Punatalk
Punatalk
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ | Donate
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Punaweb Forums
 Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP)
 The Planning Challenge
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page

Please note: All postings, business listings and advertisements are made available here, without charge, as a public service by Punaweb. No recommendations or endorsements of any specific posting, business listing or advertisement are made or implied by Punaweb.

Author Topic
Page: of 2

kalakoa
Motormouth

12431 Posts

Posted - 10/30/2014 :  12:01:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The PCDP makes no provision for "cut off by lava" despite recognizing it as a danger.

If Puna continues to develop at the present rate within the framework of the extensive
subdivisions, there will be several types of significant, long-term consequences:

An increasing number of people and property improvements are being put at risk due to natural hazards. All of Puna lies within the three most hazardous geological risk zones: LF1, LF2 and LF3. About 6,400 subdivision lots lie in the highest hazard zone, LF1, and over 500 of these are exposed to additional risks from subsidence, tsunami and earthquakes. That 2,038 lots in the lower hazard zone LF2 have been covered or cut off by lava flows in recent decades underscores the hazardous nature of much of the district.

Wao nahele kane
Punatic

USA
2494 Posts

Posted - 10/31/2014 :  09:24:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes... there it is. Thanks Kalakoa.

Now, with this in mind, each and every proposal needs to be held to the crucible of this passage in order to determine if it's appropriate for plan entry.
A great deal of the sub proposals where not appropriate when held to this passage.
Unfortunately the above passage is also incomplete and is of no more value than an introductory passage to what should have been an entire detailed mitigation outline.
Go to Top of Page

kalakoa
Motormouth

12431 Posts

Posted - 10/31/2014 :  09:44:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
of no more value than an introductory passage

It is, in fact, part of the introduction; geological risk is not mentioned elsewhere.

Just below this introductory passage is a map that shows Pahoa in LF2, right up against the edge of LF1.

Much of the Plan seems to focus on preservation of native forest, historic/cultural/scenic resources, geological features, aquifers, coastal waters ... managing growth (including "selective rezoning" and "floating zone for joint-use mixed development") ... where the regional/community/neighborhood "village centers" should go and how the permit process can facilitate this ... agricultural tourism, development of "green industry" ...

No contingency plans.

Unless you include the part about County keeping foreclosed properties rather than selling them at the tax auction, in order to "Protect unknown natural and cultural sites or features" (the lava flow being both "unknown" and a "natural feature").
Go to Top of Page

Wao nahele kane
Punatic

USA
2494 Posts

Posted - 10/31/2014 :  10:02:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I read through the plan a few years back and found it so terribly flawed, I couldn't bring myself to comment on it at the time. It appeared to be modeled after a major metropolitan/urban plan, almost as if west coast plans from the mainland were used as a template.
Go to Top of Page

Wao nahele kane
Punatic

USA
2494 Posts

Posted - 10/31/2014 :  17:20:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
For those not familiar with what I'm referring -
Here's the missing element within the PCDP and all aspect of the plan should have hinged upon this.
In particular - Geologic hazard evaluation and mitigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_hazards

Go to Top of Page

Shonuff
Newbie

29 Posts

Posted - 11/03/2014 :  16:32:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Once the path of the flow settles in there will definitely be a new paradigm for Puna that will either be addressed with better planning than what exists or get ignored so that things are worse. I will throw some ideas out there that I feel should be considered. The private subdivisions need to be re-invented so that they are not an impediment to planning for the greater community. All the subdivisions need to have adequate roads and parks and someplace to create a commercial center plus an agricultural component to encourage a self-reliant food future. We need to get over the fear of connectivity because there will be less shock to the system when we do. Having community based internet might be more important than community electric power. If we have community internet we can increase capacity and lower the cost (it has been done elsewhere)and neither T-W or Htelcom will do this in the near future. Better internet will open possibilities for home business or local business. There needs to be a discussion about where to locate services south of flow, Pahoa will be the edge and not on the way to anything and the most urgent thing is to get an emergency medical facility there. It is unfortunate that the new Police station and firehouse could be cut-off on both sides if the flow continues very long. Whatever planning is done has to be thought out with geology in mind and somewhere, someone should be giving some thought about access to the ocean somewhere other than Pohoiki. Let's try to insure that we learn from past mistakes and we make change work for us instead of against us. If we can strike while the iron is hot there will be an opportunity to get help with the funding while this is fresh on people's minds but we all know how short the collective focus is in the media age.
Go to Top of Page

kalakoa
Motormouth

12431 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2014 :  08:10:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The private subdivisions need to be re-invented so that they are not an impediment to planning

Agree. However, reality is that almost everything is zoned Ag, and any non-Ag use is Special, permits for which are "difficult to obtain".

the subdivisions need to have adequate roads and parks

Ignoring the subjective "adequate", problem is/has been/will be money and collective will (some subdivisions like their substandard roads and lack of community).

someplace to create a commercial center

Agree, but see above "zoning issue", and note that PCDP actively discourages any commercial development outside of "designated zones".

If we have community internet ... neither T-W or Htelcom will do this in the near future

TW/HT are bound by one-sided "franchise agreement" which guarantees their exclusive right to provide service -- or not, as is more often the case.

Let's try to insure that we learn from past mistakes and we make change work for us

Hawaiian Acres newsletter from 1962 says similar things; over 50 years has passed without substantive changes. Nobody is coming to rescue Puna, and the residents can't seem to agree on a single course of action, so things will be mostly the same in 2062 unless the volcano destroys everything -- which could happen any minute.
Go to Top of Page

punaticbychoice
Punatic

1187 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2014 :  12:40:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
kalakoa:
Indeed.
Yes.
Go to Top of Page

Wao nahele kane
Punatic

USA
2494 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2014 :  09:50:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Unfortunately Pahoa has proven itself to be a distraction with regard to appropriate planning efforts considering the regions geological circumstances.

Appropriate planning hinged upon Punas geological circumstances would have focused on the most appropriate ingress and egress routes first and foremost. All else would have been based upon those routes.

I need not point out the most effective route planning for this area as that should be self apparent. Likewise it should also be self apparent that those routes were never adopted and even today we have wasted money in wrong decisions made in the haste of waiting till the last seeming minute. What we are experiencing today is a direct result of that wayward uncontrolled misguided planning.

Go to Top of Page

kalakoa
Motormouth

12431 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2014 :  10:35:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
a direct result of that wayward uncontrolled misguided planning

Two things to consider:

1. Embracing development means possibly influencing it to suit your needs and desires; if you fight development, it happens anyway, usually with "creative" solutions that aren't exactly what anyone wanted;

2. Bigger problem is we're stuck with the "expense" of having allowed development in a disaster area -- if lower Puna had been left alone (eg, a sanctuary for "wild west" unpermittedness), any development would be fully at-risk, leaving little room for complaint after the fact.

In any case, agree 100% that ignoring the situation for 50 years only made the inevitable lava catatrophe much worse than it should be... in retrospect, all those subdivisions in/around LZ1 make no sense.
Go to Top of Page

ironyak
Punatic

USA
3084 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2014 :  06:22:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Unfortunately Pahoa has proven itself to be a distraction with regard to appropriate planning efforts considering the regions geological circumstances.

Appropriate planning hinged upon Punas geological circumstances would have focused on the most appropriate ingress and egress routes first and foremost. All else would have been based upon those routes.

I need not point out the most effective route planning for this area as that should be self apparent. Likewise it should also be self apparent that those routes were never adopted and even today we have wasted money in wrong decisions made in the haste of waiting till the last seeming minute. What we are experiencing today is a direct result of that wayward uncontrolled misguided planning.



Kane, what do you see as the most effective route planning? Given the historical direction of the lava flow, and now its current path, it's not self-apparent to me what the plan should have covered.
Go to Top of Page

kalakoa
Motormouth

12431 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2014 :  08:07:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
it's not self-apparent to me what the plan should have covered.

The plan should have covered LZ3 and above, encouraged "trade-up" of existing LZ1/LZ2 lots, and created a "camping pass" system for those who would prefer an unpermitted lifestyle choice along the coast.
Go to Top of Page

ironyak
Punatic

USA
3084 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2014 :  14:35:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa

it's not self-apparent to me what the plan should have covered.

The plan should have covered LZ3 and above, encouraged "trade-up" of existing LZ1/LZ2 lots, and created a "camping pass" system for those who would prefer an unpermitted lifestyle choice along the coast.



Can you expand on the second two ideas please? Trade up to what? Camping passes would work how? Pay to stay on own land? Limitations on development? Etc...
Go to Top of Page

Wao nahele kane
Punatic

USA
2494 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2014 :  21:13:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
First and foremost, the current single local authority on this island is not capable of passing legislation that could be uniquely applied only to Puna. That would violate equal application clauses. This is perhaps the most important reason why most Counties were established in order to deal with the unique features of given geographical locations.

These are proposed measure that if the current County adopted would become applicable to the entirety of the County. When you have representatives outside your unique geographical location, they may find a measure completely inappropriate for their region and therefore vote against what another region may need. This is why Puna is as it is today.

What's self apparent with regard to the application of roads in Puna. This would be outlined through mitigation recommendations set forth by geological engineering assessments. This has not been done for Puna. I won't bother with stating the obvious on that point as it would not be well received here.

Until Puna has it's own local County authority separate from the County of Hawaii, we won't be seeing any form of a successful or practical development plan. If that wasn't bad enough, because the State of Hawaii does not allow for voter based referendums or initiatives etc and has placed the sole authority of County designation within the hands of the State legislature, forming such a County has about zero chance in hell at this time.

So all in all. We are wasting our time talking about a development plan for Puna.

First things first. Start talking about how to make Puna into it's own County. Maybe discuss how an outline should be drafted for taking the correct steps in forming a development plan accompanied by all the other outlines necessary to setup and run a County effectively. It all goes hand in hand.



Go to Top of Page

Wao nahele kane
Punatic

USA
2494 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2014 :  21:21:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I see the whole PCDP idea as putting the cart before the horse.
Go to Top of Page

ironyak
Punatic

USA
3084 Posts

Posted - 11/13/2014 :  00:20:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Agreed about the mismatch between the specialized needs of various districts and a single county authority. Also agreed that creating district counties as a pragmatic solution is unlikely in the extreme.

My understanding (or perhaps hope) was that the CDPs are an attempt to bridge this divide by allowing districts to self-direct their development. However, they appear to lack "the force of law" and are seen as loose recommendations by the county? Is that an reasonable summary or is there a more accurate way to describe their current purpose and legal standing?

Given the uncertainties of the geographical, economic, and demographic changes related to the lava flow, all long term plans for Puna are in limbo. Allowing for more flexibility in addressing local needs, either explictly through the state of emergency declaration or implicitly due to the increased isolation of lower Puna, is one likely outcome IMHO. If this is of substantive difference from the current approach of ad-hoc planning and quasi-enforcement is unclear.

I remain hopeful that smaller communities with less interference can create some positive developments in the wake of the changes on the horizon.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Punatalk © 2003 to 2014 Punaweb Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.06