current site," said Freitas. "I'd like to honor the hard work of the people who made the decision (of the location for the future campus)... As a team player, it is up to the regents."That statement came despite Hiluhilu's revised plans for Palamanui, just north of Kona Palisades, which call for the development of permanent school buildings on a 500-acre site owned by the school.Representatives of the developer, a partnership of discount broker Charles Schwab and Keauhou-Kona Construction Co., made that announcement as they revealed conceptual plans Wednesday night before the council and about 70 people. The plans presented, which eliminate the golf course but feature a hotel site, also designate about 50 percent of the property as open space.Also part of the plan is a 15-acre regional park near Queen Kaahumanu Highway.In its original presentation, Hiluhilu intended on building temporary school quarters on private property that would have reverted to private ownership once the school developed its own campus.
Hiluhilu Development and UH both say they are still working together under a non-binding memorandum of understanding to develop opportunities for higher education in West Hawaii. However, the plans became much more uncertain earlier this year when the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands requested that UH build the campus at the Laiopua community in Kealakehe -- at the cost of the school.Freitas said the Hawaiian Homes proposal has not been turned down by the regents, even though the targeted property is controlled by Hawaii County for the specific purpose of a municipal golf course.When asked by Ka'u Councilman Bob Jacobson if the school would be able to build the community college if Palamanui was not built, Freitas said the obstacle to overcome is resources, and there were likely other priorities that would take precedence if money became available.The lack of resources was also confirmed by Walter Kunitake, who was the first director of the school when it opened in Kealakekua in 1987."All these years we tried to build the campus, the number one deterrent was money," said Kunitake, who played a role in the selection of the 500-acre site next to Hiluhilu's property.Lionel Kutner, a member of Community Opportunities for Education Development (COED), said he was also one of the members of the team who chose the 500-acre site for the school."We have the opportunity with the development of Hiluhilu to actualize the dream of the community," he said.But Kutner also added there were other benefits of the development, including an added source of drinking water."Here is a chance to get more water," said Kutner. "We shouldn't gloss that over."There was sizable opposition to the project Wednesday night by those who say the county needs to catch up on infrastructure before allowing a project of Palamanui's magnitude.Jake Jacobs said he had a problem with turning to the largess of a developer to provide the community health and educational opportunities. He also said he did not trust commitments by developers."I have a lot of faith in your ability to screw it up," said Jacobs, who pointed out the demographics of those who showed up at the meeting."No locals," he said. "That's Kona now."However, Curtis Tyler III, who was born and raised in Kona, said the project, while not perfect, was a wonderful opportunity if it could deliver the promised community benefits."There's not one square inch of park for all the people who live (in the area north of Palani Road)," said Tyler, who is part Hawaiian. "This community needs a regional park that they can get to without getting trapped in traffic."
by Bobby CommandWest Hawaii Todaybcommand@westhawaiitoday.com Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:35 AM
HSTThe developer was offering space for a college and many in the audience said a commitment from the school would make it much easier to welcome 1,000 more homes in Kona.But a representative of the University of Hawaii Wednesday night still could not formally commit to Hiluhilu Development's plans to build a turn-key first phase of a campus for West Hawaii on UH property North of Kaiminani Drive.Rockne Freitas, chancellor of Hawaii Community College, could only offer a "maybe" after being pressed by Hawaii County Councilman K. Angel Pilago for a binding commitment from the Board of Regents."Personally, I like the current site," said Freitas. "I'd like to honor the hard work of the people who made the decision (of the location for the future campus)... As a team player, it is up to the regents."That statement came despite Hiluhilu's revised plans for Palamanui, just north of Kona Palisades, which call for the development of permanent school buildings on a 500-acre site owned by the school.Representatives of the developer, a partnership of discount broker Charles Schwab and Keauhou-Kona Construction Co., made that announcement as they revealed conceptual plans Wednesday night before the council and about 70 people. The plans presented, which eliminate the golf course but feature a hotel site, also designate about 50 percent of the property as open space.Also part of the plan is a 15-acre regional park near Queen Kaahumanu Highway.In its original presentation, Hiluhilu intended on building temporary school quarters on private property that would have reverted to private ownership once the school developed its own campus.
Hiluhilu Development and UH both say they are still working together under a non-binding memorandum of understanding to develop opportunities for higher education in West Hawaii. However, the plans became much more uncertain earlier this year when the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands requested that UH build the campus at the Laiopua community in Kealakehe -- at the cost of the school.Freitas said the Hawaiian Homes proposal has not been turned down by the regents, even though the targeted property is controlled by Hawaii County for the specific purpose of a municipal golf course.When asked by Ka'u Councilman Bob Jacobson if the school would be able to build the community college if Palamanui was not built, Freitas said the obstacle to overcome is resources, and there were likely other priorities that would take precedence if money became available.The lack of resources was also confirmed by Walter Kunitake, who was the first director of the school when it opened in Kealakekua in 1987."All these years we tried to build the campus, the number one deterrent was money," said Kunitake, who played a role in the selection of the 500-acre site next to Hiluhilu's property.Lionel Kutner, a member of Community Opportunities for Education Development (COED), said he was also one of the members of the team who chose the 500-acre site for the school."We have the opportunity with the development of Hiluhilu to actualize the dream of the community," he said.But Kutner also added there were other benefits of the development, including an added source of drinking water."Here is a chance to get more water," said Kutner. "We shouldn't gloss that over."There was sizable opposition to the project Wednesday night by those who say the county needs to catch up on infrastructure before allowing a project of Palamanui's magnitude.Jake Jacobs said he had a problem with turning to the largess of a developer to provide the community health and educational opportunities. He also said he did not trust commitments by developers."I have a lot of faith in your ability to screw it up," said Jacobs, who pointed out the demographics of those who showed up at the meeting."No locals," he said. "That's Kona now."However, Curtis Tyler III, who was born and raised in Kona, said the project, while not perfect, was a wonderful opportunity if it could deliver the promised community benefits."There's not one square inch of park for all the people who live (in the area north of Palani Road)," said Tyler, who is part Hawaiian. "This community needs a regional park that they can get to without getting trapped in traffic."
The US Supreme Court on illegal redistricting on Hawaii
Citizens claim 2001 county redistricting illegal; Supreme Court to examine petition
by Bobby CommandWest Hawaii Todaybcommand@westhawaiitoday.com Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:48 AM HST
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to examine a claim by a local citizen's group that the 2001 redistricting of Hawaii County was illegal.Despite having no money or a qualified attorney to take the case for free, Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government, led by Kona residents Brenda Ford and Chuck Flaherty, has succeeded in the first step of having the case filed and assigned a docket number.It is the first step in a petition process that must end with a "writ of certiorari" from the Supreme Court in order for the case to be debated. The court can refuse to take the case, and in fact, receives thousands of "cert petitions" each year, denying all but about one hundred.Mark Van Pernis, chairman of the commission, had no comment about the merits of the appeal, but said the Supreme Court's action is part of a procedure that does not necessarily mean the case will be head by the justices."They control their own calendar," Van Pernis said. "It's tentative and they could toss it out later."Ford, who is not an attorney, said the county has 30 days from April 19, after which the case will be scheduled for review. Deputy Corporation Counsel Patricia O'Toole said the county will respond to the case if "cert" is granted.While even Ford admits the odds are long, Ford said she was spurred on by the Hawaii Supreme Court's 3-2 vote, in which Chief Justice Ronald T.Y. Moon was one of the dissenters."We ran out of money and no one would take the case pro bono, but we believe in the depths of our soul that we are correct about this," said Ford, who prepared all the documents accepted by the high court. "If Justice Moon (and Associate Justice Paula A. Nakayama) had not dissented, I don't think I would have gone this far."
The case centers around the organization's belief that the 2001 Redistricting Commission gerrymandered lines either to protect East Hawaii's dominance in Hawaii County politics, or to simply for the sake of convenience. Either way, Ford said the commission violated a number of legal precedents in the process.CERG said the final maps overstated the population of County Council District 2 by including nearly 900 non-residents who attended the University of Hawaii at Hilo.Ford said that made the vote of the District 2 councilman more powerful than any other district."When you force that many non-residents into District 2," said Ford, "you also force that many out, and since non-residents don't vote, there are really fewer people in the district."According to Flaherty, president of CERG, that also lessened the power of votes in the fast-growth areas of Lower Puna and North Kona, since too many residents were assigned there by the commission."As a result, the total deviation in population has grown even larger as the fast-growth areas expand in population," said Flaherty in a prepared release. "Each year, the weight of each vote has decreased relative to votes in Hilo."Ford said the commission also did not formally establish legal criteria against which to measure the legality of their plan as required by Supreme Court precedent. Ford said growth rates, socio-economic factors, the "ideal population" number of 16,423 residents in each district and compactness of the districts were ignored by the commission despite public testimony.CERG created an alternative map which they said was more fair and presented it to the commission."Given the numerous problems in Puna and West Hawaii resulting from past Hilo-dominated County Councils, Brenda Ford and I accepted the task of creating an alternative redistricting plan in 2001," said Flaherty.The CERG map, which Flaherty said gained islandwide support, gave the urban area of Kailua-Kona its own council representative. It also provided West Hawaii and Puna, the two communities suffering from growth-associated problems, with three and two council representatives, respectively.Ford, who said it took three tries and 180 pounds of paper shipped to Washington D.C. before the high court accepted her petition -- said she believes the CERG map is fair, but she said there are other fair ways to divide the population."I'm not pushing the CERG map, I'm not trying to unseat any council person and I'm not trying to overturn any legislation that has been passed," said Ford. "I'm not trying to cause havoc. I'm just trying to fix a problem."
by Bobby CommandWest Hawaii Todaybcommand@westhawaiitoday.com Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:48 AM HST
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to examine a claim by a local citizen's group that the 2001 redistricting of Hawaii County was illegal.Despite having no money or a qualified attorney to take the case for free, Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government, led by Kona residents Brenda Ford and Chuck Flaherty, has succeeded in the first step of having the case filed and assigned a docket number.It is the first step in a petition process that must end with a "writ of certiorari" from the Supreme Court in order for the case to be debated. The court can refuse to take the case, and in fact, receives thousands of "cert petitions" each year, denying all but about one hundred.Mark Van Pernis, chairman of the commission, had no comment about the merits of the appeal, but said the Supreme Court's action is part of a procedure that does not necessarily mean the case will be head by the justices."They control their own calendar," Van Pernis said. "It's tentative and they could toss it out later."Ford, who is not an attorney, said the county has 30 days from April 19, after which the case will be scheduled for review. Deputy Corporation Counsel Patricia O'Toole said the county will respond to the case if "cert" is granted.While even Ford admits the odds are long, Ford said she was spurred on by the Hawaii Supreme Court's 3-2 vote, in which Chief Justice Ronald T.Y. Moon was one of the dissenters."We ran out of money and no one would take the case pro bono, but we believe in the depths of our soul that we are correct about this," said Ford, who prepared all the documents accepted by the high court. "If Justice Moon (and Associate Justice Paula A. Nakayama) had not dissented, I don't think I would have gone this far."
The case centers around the organization's belief that the 2001 Redistricting Commission gerrymandered lines either to protect East Hawaii's dominance in Hawaii County politics, or to simply for the sake of convenience. Either way, Ford said the commission violated a number of legal precedents in the process.CERG said the final maps overstated the population of County Council District 2 by including nearly 900 non-residents who attended the University of Hawaii at Hilo.Ford said that made the vote of the District 2 councilman more powerful than any other district."When you force that many non-residents into District 2," said Ford, "you also force that many out, and since non-residents don't vote, there are really fewer people in the district."According to Flaherty, president of CERG, that also lessened the power of votes in the fast-growth areas of Lower Puna and North Kona, since too many residents were assigned there by the commission."As a result, the total deviation in population has grown even larger as the fast-growth areas expand in population," said Flaherty in a prepared release. "Each year, the weight of each vote has decreased relative to votes in Hilo."Ford said the commission also did not formally establish legal criteria against which to measure the legality of their plan as required by Supreme Court precedent. Ford said growth rates, socio-economic factors, the "ideal population" number of 16,423 residents in each district and compactness of the districts were ignored by the commission despite public testimony.CERG created an alternative map which they said was more fair and presented it to the commission."Given the numerous problems in Puna and West Hawaii resulting from past Hilo-dominated County Councils, Brenda Ford and I accepted the task of creating an alternative redistricting plan in 2001," said Flaherty.The CERG map, which Flaherty said gained islandwide support, gave the urban area of Kailua-Kona its own council representative. It also provided West Hawaii and Puna, the two communities suffering from growth-associated problems, with three and two council representatives, respectively.Ford, who said it took three tries and 180 pounds of paper shipped to Washington D.C. before the high court accepted her petition -- said she believes the CERG map is fair, but she said there are other fair ways to divide the population."I'm not pushing the CERG map, I'm not trying to unseat any council person and I'm not trying to overturn any legislation that has been passed," said Ford. "I'm not trying to cause havoc. I'm just trying to fix a problem."
Every other meeting in Kona!
Residents may vote on holding Kona meetings
by Tiffany EdwardsWest Hawaii Todaytedwards@westhawaiitoday.com Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:48 AM HSTHILO --
Big Island voters may decide if the County Council must meet in West Hawaii every other month. Residents may also be able to determine if an independent auditor of the police department should be hired.Two proposed amendments to the County Charter will be considered by council next week that, if passed, would put the issues on the ballot this November.North Kona Councilman Angel Pilago has introduced Bill 268 calling for an amendment to the County Charter to require the County Council to meet in Kona during the even numbered months.Bob Jacobson, representing Puna, Ka'u and South Kona, meanwhile, has introduced Bill 270 establishing an independent police auditor position and amending the functions of Hawaii County police commissioners so they no longer investigate charges against police officers brought forward by the public.Both bills will be heard at committee level Monday, with Jacobson's heard at 8 a.m. in the Public Safety and Parks and Recreation Committee and Pilago's heard at 9 a.m. in Finance Committee.The bills require a two-thirds majority vote in council to be placed on the November ballot. A majority of voters must approve of the amendments for them to become law.Pilago hopes council members will view his proposal to meet in Kona as often as they do in Hilo as "the responsible and correct thing to do.""We need to do this in order to heal the divisiveness that prevails between East Hawaii and West Hawaii. We must alleviate the public's frustration and alienation, and we must be all-inclusive in the work we do," he said.
Pilago said he realizes the expense of renting hotel space for meetings and having council staff travel to the west side has dissuaded his colleagues in the past."I think expenses are a non-issue," he said. "The more important priority is we begin to take the discussions out to the public for public debate and testimony."He said to satisfy council members' concerns about the expense, he will foot the bill for the six meetings on the west side through his contingency relief account.Jacobson and Council Chairman Stacy Higa, of Hilo, both said they will vote for Bill 268. Although they don't support the idea of council members meeting in Kona six times per year, they do think it should be up to the voters to decide.Donald Ikeda, of Hilo, said he won't be voting for Bill 268, not only because of the $4,000 to $5,000 expense for renting space and having staff travel, but also the inconvenience of the six East Hawaii council members who would have to travel. He noted that only three council members currently travel from West Hawaii.Also, Ikeda said Hilo residents wouldn't be able to participate in meetings when they are held on the west side. It's not feasible for council members to set up teleconferencing equipment at the hotels where they hold their meetings, in order to have the Hilo residents participate via teleconferencing, he said."I don't think Angel gave much thought to it. I think he needs think about it a little more," Ikeda said.Jacobson said his call for an independent police auditor comes, in part, at the suggestion of Paul de Silva, a retired county prosecutor and judge who quit the police commission before his term expired because he was disenchanted with the process.But Jacobson said his "main motivation" for Bill 270 came from complaints about police officers that he has received from constituents over the years and the fact that as a councilman he has been unable to "effectively deal with these complaints."He said the only oversight council members have over the police department is the approval or disapproval of their budget. The police commission, he said, sees less than half the complaints that are waged against police officers. The others are handled internally."In order to have a decent, modern police force we need to have deep oversight provided by a paid professional," Jacobson said, suggesting a judge or a trained investigator for the task rather than "part-time volunteer businessmen" that comprise the police commission."I honor the police commissioners, but they are out of their league on this," he said."The whole system allows for the corruption of good people," Jacobson said. "The system is set up so that people naturally can't testify against their partners, they can't reveal the level of corruption that they are expected to engage in on a daily basis."Jacobson maintained that those officers who do speak out against their partners are treated negatively by the department. They are either transferred to undesirable positions or positions that require a long commute, or they work in fear that they will not have the back up of their fellow officers when they needed it, he said."It's the system. It's not the individual officers. I want to avoid demonizing any particular individual. The system allows for the pattern to develop, and the only way to change this pattern is to change the system and the only way to change the system is to find out what is wrong with it," Jacobson said
by Tiffany EdwardsWest Hawaii Todaytedwards@westhawaiitoday.com Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:48 AM HSTHILO --
Big Island voters may decide if the County Council must meet in West Hawaii every other month. Residents may also be able to determine if an independent auditor of the police department should be hired.Two proposed amendments to the County Charter will be considered by council next week that, if passed, would put the issues on the ballot this November.North Kona Councilman Angel Pilago has introduced Bill 268 calling for an amendment to the County Charter to require the County Council to meet in Kona during the even numbered months.Bob Jacobson, representing Puna, Ka'u and South Kona, meanwhile, has introduced Bill 270 establishing an independent police auditor position and amending the functions of Hawaii County police commissioners so they no longer investigate charges against police officers brought forward by the public.Both bills will be heard at committee level Monday, with Jacobson's heard at 8 a.m. in the Public Safety and Parks and Recreation Committee and Pilago's heard at 9 a.m. in Finance Committee.The bills require a two-thirds majority vote in council to be placed on the November ballot. A majority of voters must approve of the amendments for them to become law.Pilago hopes council members will view his proposal to meet in Kona as often as they do in Hilo as "the responsible and correct thing to do.""We need to do this in order to heal the divisiveness that prevails between East Hawaii and West Hawaii. We must alleviate the public's frustration and alienation, and we must be all-inclusive in the work we do," he said.
Pilago said he realizes the expense of renting hotel space for meetings and having council staff travel to the west side has dissuaded his colleagues in the past."I think expenses are a non-issue," he said. "The more important priority is we begin to take the discussions out to the public for public debate and testimony."He said to satisfy council members' concerns about the expense, he will foot the bill for the six meetings on the west side through his contingency relief account.Jacobson and Council Chairman Stacy Higa, of Hilo, both said they will vote for Bill 268. Although they don't support the idea of council members meeting in Kona six times per year, they do think it should be up to the voters to decide.Donald Ikeda, of Hilo, said he won't be voting for Bill 268, not only because of the $4,000 to $5,000 expense for renting space and having staff travel, but also the inconvenience of the six East Hawaii council members who would have to travel. He noted that only three council members currently travel from West Hawaii.Also, Ikeda said Hilo residents wouldn't be able to participate in meetings when they are held on the west side. It's not feasible for council members to set up teleconferencing equipment at the hotels where they hold their meetings, in order to have the Hilo residents participate via teleconferencing, he said."I don't think Angel gave much thought to it. I think he needs think about it a little more," Ikeda said.Jacobson said his call for an independent police auditor comes, in part, at the suggestion of Paul de Silva, a retired county prosecutor and judge who quit the police commission before his term expired because he was disenchanted with the process.But Jacobson said his "main motivation" for Bill 270 came from complaints about police officers that he has received from constituents over the years and the fact that as a councilman he has been unable to "effectively deal with these complaints."He said the only oversight council members have over the police department is the approval or disapproval of their budget. The police commission, he said, sees less than half the complaints that are waged against police officers. The others are handled internally."In order to have a decent, modern police force we need to have deep oversight provided by a paid professional," Jacobson said, suggesting a judge or a trained investigator for the task rather than "part-time volunteer businessmen" that comprise the police commission."I honor the police commissioners, but they are out of their league on this," he said."The whole system allows for the corruption of good people," Jacobson said. "The system is set up so that people naturally can't testify against their partners, they can't reveal the level of corruption that they are expected to engage in on a daily basis."Jacobson maintained that those officers who do speak out against their partners are treated negatively by the department. They are either transferred to undesirable positions or positions that require a long commute, or they work in fear that they will not have the back up of their fellow officers when they needed it, he said."It's the system. It's not the individual officers. I want to avoid demonizing any particular individual. The system allows for the pattern to develop, and the only way to change this pattern is to change the system and the only way to change the system is to find out what is wrong with it," Jacobson said
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Palamanui Meeting on connector road
Aloha, all.
Please remember to attend the meeting at Kealakehe High School cafeteria at 6 PM tonight. If you can’t, make sure you send your written testimony NOW!
Our position is unchanged. We’re not opposing Palamanui, but simply demanding our laws be followed. We’ve recently discovered Ordinance 93-45 is not the first one requiring the 80 foot mauka-makai connector road that was never built. It was originally required by Ordinance 850, effective 2/15/1983, and was restated in Ordinance 88-23, effective 2/29/88. And now with Bills 224 and 225, to be discussed tonight, our planning director wishes to remove the requirements for the road and make the substandard Makalei Drive the connector. According to the recent decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the case of Kienker vs. Bauer and the State of Hawaii, that potentially exposes the residents of Hawaii County to substantial legal liability.
We know the developer is marshalling support for his position. We need your help. Please, attend this meeting and make your position, whatever it is, known. Do any of us, residents of Makalei or others, really want another substandard, dangerous road with substantial legal exposure when the law already requires the developer to provide a safe, properly designed road?
Mahalo.
Jerry Schneyer
Please remember to attend the meeting at Kealakehe High School cafeteria at 6 PM tonight. If you can’t, make sure you send your written testimony NOW!
Our position is unchanged. We’re not opposing Palamanui, but simply demanding our laws be followed. We’ve recently discovered Ordinance 93-45 is not the first one requiring the 80 foot mauka-makai connector road that was never built. It was originally required by Ordinance 850, effective 2/15/1983, and was restated in Ordinance 88-23, effective 2/29/88. And now with Bills 224 and 225, to be discussed tonight, our planning director wishes to remove the requirements for the road and make the substandard Makalei Drive the connector. According to the recent decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the case of Kienker vs. Bauer and the State of Hawaii, that potentially exposes the residents of Hawaii County to substantial legal liability.
We know the developer is marshalling support for his position. We need your help. Please, attend this meeting and make your position, whatever it is, known. Do any of us, residents of Makalei or others, really want another substandard, dangerous road with substantial legal exposure when the law already requires the developer to provide a safe, properly designed road?
Mahalo.
Jerry Schneyer
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Aaron Stene responds to the Roads
Rory Flynn, a former legislative auditor for the County of Hawaii, had a letter to the editor in WHT in response to Henry Scroggin's letter on April 10,2006.
Mr. Flynn why are you trying to defend the Democrats ? Thats what it appeared you tried to do by posting all the funded projects this year for the Big Island in your letter to the editor.Yes the State is finally addressing the infrastructure woes in West Hawaii (and the Big Island).
But where is the county ? In the past 6 years the county built two new roads in Hilo, Puainako Extension and Mohouli Street Extension.But in Kona no new roads have been built by the county. In short the both the state and county acted with malfeasance in approving all these developments in Kona without adequate infrastructure.
I've lived here my entire life, and seen how both the county and state put the needs of developers over the citizens of this island.That practice needs to stop now.
--
Aaron Stene
Mr. Flynn why are you trying to defend the Democrats ? Thats what it appeared you tried to do by posting all the funded projects this year for the Big Island in your letter to the editor.Yes the State is finally addressing the infrastructure woes in West Hawaii (and the Big Island).
But where is the county ? In the past 6 years the county built two new roads in Hilo, Puainako Extension and Mohouli Street Extension.But in Kona no new roads have been built by the county. In short the both the state and county acted with malfeasance in approving all these developments in Kona without adequate infrastructure.
I've lived here my entire life, and seen how both the county and state put the needs of developers over the citizens of this island.That practice needs to stop now.
--
Aaron Stene
Saturday, April 22, 2006
US Supreme Court accepting appeal in redistricing Hawaii
Saturday, April 22, 2006
HSC CERG Redistricting Ruling Appeal Accepted By USSC
I received this very interesting e-mail today in regards to the US Supreme Court accepting CERG's appeal of the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling on CERG's redistricting lawsuit.Hawai’i Supreme Court Redistricting Ruling Appealed to U.S. Supreme CourtCitizens for Equitable and Responsible Government (“CERG”) announced today that an appeal of the legal complaints against the County of Hawai’i and the 2001 Reapportionment Commission (“Commission”) was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court (“USSC”) and assigned a docket number on April 19, 2006. The County has 30 days from that date in which to respond, and then a date will be scheduled for case review by the USSC Justices. Charles Flaherty, President of CERG, stated, “Given the numerous problems in Puna and West Hawai’i resulting from past Hilo-dominated County Councils, Brenda Ford and I accepted the task of creating an alternative redistricting plan in 2001. “The CERG map” quickly developed island-wide support. The CERG map gave the urban area of Kailua-Kona its own council representative. It also provided West Hawai’i and Puna, the two island communities suffering most from mindless growth, with 3 and 2 council representatives, respectively. The 2000 census had proven that these areas had the majority of the island’s resident population. But the Commission gerrymandered their map to give Hilo another ten years of control over one more council district than it deserved, violating several legal requirements in the process. “ “The CERG map enabled citizens of this county to readily understand the illegalities of the Commission’s redistricting plan, which is why over 150 citizens chose to donate their hard-earned money to have the county Commission redistricting plan declared illegal. Thanks to Mrs. Ford’s remarkable last minute efforts, the USSC will have an opportunity to evaluate the actions of the 2001 Reapportionment Commission and possibly provide equal representation on the county council for all island residents.” Ms. Ford stated, “Because I have no legal training, it took three tries and over 180 pounds of documents mailed to the U. S. Supreme Court to meet their very strict format requirements. I hope that I explained the legal arguments well enough and that the petition is sufficiently supported with case law from prior USSC decisions for the USSC to overturn the State’s ruling. My appeal was motivated by the minority opinion of Hawai’i Supreme Court (“HSC”) Justices Moon and Nakayama, who wrote in their two dissents:‘Because no authorized public policy justifies the erosion of equal representation that the current [RC’s] plan engenders, the plan fails the constitutional test set forth in Brown v. Thomson and Mahan v. Howell...’ (7-22-05), and ‘The right of equal representation is far too hard-won a liberty for its erosion to be justified so blithely…’ (9-22-05). “ CERG would like to acknowledge former 2001 Commission vice-chair Mark Van Pernis’ recent excellent viewpoint (WHT, 4/15/06). He stated West Hawai’i and Puna have sufficient resident populations to determine who is mayor, but excluded his significant role in providing Hilo with one more council representative than its population deserved. Mr. Van Pernis created the nine initial maps considered by the Commission. In addition, he provided the Commission with severely understated non-resident population information that caused the Commission to erroneously include non-residents in the total redistricting population base. Since 93% of non-residents lived in Hilo, inclusion of non-residents allowed the Commission to give Hilo one more council district than its legal resident population deserved. The HSC agreed with CERG that the Commission erred by including non-residents. Removal of non-residents caused the Commission’s plan to exceed total deviation limits set by numerous prior USSC decisions, but the HSC allowed the Commission’s plan to stand, setting the stage for Mrs. Ford’s current appeal. BackgroundOn December 18, 2001, the Commission voted to pass a redistricting plan that included non-residents in the total population. 93% of these non-residents were located in Hilo District 2 and included non-resident military plus their dependents and non-resident students. 234 of the non-resident students were foreign nationals. Originally, two redistricting cases were filed: CERG et al and Holzman et al versus the County of Hawai’i Reapportionment Commission. These two cases have already cost the citizens of this county over $100,000. The redistricting case with CERG as the lead plaintiff lost in the Third District Court (Hilo) and in the Hawai’i Supreme Court (3-2 decision). CERG and the other original plaintiffs could not find an attorney licensed to practice before the USSC who would take the case for free (pro bono). However, individually-named plaintiff, Brenda Ford, chose to file a pro se (without an attorney) appeal of the case to the USSC on her own.The HSC subsequently found the inclusion of non-residents to be illegal, creating a plan deviation that exceeded the 10% limit imposed by numerous USSC decisions. As a result, 89% of Hawai’i County residents were stripped of their right to equal representation on the County Council. In addition, the Commission did not formally establish legal criteria against which to measure the legality of their plan as required by USSC precedents. Although the Commissioners voted to include the non-residents, that vote was proven in court to be incorrect and should have invalidated their plan. The criteria that should have been used included growth rates, socio-economic factors, the “ideal population” number of 16,423 residents in each district, compactness of the districts, etc. All of these potential criteria were ignored by the Commission despite public testimony that such criteria had been established by USSC cases for more than forty years.The Commission’s plan assigned the slow-growth area of Hilo’s District 2 the fewest number of residents. The fast-growth areas of Lower Puna and North Kona were assigned too many residents by the Commission. As a result, the total deviation in population has grown even larger as the fast-growth areas expand in population. Each year, the weight of each vote in Puna, North Kona, and all areas outside Hilo has decreased relative to votes in Hilo. The Commission also stripped Upper Puna of its legal right to its own Council District justified by its population by continuing to fracture (split) Upper Puna into District 3 and District 6. This prevented Puna from having the two council districts it deserves. Interestingly, the Commission had three licensed attorneys as Commissioners. The County Clerk at the time was also a licensed attorney. These four attorneys and Corporation Counsel (the County’s attorneys) all provided “legal counsel” to the Commission in their respective testimonies. Unfortunately, their legal counsel was consistently wrong. In addition to the incorrect legal counsel, many residents testifying before the Commission were treated with contempt and disrespect; most of the public were treated as “hostile witnesses” by Commissioner Van Pernis. Public testimony on the legal requirements for redistricting and recommendations to set appropriate criteria was disregarded by the Commission.The total deviation in population between districts is mandated by USSC case law to not exceed ten percent (10%). Although the Commission was repeatedly warned by members of CERG that their plan would exceed the legal limit of 10% due to inclusion of the non-residents, the Commission approved their proposed plan without knowing the legal, total deviation. Once the HSC ruled that the inclusion of non-residents was incorrect, the deviation officially became 10.89%, which exceeded the 10% standard. Nevertheless, the HSC allowed the Commission’s plan to stand. After thousands of dollars spent and the HSC agreeing that the inclusion of non-residents was wrong, the Plaintiffs trying to get a fair and equal vote in Hawai’i County lost a second time in the Courts that should have protected our voting rights.Financially exhausted, the original plaintiffs made several unsuccessful attempts to find a voting-rights law firm that could handle the case pro bono (free). Ms. Ford then took it upon herself to carry the legal complaints forward to the USSC without formal legal counsel.
Thanks to Aaron Stene for this information.
HSC CERG Redistricting Ruling Appeal Accepted By USSC
I received this very interesting e-mail today in regards to the US Supreme Court accepting CERG's appeal of the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling on CERG's redistricting lawsuit.Hawai’i Supreme Court Redistricting Ruling Appealed to U.S. Supreme CourtCitizens for Equitable and Responsible Government (“CERG”) announced today that an appeal of the legal complaints against the County of Hawai’i and the 2001 Reapportionment Commission (“Commission”) was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court (“USSC”) and assigned a docket number on April 19, 2006. The County has 30 days from that date in which to respond, and then a date will be scheduled for case review by the USSC Justices. Charles Flaherty, President of CERG, stated, “Given the numerous problems in Puna and West Hawai’i resulting from past Hilo-dominated County Councils, Brenda Ford and I accepted the task of creating an alternative redistricting plan in 2001. “The CERG map” quickly developed island-wide support. The CERG map gave the urban area of Kailua-Kona its own council representative. It also provided West Hawai’i and Puna, the two island communities suffering most from mindless growth, with 3 and 2 council representatives, respectively. The 2000 census had proven that these areas had the majority of the island’s resident population. But the Commission gerrymandered their map to give Hilo another ten years of control over one more council district than it deserved, violating several legal requirements in the process. “ “The CERG map enabled citizens of this county to readily understand the illegalities of the Commission’s redistricting plan, which is why over 150 citizens chose to donate their hard-earned money to have the county Commission redistricting plan declared illegal. Thanks to Mrs. Ford’s remarkable last minute efforts, the USSC will have an opportunity to evaluate the actions of the 2001 Reapportionment Commission and possibly provide equal representation on the county council for all island residents.” Ms. Ford stated, “Because I have no legal training, it took three tries and over 180 pounds of documents mailed to the U. S. Supreme Court to meet their very strict format requirements. I hope that I explained the legal arguments well enough and that the petition is sufficiently supported with case law from prior USSC decisions for the USSC to overturn the State’s ruling. My appeal was motivated by the minority opinion of Hawai’i Supreme Court (“HSC”) Justices Moon and Nakayama, who wrote in their two dissents:‘Because no authorized public policy justifies the erosion of equal representation that the current [RC’s] plan engenders, the plan fails the constitutional test set forth in Brown v. Thomson and Mahan v. Howell...’ (7-22-05), and ‘The right of equal representation is far too hard-won a liberty for its erosion to be justified so blithely…’ (9-22-05). “ CERG would like to acknowledge former 2001 Commission vice-chair Mark Van Pernis’ recent excellent viewpoint (WHT, 4/15/06). He stated West Hawai’i and Puna have sufficient resident populations to determine who is mayor, but excluded his significant role in providing Hilo with one more council representative than its population deserved. Mr. Van Pernis created the nine initial maps considered by the Commission. In addition, he provided the Commission with severely understated non-resident population information that caused the Commission to erroneously include non-residents in the total redistricting population base. Since 93% of non-residents lived in Hilo, inclusion of non-residents allowed the Commission to give Hilo one more council district than its legal resident population deserved. The HSC agreed with CERG that the Commission erred by including non-residents. Removal of non-residents caused the Commission’s plan to exceed total deviation limits set by numerous prior USSC decisions, but the HSC allowed the Commission’s plan to stand, setting the stage for Mrs. Ford’s current appeal. BackgroundOn December 18, 2001, the Commission voted to pass a redistricting plan that included non-residents in the total population. 93% of these non-residents were located in Hilo District 2 and included non-resident military plus their dependents and non-resident students. 234 of the non-resident students were foreign nationals. Originally, two redistricting cases were filed: CERG et al and Holzman et al versus the County of Hawai’i Reapportionment Commission. These two cases have already cost the citizens of this county over $100,000. The redistricting case with CERG as the lead plaintiff lost in the Third District Court (Hilo) and in the Hawai’i Supreme Court (3-2 decision). CERG and the other original plaintiffs could not find an attorney licensed to practice before the USSC who would take the case for free (pro bono). However, individually-named plaintiff, Brenda Ford, chose to file a pro se (without an attorney) appeal of the case to the USSC on her own.The HSC subsequently found the inclusion of non-residents to be illegal, creating a plan deviation that exceeded the 10% limit imposed by numerous USSC decisions. As a result, 89% of Hawai’i County residents were stripped of their right to equal representation on the County Council. In addition, the Commission did not formally establish legal criteria against which to measure the legality of their plan as required by USSC precedents. Although the Commissioners voted to include the non-residents, that vote was proven in court to be incorrect and should have invalidated their plan. The criteria that should have been used included growth rates, socio-economic factors, the “ideal population” number of 16,423 residents in each district, compactness of the districts, etc. All of these potential criteria were ignored by the Commission despite public testimony that such criteria had been established by USSC cases for more than forty years.The Commission’s plan assigned the slow-growth area of Hilo’s District 2 the fewest number of residents. The fast-growth areas of Lower Puna and North Kona were assigned too many residents by the Commission. As a result, the total deviation in population has grown even larger as the fast-growth areas expand in population. Each year, the weight of each vote in Puna, North Kona, and all areas outside Hilo has decreased relative to votes in Hilo. The Commission also stripped Upper Puna of its legal right to its own Council District justified by its population by continuing to fracture (split) Upper Puna into District 3 and District 6. This prevented Puna from having the two council districts it deserves. Interestingly, the Commission had three licensed attorneys as Commissioners. The County Clerk at the time was also a licensed attorney. These four attorneys and Corporation Counsel (the County’s attorneys) all provided “legal counsel” to the Commission in their respective testimonies. Unfortunately, their legal counsel was consistently wrong. In addition to the incorrect legal counsel, many residents testifying before the Commission were treated with contempt and disrespect; most of the public were treated as “hostile witnesses” by Commissioner Van Pernis. Public testimony on the legal requirements for redistricting and recommendations to set appropriate criteria was disregarded by the Commission.The total deviation in population between districts is mandated by USSC case law to not exceed ten percent (10%). Although the Commission was repeatedly warned by members of CERG that their plan would exceed the legal limit of 10% due to inclusion of the non-residents, the Commission approved their proposed plan without knowing the legal, total deviation. Once the HSC ruled that the inclusion of non-residents was incorrect, the deviation officially became 10.89%, which exceeded the 10% standard. Nevertheless, the HSC allowed the Commission’s plan to stand. After thousands of dollars spent and the HSC agreeing that the inclusion of non-residents was wrong, the Plaintiffs trying to get a fair and equal vote in Hawai’i County lost a second time in the Courts that should have protected our voting rights.Financially exhausted, the original plaintiffs made several unsuccessful attempts to find a voting-rights law firm that could handle the case pro bono (free). Ms. Ford then took it upon herself to carry the legal complaints forward to the USSC without formal legal counsel.
Thanks to Aaron Stene for this information.
Friday, April 21, 2006
What is the Big Island's future?
Like everyone else!
We immigrated to Kona in 1988. We all came here for a better life for ourselves and our families.
But what happened:
Kona was a sleepy little town with only a Longs drug store and Pay Less.
Everything else you needed was in Hilo. It was a whole day ordeal to drive over and shop and get back.
Soon the Kona Coast exploded. We got Kmart, Wal-Mart, Costco, Home Depot and Lowes, eieio….. America got tired of the cold weather and rushed to Hawaii.
The growth was so fast and furious that we forgot to plan (how we are going to grow?).
We spent millions and millions of dollars over the years, just studying everything. But nothing was happening. Remember the Kailua to Keauhou Plan the 25 year plan. That went out the window. We didn’t build or require any connector roads. We didn’t build or require infrastructure.
What was happening? Where was the Government?
I didn’t catch on right away.
I found out back in 1991 when I was approached to help find funding for the Tot Park at the old airport. I was sent to Hilo to see what parks were in Kona and how we could get some monies to go toward a tot park. I was told that Kona has parks and there is no funding available. So I asked where are Kona’s parks? And he looked down and said right HERE. Look! So I read Palani Road. I am thinking real hard where is a park on Palani Road? Finally it hits me. The four foot medium strip down Palani Road was our park.
I was shocked. Right then I knew this island is too large to be governed from 100 miles away.
We stilled Loved Kona and wanted to raise our kids here.
When Hawaii became a state back in 1959 there weren’t 80,000 people on the west side of the island. The shear numbers of people on this island should warrant separate cities. Each City should be addressing their own needs. To have a County Council meeting that is 100 miles away is unfair. And to discuss and make decisions about us when the meeting is 100 miles away is really unfair.
Our system of a County councilmember for each district was good on a smaller scale, but now it is too large to be effective. The needs of Kohala are totally different then the needs of Pahoa.
Aren’t they all voting and making decisions for all of us too? So how can we have confidence if we don’t vote them all in? What is fair? What is our plan for the future? What is going to happen to the Big Island in 5 or 10 years from now?
The first step is the Raise the public awareness. If you don’t register and vote then you have nothing to complain about.
The second step is to bring to the State Legislature a bill to change the process of Government in Hawaii and Allow for Cities to be created. All of the Islands would be interested in voting on this one. They too have the same County “too big to handle” issues.
The third step is to find really good, motivated candidates around the island. They need to be focused on the needs of the people. They need to find out what was done and take the ball and continue running with it. If they don’t have education or experience then they should skip this job. A Councilman in Hawaii is paid approx. $40,000 plus expenses. We are looking for a Few Good Men and Women!
It’s a two year job with a possible future in line for Mayor, etc..
The candidates have to have thick skin and a good heart. Come on down!
TV Interview for Na Leo O Hawaii for Susan McGeachy 4/22/06
We immigrated to Kona in 1988. We all came here for a better life for ourselves and our families.
But what happened:
Kona was a sleepy little town with only a Longs drug store and Pay Less.
Everything else you needed was in Hilo. It was a whole day ordeal to drive over and shop and get back.
Soon the Kona Coast exploded. We got Kmart, Wal-Mart, Costco, Home Depot and Lowes, eieio….. America got tired of the cold weather and rushed to Hawaii.
The growth was so fast and furious that we forgot to plan (how we are going to grow?).
We spent millions and millions of dollars over the years, just studying everything. But nothing was happening. Remember the Kailua to Keauhou Plan the 25 year plan. That went out the window. We didn’t build or require any connector roads. We didn’t build or require infrastructure.
What was happening? Where was the Government?
I didn’t catch on right away.
I found out back in 1991 when I was approached to help find funding for the Tot Park at the old airport. I was sent to Hilo to see what parks were in Kona and how we could get some monies to go toward a tot park. I was told that Kona has parks and there is no funding available. So I asked where are Kona’s parks? And he looked down and said right HERE. Look! So I read Palani Road. I am thinking real hard where is a park on Palani Road? Finally it hits me. The four foot medium strip down Palani Road was our park.
I was shocked. Right then I knew this island is too large to be governed from 100 miles away.
We stilled Loved Kona and wanted to raise our kids here.
When Hawaii became a state back in 1959 there weren’t 80,000 people on the west side of the island. The shear numbers of people on this island should warrant separate cities. Each City should be addressing their own needs. To have a County Council meeting that is 100 miles away is unfair. And to discuss and make decisions about us when the meeting is 100 miles away is really unfair.
Our system of a County councilmember for each district was good on a smaller scale, but now it is too large to be effective. The needs of Kohala are totally different then the needs of Pahoa.
Aren’t they all voting and making decisions for all of us too? So how can we have confidence if we don’t vote them all in? What is fair? What is our plan for the future? What is going to happen to the Big Island in 5 or 10 years from now?
The first step is the Raise the public awareness. If you don’t register and vote then you have nothing to complain about.
The second step is to bring to the State Legislature a bill to change the process of Government in Hawaii and Allow for Cities to be created. All of the Islands would be interested in voting on this one. They too have the same County “too big to handle” issues.
The third step is to find really good, motivated candidates around the island. They need to be focused on the needs of the people. They need to find out what was done and take the ball and continue running with it. If they don’t have education or experience then they should skip this job. A Councilman in Hawaii is paid approx. $40,000 plus expenses. We are looking for a Few Good Men and Women!
It’s a two year job with a possible future in line for Mayor, etc..
The candidates have to have thick skin and a good heart. Come on down!
TV Interview for Na Leo O Hawaii for Susan McGeachy 4/22/06
Testify or Take the Development!
HAWAI‘I COUNTY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: Wednesday, April 26, 2006
PLACE: Kealakehe High School Cafeteria
74-5000 Puohulihuli Street
Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
Pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §92-7, notice is hereby given that the Hawai‘i County Council’s Committee on Planning will be holding a public hearing in order to hear testimony from the public regarding
Bill 224 (Comm. 687), which amends Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map) Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai‘i County Code, by changing the District Classification from Agricultural (A-3a) and Open (O) to Project District (PD) at Kau, North Kona, Hawai‘i, covered by Tax Map Key 7-2-5:1 (Applicant: Hiluhilu Development, LLC); and Bill 225 (Comm. 688), which amends Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map),
Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai‘i County Code relating to modifications of the conditions of Ordinance No. 93-45, and further amending the ordinance by deleting Tax Map Key 7-2-5:1; the remaining area of 273.82 acres is retained as Agricultural (A-3a) at Kau, North Kona, Hawai‘i, covered by Tax Map
Key 7-2-15:1-43, 46-86; (Planning Director Initiated) (Area: Approximately 725.2 acres).
Bill 224 would allow the development of approximately 590 single-family residential units on approximately 247 acres; approximately 255 multiple-family residential units on approximately 18 acres; area for village and community commercial uses such as village retail and services, village in residential mix use and industrial mix use on 102 acres; an 18-hole golf course on approximately 180 acres; active and passive parks (Open, Park and Preservation) on approximately 177.8 acres, a trail system, and a minimum of 100 affordable housing units
on-site, 50 for rent and 50 for sale.
Bill 225 deletes the land owned by Hiluhilu from Ordinance No. 93-45. Makalei Estates Subdivision would then be the only area covered under Ordinance 93-45 and conditions that would no longer apply would be deleted. Some of the deleted conditions, particularly with regard to the construction of certain roadways, are included in
Bill 224.
The meeting place is accessible for persons with disabilities. Persons who need special accommodations to attend this meeting should call 961-8245 by April 24, 2005. Persons using TDDs may call 961-8521.
Copies of this notice and bill are posted and filed at the County Clerks Office, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo; the Office of the Mayor, 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103; Kailua-Kona; and the Kona Councilmembers’ Office, Kailua Trade Center, 75-5706 Hanama Place, Suite 109, Kailua-Kona.
Note: Videoconferencing is not available for this meeting.
Those persons wishing to testify in person must register with the County Clerk’s staff. Those testifying in person and submitting written testimony at the meeting should bring sixteen copies of the testimony for distribution at the meeting. Those persons unable to testify in person may submit testimony 1) by mail to the County Clerk’s Office in Hilo at the above address; 2) by facsimile to (808) 961-8912; or 3) by e-mail to counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us. Copies will be made and distributed at the meeting when transmitted in a timely manner. In any case, both oral and written testimony will be made a part of the public record.
Notice to Lobbyists: If you are a lobbyist, you must register with the Hawai‘i County Clerk within five days of becoming a lobbyist {Article 15, Section 2-91.3(b), Hawai‘i County Code}. A lobbyist means “any individual engaged for pay or other consideration who spends more than five hours in any month or $275 in any six-month period for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials.” {Article 15, Section 2‑91.3(a)(6), Hawai‘i County Code} Registration forms and expenditure report documents are available at the Office of the County Clerk-Council,
25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720.
Published: Hawai‘i Tribune Herald and West Hawai‘i Today - April 23, 2006
K. Angel Pilago, Chair
Planning Committee
Dated: April 19, 2006
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: Wednesday, April 26, 2006
PLACE: Kealakehe High School Cafeteria
74-5000 Puohulihuli Street
Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
Pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §92-7, notice is hereby given that the Hawai‘i County Council’s Committee on Planning will be holding a public hearing in order to hear testimony from the public regarding
Bill 224 (Comm. 687), which amends Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map) Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai‘i County Code, by changing the District Classification from Agricultural (A-3a) and Open (O) to Project District (PD) at Kau, North Kona, Hawai‘i, covered by Tax Map Key 7-2-5:1 (Applicant: Hiluhilu Development, LLC); and Bill 225 (Comm. 688), which amends Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map),
Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai‘i County Code relating to modifications of the conditions of Ordinance No. 93-45, and further amending the ordinance by deleting Tax Map Key 7-2-5:1; the remaining area of 273.82 acres is retained as Agricultural (A-3a) at Kau, North Kona, Hawai‘i, covered by Tax Map
Key 7-2-15:1-43, 46-86; (Planning Director Initiated) (Area: Approximately 725.2 acres).
Bill 224 would allow the development of approximately 590 single-family residential units on approximately 247 acres; approximately 255 multiple-family residential units on approximately 18 acres; area for village and community commercial uses such as village retail and services, village in residential mix use and industrial mix use on 102 acres; an 18-hole golf course on approximately 180 acres; active and passive parks (Open, Park and Preservation) on approximately 177.8 acres, a trail system, and a minimum of 100 affordable housing units
on-site, 50 for rent and 50 for sale.
Bill 225 deletes the land owned by Hiluhilu from Ordinance No. 93-45. Makalei Estates Subdivision would then be the only area covered under Ordinance 93-45 and conditions that would no longer apply would be deleted. Some of the deleted conditions, particularly with regard to the construction of certain roadways, are included in
Bill 224.
The meeting place is accessible for persons with disabilities. Persons who need special accommodations to attend this meeting should call 961-8245 by April 24, 2005. Persons using TDDs may call 961-8521.
Copies of this notice and bill are posted and filed at the County Clerks Office, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo; the Office of the Mayor, 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103; Kailua-Kona; and the Kona Councilmembers’ Office, Kailua Trade Center, 75-5706 Hanama Place, Suite 109, Kailua-Kona.
Note: Videoconferencing is not available for this meeting.
Those persons wishing to testify in person must register with the County Clerk’s staff. Those testifying in person and submitting written testimony at the meeting should bring sixteen copies of the testimony for distribution at the meeting. Those persons unable to testify in person may submit testimony 1) by mail to the County Clerk’s Office in Hilo at the above address; 2) by facsimile to (808) 961-8912; or 3) by e-mail to counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us. Copies will be made and distributed at the meeting when transmitted in a timely manner. In any case, both oral and written testimony will be made a part of the public record.
Notice to Lobbyists: If you are a lobbyist, you must register with the Hawai‘i County Clerk within five days of becoming a lobbyist {Article 15, Section 2-91.3(b), Hawai‘i County Code}. A lobbyist means “any individual engaged for pay or other consideration who spends more than five hours in any month or $275 in any six-month period for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials.” {Article 15, Section 2‑91.3(a)(6), Hawai‘i County Code} Registration forms and expenditure report documents are available at the Office of the County Clerk-Council,
25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720.
Published: Hawai‘i Tribune Herald and West Hawai‘i Today - April 23, 2006
K. Angel Pilago, Chair
Planning Committee
Dated: April 19, 2006
Comments on Voters Registration
Susan: The population of the Big Island is 162,971 as of 2004. According to Census estimates, 26.1 are under the age of 18. So the adjusted vote count is 162,971(.739) = 120,436. Nationally, about 3 percent of the population is "mentally retarded," with one of the consequences that they normally don't vote. If we adjust 120,436 accordingly, we come out with 116,823. Wikipedia claims the estimated population of Hawaii is 1.27 million, with a resident pop of 1 million, or 78 percent. Honolulu certainly has more military and college kids than the Big Island, so for the sake of discussion, let's cut the 22 percent non resident adjustment in half to 11 percent. Now let's adjust 116,823 by 89 percent and we get 103,972. For the sake of argument, let's round the number to 100,000 to account for those who are too feeble, unstable or refuse to vote becasue of religious beliefs. That leaves essentally 12 percent of the population that is not registered, as opposed to about 30 percent of the people who registered but didn't vote. So I would suggest that registration is not as important as getting people to the polls to vote. How? I propose that we pay $10 to everyone who votes, which would mean about $1 million at most, a lot of money, but certainly a drop in the bucket when compared to a $317 million budget. If that is unacceptable, how about a $25 state tax credit for those who vote. We should also have mobile voting vans going to such places as the resorts and shopping centers to get those who would otherwise not go to the polls. Bobby
Susan: Please remember that in 2004 all your County officials were elected in the Primary in September. No one voted for County officials in November. You must urge people to vote in the primary if they wish to make a difference in County politics. November is too late unless there's a run-off. Your flyer is mis-leading.
Pete Hoffmann
Aloha Susan:You might remind people that it is important to vote during the primary -many things can be decided before the actual election. Paul Kaminski
Susan: Please remember that in 2004 all your County officials were elected in the Primary in September. No one voted for County officials in November. You must urge people to vote in the primary if they wish to make a difference in County politics. November is too late unless there's a run-off. Your flyer is mis-leading.
Pete Hoffmann
Aloha Susan:You might remind people that it is important to vote during the primary -many things can be decided before the actual election. Paul Kaminski
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Voters Can Make a HUGE Difference
Is Voter Registration IMPORTANT?
You tell me!
IN NOVEMBER WE WILL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO
VOTE FOR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
All of Hawaii County 87, 812 Registered Voters for 2004
57,994 Votes cast 66% voted
District 1 12,158 Reg. Voters 8,065 Votes cast 66.3%
District 2 12,721 Reg. Voters 8,216 Votes cast 64.6%
District 3 13,037 Reg. Voters 9,317 Votes cast 71.5%
District 4 11,864 Reg. Voters 7,724 Votes cast 65.1%
District 5 12,307 Reg. Voters 7,949 Votes cast 64.6%
District 6 13,051 Reg. Voters 8,280 Votes cast 63.4%
District 7 12,674 Reg. Voters 8,443 Votes cast 66.6%
Per the 2004 Data Book by the County of Hawaii: Table 8.6
Registered Voters and Votes Cast in General Election,
Hawaii County, by Representative Districts
Can we make any changes if we don’t register or vote?
What can be done?
Come to the “Citizen’s for Better Government” Meeting April 24th Mon 5:30-7:30 Kealakehe High School Cafeteria
http://hawaiicountyissues.blogspot.com or mcgeachy@hawaii.rr.com
You tell me!
IN NOVEMBER WE WILL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO
VOTE FOR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
All of Hawaii County 87, 812 Registered Voters for 2004
57,994 Votes cast 66% voted
District 1 12,158 Reg. Voters 8,065 Votes cast 66.3%
District 2 12,721 Reg. Voters 8,216 Votes cast 64.6%
District 3 13,037 Reg. Voters 9,317 Votes cast 71.5%
District 4 11,864 Reg. Voters 7,724 Votes cast 65.1%
District 5 12,307 Reg. Voters 7,949 Votes cast 64.6%
District 6 13,051 Reg. Voters 8,280 Votes cast 63.4%
District 7 12,674 Reg. Voters 8,443 Votes cast 66.6%
Per the 2004 Data Book by the County of Hawaii: Table 8.6
Registered Voters and Votes Cast in General Election,
Hawaii County, by Representative Districts
Can we make any changes if we don’t register or vote?
What can be done?
Come to the “Citizen’s for Better Government” Meeting April 24th Mon 5:30-7:30 Kealakehe High School Cafeteria
http://hawaiicountyissues.blogspot.com or mcgeachy@hawaii.rr.com
Friday, April 14, 2006
Next Meeting April 24th 5:-30-7:30 Kealakehe High
CITIZENS FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT
Come take part in your Community
APRIL 24TH Monday 5:30-7:30PM
KEALAKEHE HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA
HTTP://HAWAIICOUNTYISSUES.BLOGSPOT.COM
MCGEACHY@HAWAII.RR.COM
Hosted by: Susan McGeachy
Gentlemen Start your engines. We are getting ready for our next meeting.
See you there.
Aloha, Susan
Come take part in your Community
APRIL 24TH Monday 5:30-7:30PM
KEALAKEHE HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA
HTTP://HAWAIICOUNTYISSUES.BLOGSPOT.COM
MCGEACHY@HAWAII.RR.COM
Hosted by: Susan McGeachy
Gentlemen Start your engines. We are getting ready for our next meeting.
See you there.
Aloha, Susan
Thursday, April 13, 2006
County Water adding on to Coastview costs?
Mr. Milton Pavao
Manager
Department of Water Supply
345 Kekuanao’a St., #200
Hilo, HI 96720
April 12, 2006
Dear Mr. Pavao:
I am writing to you regarding the Kona Coastview/Wonderview Subdivisions Improvement District. My concern is the additional cost that has been added to the water system by County planners for present and future subdivision interconnections and that these additional costs are being passed on to the 437 assessed owners of Coastview/Wonderview.
During the construction phase of the water system I witnessed the installation of a large main pipeline running from Ahikawa Street in Coastview along Nana Street and connecting to the Ashikawa subdivision off Holo Holo Street in Palisades. This line is many times larger that needed to service the one house at the end of Nana Street. When this matter was brought to the attention of Shari Komata, DWS, she replied to Susan McGeachy:
“Dear Mrs. McGeachy,The Department may interconnect waterlines where it is possible so that wemay provide better water service to our customers, especially in times wherewe may need to shut-off water to do repairs. By interconnecting thewaterlines it allows the Department to continue to service an area withoutinterruption and/or cause minimal disruption to a particular water system. Other subdivisions that will be connected to the Kona Coastview/WonderviewWater System Improvements are subdivisions already established with countywater and the connections will enhance water service to all subdivisions.As for Mr. Ashikawa's subdivision, we will be connecting to his subdivisionwith this project; however, he is already being serviced from the PalisadesSubdivision as he has paid for his own infrastructure and applicable fees.Sincerely,Shari KomataDepartment of Water Supply”
While I agree that the interconnections make sense from a redundancy and maintenance standpoint I most certainly do not agree that the Coastview/Wonderview residents should pay for the costs of these interconnections. As far as I know, the plans for these interconnections were never discussed with the Coastview/Wonderview residents. I am aware of the interconnection that runs along Nana Street but I now question how many more exist and what was the additional cost to the system. What would have been a one or two inch pipe to serve a house or two on a side street has been increased to a six or eight inch main plus the valve. These additions, at the request of DWS, were added to the system without consultation and approval of the owners of the system and those owners should be compensated with an apology and a rebate.
Sincerely,
Peter Hain
73-1066 Ahikawa Street
Kailua Kona, HI 96740
Cc:
Mr. Angel Pilago, County Council
Mr. George Wilkins, Water Board
Shari Komata, DWS
Susan McGeachy, Kona Coastview
Manager
Department of Water Supply
345 Kekuanao’a St., #200
Hilo, HI 96720
April 12, 2006
Dear Mr. Pavao:
I am writing to you regarding the Kona Coastview/Wonderview Subdivisions Improvement District. My concern is the additional cost that has been added to the water system by County planners for present and future subdivision interconnections and that these additional costs are being passed on to the 437 assessed owners of Coastview/Wonderview.
During the construction phase of the water system I witnessed the installation of a large main pipeline running from Ahikawa Street in Coastview along Nana Street and connecting to the Ashikawa subdivision off Holo Holo Street in Palisades. This line is many times larger that needed to service the one house at the end of Nana Street. When this matter was brought to the attention of Shari Komata, DWS, she replied to Susan McGeachy:
“Dear Mrs. McGeachy,The Department may interconnect waterlines where it is possible so that wemay provide better water service to our customers, especially in times wherewe may need to shut-off water to do repairs. By interconnecting thewaterlines it allows the Department to continue to service an area withoutinterruption and/or cause minimal disruption to a particular water system. Other subdivisions that will be connected to the Kona Coastview/WonderviewWater System Improvements are subdivisions already established with countywater and the connections will enhance water service to all subdivisions.As for Mr. Ashikawa's subdivision, we will be connecting to his subdivisionwith this project; however, he is already being serviced from the PalisadesSubdivision as he has paid for his own infrastructure and applicable fees.Sincerely,Shari KomataDepartment of Water Supply”
While I agree that the interconnections make sense from a redundancy and maintenance standpoint I most certainly do not agree that the Coastview/Wonderview residents should pay for the costs of these interconnections. As far as I know, the plans for these interconnections were never discussed with the Coastview/Wonderview residents. I am aware of the interconnection that runs along Nana Street but I now question how many more exist and what was the additional cost to the system. What would have been a one or two inch pipe to serve a house or two on a side street has been increased to a six or eight inch main plus the valve. These additions, at the request of DWS, were added to the system without consultation and approval of the owners of the system and those owners should be compensated with an apology and a rebate.
Sincerely,
Peter Hain
73-1066 Ahikawa Street
Kailua Kona, HI 96740
Cc:
Mr. Angel Pilago, County Council
Mr. George Wilkins, Water Board
Shari Komata, DWS
Susan McGeachy, Kona Coastview
A call to Angel Pilago for action
4/12/2006
Hi Angel,
I am writing because I've recently learned that the houses in the new subdivision between Coastview and Palisades along the recently opened road at the bottom of Ahikawa Street have been connected to the new water system. I've been told by the water department that this is because it is their policy to interconnect for the purpose of backup.
While this practice makes sense, the homeowners of Coastview, Wonderview and Highlands are paying for all the material and labor to make that connection, not the water department or the county. Ever since discussions of this project began, we were under the understanding that anyone that connected up to this system beyond the boundaries of the assessed subdivisions would have to pay in, the same as us, thus spreading the cost equitably. We brought this up at every meeting prior to the beginning of the project.
What happens if another subdivision is built below Coastview, connecting to our system? Do we just donate our expense to that developer too? Unless you change the law, evidently we do! Even if there is no "interconnection". That's unfair.
I bought my lot in Coastview in 76 and built the house in 78. If I owned two lots, one could argue that I'm rich and should shut up about this cost or that. If we had any extra money or ANY outside income, maybe this wouldn't matter to me, personally, although I would still be concerned for my neighbors. But while the value of our home has gone up absurdly, we are no better off because we cannot sell it for a profit and still have anywhere to live. We are struggling (less than many, to be sure) under first and second mortgages with a daughter trying to finish college and an invalid mother-in-law cared for full time by my sister-in-law. I've had 3 pay cuts amounting to 22%, had my health insurance reduced and had my pension which I was supposed to be eligible for in 6 years thrown in the trash. We have no idea how we are going to make it after I'm forced to retire, and with the prices of everything going up, the last thing we need are additional and unfair expenses or being forced to subsidize the water hookups of land developers.
I am writing on behalf of myself and the other working people in these subdivisions to demand that the council pass legislation requiring anyone connecting to this water system be charged the same as us AND that those funds be used to pay down the bond that we had to pay for, NOT go into the coffers of the county or the water department. Either that, or that the cost be recalculated for each lot, based on the higher number of lots and then our individual cost
reduced. One way or another, we should be unburdened in a
proportional manner when new connections are made.
At meeting after meeting I have listened to public officials justify unfair or irrational policies basically based on "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's the law the council passed", and what have you. We heard this again a few times on Tuesday night, along with a new one, "that's the law the council is going to change but they haven't done it yet"!
One person stood up and suggested that we are "lucky" the rules are being bent and we don't have to bury our pipes on our own property. Why should we feel "lucky" that the powers that be decided to honor their word, since ever since this project began we were told that what we did on our own property was our own business. It's hard to feel "lucky" when it's still going to cost each of us thousands of dollars and many of us will have to borrow the money when we are already having enough trouble making the bills as it is.
There are any number of things that the council could do, but one of the most obvious is to pass legislation / rule making--whatever you call it, to spread the cost of this system fairly among the users. It is unfair that we should have to subsidize connections for others hooking up to our system and especially so when it's to increase the profits of developers and speculators.
Thank you for giving this your attention and please let me know your thoughts on this and what you and your colleagues on the council plan to do about it.
Sincerely,
Aaron Jacobs
Coastview
Hi Angel,
I am writing because I've recently learned that the houses in the new subdivision between Coastview and Palisades along the recently opened road at the bottom of Ahikawa Street have been connected to the new water system. I've been told by the water department that this is because it is their policy to interconnect for the purpose of backup.
While this practice makes sense, the homeowners of Coastview, Wonderview and Highlands are paying for all the material and labor to make that connection, not the water department or the county. Ever since discussions of this project began, we were under the understanding that anyone that connected up to this system beyond the boundaries of the assessed subdivisions would have to pay in, the same as us, thus spreading the cost equitably. We brought this up at every meeting prior to the beginning of the project.
What happens if another subdivision is built below Coastview, connecting to our system? Do we just donate our expense to that developer too? Unless you change the law, evidently we do! Even if there is no "interconnection". That's unfair.
I bought my lot in Coastview in 76 and built the house in 78. If I owned two lots, one could argue that I'm rich and should shut up about this cost or that. If we had any extra money or ANY outside income, maybe this wouldn't matter to me, personally, although I would still be concerned for my neighbors. But while the value of our home has gone up absurdly, we are no better off because we cannot sell it for a profit and still have anywhere to live. We are struggling (less than many, to be sure) under first and second mortgages with a daughter trying to finish college and an invalid mother-in-law cared for full time by my sister-in-law. I've had 3 pay cuts amounting to 22%, had my health insurance reduced and had my pension which I was supposed to be eligible for in 6 years thrown in the trash. We have no idea how we are going to make it after I'm forced to retire, and with the prices of everything going up, the last thing we need are additional and unfair expenses or being forced to subsidize the water hookups of land developers.
I am writing on behalf of myself and the other working people in these subdivisions to demand that the council pass legislation requiring anyone connecting to this water system be charged the same as us AND that those funds be used to pay down the bond that we had to pay for, NOT go into the coffers of the county or the water department. Either that, or that the cost be recalculated for each lot, based on the higher number of lots and then our individual cost
reduced. One way or another, we should be unburdened in a
proportional manner when new connections are made.
At meeting after meeting I have listened to public officials justify unfair or irrational policies basically based on "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's the law the council passed", and what have you. We heard this again a few times on Tuesday night, along with a new one, "that's the law the council is going to change but they haven't done it yet"!
One person stood up and suggested that we are "lucky" the rules are being bent and we don't have to bury our pipes on our own property. Why should we feel "lucky" that the powers that be decided to honor their word, since ever since this project began we were told that what we did on our own property was our own business. It's hard to feel "lucky" when it's still going to cost each of us thousands of dollars and many of us will have to borrow the money when we are already having enough trouble making the bills as it is.
There are any number of things that the council could do, but one of the most obvious is to pass legislation / rule making--whatever you call it, to spread the cost of this system fairly among the users. It is unfair that we should have to subsidize connections for others hooking up to our system and especially so when it's to increase the profits of developers and speculators.
Thank you for giving this your attention and please let me know your thoughts on this and what you and your colleagues on the council plan to do about it.
Sincerely,
Aaron Jacobs
Coastview
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Registered Voters-Petition to save the Lands of Hawaii
All - please help gather signatures to set aside a long term, stable funding source to protect Hawaii Island's open spaces. Read below for details. Time is short and the goal is 10,000 signatures of registered voters. Note that if you are collecting signatures for this, P.O. Boxes ARE NOT OK. The County clerk who will be counting signatures needs the physical address where the voter is registered to accompany the signature, or else the signature will not be counted.Call Debbie Hecht if have Q's 989-3222 Please forward this email to your friends, family and co-workers- Hawaii County votersUSE THIS PETITION- THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES SINCE THE LAST PETITIONURGENT-Help Preserve Hawaii's Open Spaces- 7 weeks to collect signaturesSee the attached Petition Packet and how to gather signatures. Start now!How: The 2% Solution-An Initiative Petition Drive to collect voter's signatures to dedicate 2% of existing property tax revenue to provide annual funding for the Hawai'i County Land Protection Fund to save our watersheds, beaches, coastal area, floodplains, native Hawaiian historical and cultural areas, native forests and agricultural land for future generations.This Petition will get the issue on the November ballot for voters to decide.When/ Where: We will be collecting signatures for 7 short weeks all over Hawaii County.Who: The Hawaii Island Land Trust is working with the Save Our Lands Citizen's Committee and other community groups.What: We need your help! Please attend to find out information on the 2% Petition Drive and Hawaii Island Conservation efforts.......Working together we can make a difference!For more information, please contact Debbie Hecht, Hawaii Island Land Trust at hecht.deb@gmail.com 989-3222,How can you help? This will be a short intensive effort to collect signatures by May 25.1. Pass out the attached information sheet to everyone you know.2. Organize a meeting in your area.3. Take a petition to parties, work and any gathering to collect signatures.4. Ask friends at doctor's offices, real estate offices, retail shops and businesses to collect signatures.5. Be the "point person" to collect signatures, have the petition sheet notarized and then send to P.O. Box 4148, Kailua-Kona, HI 96745.6. Ask your organization for a letter of support.7. Ask your organization if they could publish a short article in their newsletter or forward an e-mail to their e-mail contact list.8. E-mail hecht.deb@gmail.com to get a petition or with questions.Sorry for cross mailings! Mahalo! Debbie HechtP.O. Box 4148Kailua-Kona, HI 96745(808) 989-3222
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Cost of Government Commission Dist. #8 KONA
Aloha,
Just in case you are interested in volunteering for the Cost of Government Commission, or know anyone who is:
County Seeks Cost of Government Commission Member for District 8 Hawai`i County is currently recruiting a citizen volunteer to serve as commissioner to represent District 8 (Council member Angel Pilago's
district) on the Cost of Government Commission.
The Commission serves for a period of 11 months only, and is empaneled one year after the Mayor is elected into office.
Their mission is to study and investigate present operations within the County of Hawai`i, and make recommendations to the Mayor and Hawai`i County Council on how improvements in County government may be made.
For further information, please contact Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida at 961-8251. Completed applications can be dropped off or mailed to Lincoln Ashida at the Office of the Corporation Counsel at the Hilo Lagoon Centre,
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325, Hilo, HI 96720.
Application forms may be picked up in Hilo at the Office of Information and Complaints at Room 217, 25 Aupuni Street and in Kona at the Kona Mayor's Office at Hanama Place, Kailua-Kona. You may also find an application form on line at www.hawaii-county.com .
Karen
Karen Eoff, Aide to
Councilman K. Angel Pilago
District 8, North Kona
808-327-3642
www.angelcouncil.org
Just in case you are interested in volunteering for the Cost of Government Commission, or know anyone who is:
County Seeks Cost of Government Commission Member for District 8 Hawai`i County is currently recruiting a citizen volunteer to serve as commissioner to represent District 8 (Council member Angel Pilago's
district) on the Cost of Government Commission.
The Commission serves for a period of 11 months only, and is empaneled one year after the Mayor is elected into office.
Their mission is to study and investigate present operations within the County of Hawai`i, and make recommendations to the Mayor and Hawai`i County Council on how improvements in County government may be made.
For further information, please contact Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida at 961-8251. Completed applications can be dropped off or mailed to Lincoln Ashida at the Office of the Corporation Counsel at the Hilo Lagoon Centre,
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325, Hilo, HI 96720.
Application forms may be picked up in Hilo at the Office of Information and Complaints at Room 217, 25 Aupuni Street and in Kona at the Kona Mayor's Office at Hanama Place, Kailua-Kona. You may also find an application form on line at www.hawaii-county.com .
Karen
Karen Eoff, Aide to
Councilman K. Angel Pilago
District 8, North Kona
808-327-3642
www.angelcouncil.org
Friday, April 07, 2006
From CERGing News- Charles Flaherty
Developer/County Announces Plan To Worsen Traffic In Kona
Hawaii Development Corporation (HDC), the County, and Planning Director Chris Yuen announced a traffic signal has been planned for the intersection of Malulani Drive and Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway. The need for this traffic signal was created by County approvals that now include a commercial access onto the Highway from the 70-acre commercial property being developed by HDC for Lowe’s and other as-yet-unknown businesses. A Lowe’s store/garden center with over 3 acres under one roof is already approved. Pier 1 is also expressing interest in this location.
HDC, a Minnesota-based corporation registered in Delaware, obtained rezoning for the property bordering Border’s Books by representing that the commercial development would be a boutique-store shopping center. That original plan reflected and would have enhanced the Kailua community’s desire to maintain its village atmosphere and appearance. HDC made these representations both in writing and in public testimony. HDC further represented that the amount of traffic generated by the proposed boutique shopping center would require only one access onto Henry St. across from the Wal-Mart entrance.
HDC has unfortunately joined the growing ranks of out-of-state developers that are being enabled by the County administration to subvert the will of the greater West Hawaii community. These developers are being allowed to present one plan for rezoning and permits, only to subsequently change to a more high-impact plan after rezoning and permits are granted. Rather than a relatively lower-impact boutique-store shopping center, the Kim administration approved a commercial development with high-impact, high volume tenant businesses. A representative of HDC stated that the current plans are in keeping with existing commercial development in this area, citing Wal-Mart and Safeway, rather than Kailua Village.
This representative also stated that HDC plans to develop an adjacent 108-acre parcel with 200 apartments and 200 single-family residences. Another developer with an adjacent 15-acre parcel also intends to obtain commercial zoning. Therefore, with 70-acres already under development, almost 200 acres of commercial/high-density urban development is being planned to empty onto Henry St. and Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway at Malulani Drive.
These plans, together with the additional traffic signal at Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway and Malulani Drive with another traffic signal in the future at Pualani Terrace, will undoubtedly result in unacceptable delays and congestion at a time when traffic levels of service in Kona are already at the minimum requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (D or “desirable minimum”). The pending substantial increase of traffic onto Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway from Malulani Drive reflects the County Department of Public Works (DPW) continuing failure to provide access management on regional arterial roadways. Access management has already been identified as a County problem by a County consultant, Townscape, hired to develop a Keahole-Honaunau regional traffic circulation plan.
Good access management occurs when arterial roadways have less than 20 access points within each mile. Restricting the number of access points reduces accident rates while at the same time increasing traffic flow. Roads with less than 20 access points average 2 accidents per mile annually. Roads with more the 20 access points per mile have 4 accidents per mile or twice as many. Townscape found that the County DPW has not considered access management at all.
Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway, a State highway, was cited by Townscape as being the one Kona traffic arterial that had still had reasonably good traffic circulation. Now the County Planning Department and DPW are actively working to disable the Kona community’s last remaining relatively limited-access, unimpeded arterial roadway simply to enable a private developer (HDC), who has thus far not fully disclosed the cumulative effect of full commercial development of this area.
Given the impending failure of traffic circulation in our community, it is time for the residents of Kona to take action. Some options for action:
A legislative moratorium on rezoning and building permits in North Kona, except for affordable housing units, on the basis of endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare by our government.
Creating alternative means for transportation (light rail, regional bus system, community-based carpooling, etc.) to reduce roadway usage.
Community-based regional plans to avoid a quality-of-life disaster.
Meanwhile, a hearing is currently set for November 7, 2002 in the Third Circuit Court at 8 am to hear Malulani Gardens residents’ complaints against HDC. These residents are opposing the planned commercial access from Lowe’s through Malulani Gardens. Meetings have already been held by representatives of all parties, but no settlement has thus far resulted.
Hawaii Development Corporation (HDC), the County, and Planning Director Chris Yuen announced a traffic signal has been planned for the intersection of Malulani Drive and Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway. The need for this traffic signal was created by County approvals that now include a commercial access onto the Highway from the 70-acre commercial property being developed by HDC for Lowe’s and other as-yet-unknown businesses. A Lowe’s store/garden center with over 3 acres under one roof is already approved. Pier 1 is also expressing interest in this location.
HDC, a Minnesota-based corporation registered in Delaware, obtained rezoning for the property bordering Border’s Books by representing that the commercial development would be a boutique-store shopping center. That original plan reflected and would have enhanced the Kailua community’s desire to maintain its village atmosphere and appearance. HDC made these representations both in writing and in public testimony. HDC further represented that the amount of traffic generated by the proposed boutique shopping center would require only one access onto Henry St. across from the Wal-Mart entrance.
HDC has unfortunately joined the growing ranks of out-of-state developers that are being enabled by the County administration to subvert the will of the greater West Hawaii community. These developers are being allowed to present one plan for rezoning and permits, only to subsequently change to a more high-impact plan after rezoning and permits are granted. Rather than a relatively lower-impact boutique-store shopping center, the Kim administration approved a commercial development with high-impact, high volume tenant businesses. A representative of HDC stated that the current plans are in keeping with existing commercial development in this area, citing Wal-Mart and Safeway, rather than Kailua Village.
This representative also stated that HDC plans to develop an adjacent 108-acre parcel with 200 apartments and 200 single-family residences. Another developer with an adjacent 15-acre parcel also intends to obtain commercial zoning. Therefore, with 70-acres already under development, almost 200 acres of commercial/high-density urban development is being planned to empty onto Henry St. and Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway at Malulani Drive.
These plans, together with the additional traffic signal at Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway and Malulani Drive with another traffic signal in the future at Pualani Terrace, will undoubtedly result in unacceptable delays and congestion at a time when traffic levels of service in Kona are already at the minimum requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (D or “desirable minimum”). The pending substantial increase of traffic onto Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway from Malulani Drive reflects the County Department of Public Works (DPW) continuing failure to provide access management on regional arterial roadways. Access management has already been identified as a County problem by a County consultant, Townscape, hired to develop a Keahole-Honaunau regional traffic circulation plan.
Good access management occurs when arterial roadways have less than 20 access points within each mile. Restricting the number of access points reduces accident rates while at the same time increasing traffic flow. Roads with less than 20 access points average 2 accidents per mile annually. Roads with more the 20 access points per mile have 4 accidents per mile or twice as many. Townscape found that the County DPW has not considered access management at all.
Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway, a State highway, was cited by Townscape as being the one Kona traffic arterial that had still had reasonably good traffic circulation. Now the County Planning Department and DPW are actively working to disable the Kona community’s last remaining relatively limited-access, unimpeded arterial roadway simply to enable a private developer (HDC), who has thus far not fully disclosed the cumulative effect of full commercial development of this area.
Given the impending failure of traffic circulation in our community, it is time for the residents of Kona to take action. Some options for action:
A legislative moratorium on rezoning and building permits in North Kona, except for affordable housing units, on the basis of endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare by our government.
Creating alternative means for transportation (light rail, regional bus system, community-based carpooling, etc.) to reduce roadway usage.
Community-based regional plans to avoid a quality-of-life disaster.
Meanwhile, a hearing is currently set for November 7, 2002 in the Third Circuit Court at 8 am to hear Malulani Gardens residents’ complaints against HDC. These residents are opposing the planned commercial access from Lowe’s through Malulani Gardens. Meetings have already been held by representatives of all parties, but no settlement has thus far resulted.
Coastview Water meeting Tue, April 11, 2006
Meeting on Water System Improvements for Kona Coastview/Wonderview
The Department of Water Supply cordially invites the community is to an informational meeting water system improvement for Kona Coastview/Wonderview subdivisions.
Where: Kealakehe Elementary School Cafeteria
When: Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at 6:30 p.m.
This informational meeting is being held to provide the residents of the Kona Coastview and Wonderview subdivisions with an opportunity to gather information about the service connections and final requirements to completion.
Representatives from the Department of Water Supply and the Department of Public Works will be present, along with Council Member K. Angel Pilago.
All residents of these subdivisions are encouraged to attend. For further information, please contact Ms. Shari Komata at 961-8070, extension 252.
If you require an accommodation or auxiliary aid and/or services to participate in this meeting (i.e. sign language interpreter, and large print), please call 961-8050.
The Department of Water Supply cordially invites the community is to an informational meeting water system improvement for Kona Coastview/Wonderview subdivisions.
Where: Kealakehe Elementary School Cafeteria
When: Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at 6:30 p.m.
This informational meeting is being held to provide the residents of the Kona Coastview and Wonderview subdivisions with an opportunity to gather information about the service connections and final requirements to completion.
Representatives from the Department of Water Supply and the Department of Public Works will be present, along with Council Member K. Angel Pilago.
All residents of these subdivisions are encouraged to attend. For further information, please contact Ms. Shari Komata at 961-8070, extension 252.
If you require an accommodation or auxiliary aid and/or services to participate in this meeting (i.e. sign language interpreter, and large print), please call 961-8050.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)