+- 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: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? (/showthread.php?tid=19203)
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - kalakoa - 02-17-2018
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2018/02/17/hawaii-news/subdivision-roads-bill-calls-for-upkeep-fees-from-lot-owners/
Already amended into a "study":
House Bill 2570 would start a three-year pilot program that would involve the county and state Department of Transportation identifying roads that are in such disrepair that emergency vehicles experience unreasonable delays.
The "emergency response" angle conveniently ignores the fact that fire/ambulance have to travel many miles of highway before reaching the edge of the subdivision.
For some reason I keep thinking "lifted 4x4 ambulance for off-road emergencies", and of course "why is the only emergency room in Hilo, and all the way across town". (Yes, people are trying to address that issue, too...)
Originally the sub division was both Fern Acres and the then Tropic Estates but the State Land Court basically said way to big .
The subdivisions are still way too big; there's no way for 4000 lot owners to agree on what a "road" should be and how much it should cost.
i don't think there is anything in the bill about bringing the road up to county standards
Yes, that's part of the problem.
For HPP this might be true. But for HA (and imho, Eden Roc) it's quite possible for the County to do a much worse job.
Not an "apples-to-apples" comparison: different terrain, different history of maintenance. Some unpaved roads in HPP, Ainaloa, Nanavale are nicer than the "paved" HA Road 1 (and in some cases, nicer than the Road 8 Rollercoaster Ride).
Still, lawmakers taking notice... though I'm not sure it's an "improvement".
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - Chunkster - 02-17-2018
When I first heard of this bill, I assumed that the powers that be would try to water it down, delay it, or otherwise obstruct its enactment. Even if they succeed at that, an important message has been sent, and that message is that there is a real problem with the low rent Big Island subdivisions. I have not been a fan of Joy Sanbuenaventura in the past, but this has caused me to reassess my opinion. She is seriously trying to do something and offering an array of possible solutions, and for that alone, we owe her our thanks.
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - rainyjim - 02-17-2018
Interestingly Joy's husband owns property in HA
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - My 2 cents - 02-17-2018
While "There's something for nearly everyone in the Puna subdivisions" as Chunkster points out, I think this is more about HA because:
1. It is one of the few remaining subdivisions, and certainly the largest, that doesn't have mandatory fees already, and
2. Joy and Sheldon's interests there.
I can't get past the 90 - 95% non-participation rate. I believe this means something very important, but I can't figure out what. I don't believe that 90% of the people in HA are the childish, freeloading deadbeats that they are made out to be. I know lots of people in HA, non of them fit that description.
Lack of confidence in the association due to mismanagement or something else could explain it, but it would have had to be something very, very bad to create this level of distrust and I haven't heard of anything that horrendous. Maybe I'm missing something.
Perhaps the 90% actually like things the way they are. This was my first impression of it. There's no question that having roads that bad and 3600 out of 4000 owners thinking this is just peachy is a deviation from the norm. Maybe to some deviation from the norm is a synonym for special.
Maybe it's a combination of these, or something else that I'm not seeing, but this is an astounding number. 90 - 95% is much, much higher than the actual compliance rate in OLCA and probably the other mandatory associations as well. Any other ideas of what could explain this huge lack of participation?
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - kalakoa - 02-17-2018
Perhaps the 90% actually like things the way they are.
Perhaps the 90% prefer the way things are to what the County would be required do do in order to meet the requirements of the almighty Code.
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - Chunkster - 02-17-2018
"I think this is more about HA because . . . "
I can see why it seems that way, but I will note that when I first read the whole bill, I found several elements of it that I thought were tailor made for my own subdivision, HPP. It all depends on your point of view.
As for Sanbuenaventura and/or her husband owning property in HA, I've been told that they own some in HPP, too. I see having a representative who owns property in one (or more) of these subdivisions as a positive point of knowledge and experience rather than a conflict of interest. After all, a large percentage of Puna's residents live in these subdivisions. And finally, I can see scenarios under which some of these proposals could result in lower property values, depending on how they are carried out. Life is full of gambles.
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - Durian Fiend - 02-17-2018
quote:
Originally posted by My 2 cents
Perhaps the 90% actually like things the way they are. This was my first impression of it...
I know a guy who's lived there since the 70's that feels this way. In all that time his road has never,not a once, been improved and that's exactly how he wants it.
Other reasons-how about being a cheapskate/opportunist? Consider all of the white collar crime in this country in which people are cheating and stealing to get ahead financially. In this case, you don't even have to be a criminal in order to come out ahead.
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - My 2 cents - 02-17-2018
I think you're right about Joy and Sheldon having interests in HPP, in fact I believe that's where they live. Notice I said nothing about conflict. Simply owning property in any of the subdivisions doesn't present a conflict of interest. However, Mimosa brought up the question because Sheldon does the road work in HA, which would put him in a position to benefit directly to a far greater extent than most anyone else. It's not for me to judge, but I can understand why the question was asked.
I'm more concerned about something being rammed down the throats of a vast majority of people who don't want it. I don't know if that's the case here, that's why I'm asking for reasons for the 90 -95% non-participation rate. But the legislation does include language that says a negative vote won't matter, they will get it anyway. This tells me that Joy is anticipating a negative vote, probably due to the high level of non-participation. If the people want it, fine, but this smells fishy to me.
Edited to correct the damn auto-correct
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - Justin - 02-17-2018
Just curious what other proposed solutions people have seen, read, heard, or envisioned that 1) are better than this proposal and/or 2) better than the current status quo? I'm in Leilani and so this doesn't really impact me, but I see on here people (rightfully) complaining about the roads in HPP, Orchidland, and HA, but without anything close to a consensus on the best way to rectify the situation.
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - kalakoa - 02-18-2018
what other proposed solutions people have seen, read, heard, or envisioned
Again: the one-size-doesn't-fit-all definition of "road" as "40-foot pavement on 60-foot easement" is unnecessarily expensive overkill.
I have lived in places where the government uses public tax dollars to maintain unpaved roads, so it's definitely possible. In some cases these unpaved roads were actual city streets, and in the nicest parts of town, where the residents were taxed enough for pavement but chose gravel.
I'm still confused on this point: roads are funded with fuel tax revenue; everyone pays fuel taxes; subdivision roads are "open to the public" despite being "privately owned". The distinction seems both pointless and arbitrary.
Simple answer: 1. County to define a minimal "agricultural access road" standard (say, 10-feet gravel, brush trimming on the shoulders) for these "agricultural" subdivisions. 2. County publishes a price list for upgrades. 3. Subdivisions that want more than graded gravel and occasional brush trimming can pay for however much "road" they want.
Before anyone says "but we can't afford it", show me an accounting of the recent fuel tax increase and explain why "there isn't any money".