+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program (/showthread.php?tid=22467)
EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - AaronM - 10-23-2021
Puna property owners participating in the county’s housing buyout program should be unaffected by an environmental assessment that will be conducted for the entire program.
The Voluntary Housing Buyout Program, a federally funded inactive wherein the county buys back properties that were destroyed or damaged during the 2018 Kilauea eruption, completed its first phase at the end of July, with 284 owners of primary residences applying for a buyout.
Applications for the program’s second phase, wherein owners of destroyed or damaged secondary residences will be eligible to apply, will open Nov. 1.
However, an environmental assessment of the project has yet to be conducted. County recovery officer Doug Le said that, because the program is funded by grant money through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the program must be subject to an environmental review.
But Le said the assessment should not impact the people who have already applied for the program, nor those who are preparing to apply for the second or third phases.
The environmental review that is currently underway is a programmatic assessment that looks at the entire buyout program as a whole, Le said, and ensures that it complies with standards set in the National Environmental Policy Act.
As buyouts are finalized, each transaction will be subject to a site-by-site assessment. Le said these assessments will note the specific characteristics of each site: whether the site is located in a floodplain, for example, or if hazardous materials remain on the property.
While the programmatic assessment is expected to be completed by the end of the year — Le said it is about halfway complete — the site-by-site assessments have not yet begun. However, all sites involved in the program will eventually be subject to assessments of both types.
A public informational meeting about the programmatic assessment will be held Thursday at 5:30 p.m. via Zoom. Residents can join the meeting at bit.ly/kilauearecovery.
https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2021/10/20/hawaii-news/ea-shouldnt-affect-puna-buyout-program/
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - leilanidude - 10-24-2021
Many of the sites bought out probably will have hazardous materials (cars, cesspools, etc.) on the property but they are buried 50 feet under. Who cares? This is what lava does. No one is going to dig down and clear out the remains.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - kalakoa - 10-24-2021
No one is going to dig down and clear out the remains.
Don't be so sure -- a cleanup would be a great way to squander all the recovery funds on County workers and equipment instead of giving that money to the landowners who lost their homes.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - AaronM - 10-25-2021
"landowners"
There are 4 classes of landowners.
1) People whose primary home was destroyed (completely inundated).
2) People whose primary home was damaged.
3) People whose second home was destroyed or damaged.
4) People whose empty lot was completely inundated.
The rub is that those whose primary home was destroyed or damaged are not being made whole so that those who could afford a second home can get a piece of the pie.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - malahini - 10-25-2021
I think it is a bad idea in general to bail people out for owning property in lava zones.
First hand I see how it affects my own decision making.
It gives me the incentive to run without any insurance because I figure the state will just buy me out eventually.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - AaronM - 10-25-2021
This Community Block Grant is not about who did or didn't have insurance.
The buyout program is a FEMA/HUD attempt to stifle any rebuilding efforts that might be undertaken in the LRZ.
The idea being to spend a little now in order to save a lot later.
This is a concept that has been used in other areas prone to natural disasters.
Obviously this wouldn't even be an issue if the County hadn't permitted subdivision platting, built roads, built infrastructure, issued building permits, etc.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - Obie - 10-26-2021
It works like this too.
FEMA pays to buy out anyone that meets all of the requirements.
You don't have to take the buyout but FEMA will never spend another penny in that community.
FEMA got involved because we had a legally permitted residential neighborhood. Paved roads, mailboxes and what hooked us up with FEMA is we had a water system and we deeded part of it back to the county. The County got lots of money for the water line we gave them.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - AaronM - 10-26-2021
I understand that the County is taking credit literally and figuratively for the Kapoho water system. However, Kapoho should feel lucky to have their road access restored.
Lanipuna has had it's road recovery denied by the County, essentially closing the neighborhood permanently.
Considering that those roads, Hinalo, Honuaula and Lauone were all County built and maintained roads, the decision to deny access seems to fit the definition of a taking.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just play one on Punaweb.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - kander - 10-26-2021
I wonder if the geothermal people are having a voice in that. I can think of no other place they would desire to have pesky the neighbors removed. That way they can have accidental blowouts without having to worry about someone in Lanipuna suing. I might add, blowouts and steam releases are merely optional factors to suit.
RE: EA shouldn’t affect Puna buyout program - AaronM - 10-26-2021
Sure, that makes sense for PGV to reduce their potential for liability. However, in trying to protect PGV (if that's what's really happening), the County has succeeded in increasing their own potential for liability.
Which wouldn't be novel or unique considering how much the County has sacrificed their own good for the benefit of private interests.