+- 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: HPP Special Assessment Proposal (/showthread.php?tid=10616)
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - dwedeking - 08-12-2012
quote:
IT'S ABOUT SOMEONE TAKEING A 24 MILLION DOLAR MORTGAGE ON MY HOUSE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION
That's why I look outside of HOA areas for property. It's bad enough you have to rent your own property from the government but then to add another group of people that have the ability to kick you off is illogical.
http://www.wedekingphotography.com
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - rainshadow - 08-13-2012
"$2500.00 seems like a very good price to just get it done."
It's not so much the cost (though that does influence my opinion) as it is the reactive position the HPPOA Board continually takes.
I bet all the communities with unpaved roads would like to have this price tag for their road projects. HPP gets assessed, yet no one else does? And therein lies the rub.
-- rainshadow
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - lquade - 08-13-2012
rainshaddow: i think it is the way the original deeds were written and recorded with the county. hpp has mandatory road fees where some of the other subdivisions have voluntary road fees. hpp has the ability to put a lien on your property if you dont pay your fees while the voluntary ones do not. this is the difference. although with the health dept getting involved, who knows where this will head?
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - rainshadow - 08-13-2012
Interesting - I did not know that. It does beg the question:
If a complaint should be registered to the DoH in a community with no road fees (or attached responsibilities)... what would the DoH do? Who would be responsible?
While paving sounds all cheery and everything, for me it's even more risky in some ways. Like, for example, bike riding with traffic, or to be out walking on a paved road here (anywhere, in Puna, really). Seriously, it's an excuse to speed, and people do. Whenever possible I choose dirt roads for running, walking, biking... strictly for safety reasons.
I'd like - personally - to see sidewalks here. But we're a vewy vewy long ways away from that.
-- rainshadow
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - Dave Smith - 08-14-2012
Just so y'all know that not all media are ignoring this issue:
http://bigislandnow.com/2012/08/09/hpp-owners-association-proposing-annual-500-lot-assessment-for-5-years/
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - DanielP - 08-14-2012
HPP should file suit against the County first, holding the County liable because the County finaled the subdivision illegally. That might slow down the dept.of Health. Corrections of my assumptions requested.
Dan
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - Sue Nomie - 08-14-2012
FYI, Board meeting tomorrow (Wed) @ 6:00 HPP Hui.
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - Seeb - 08-15-2012
Can someone going take notes, no way I can make it.
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - csgray - 08-15-2012
I drove by tonight at about 7:30 after a late day due to open house at school, and there was still a full parking lot with a few people pulling out, my husband is still there so something must be going on.
Carol
RE: HPP Special Assessment Proposal - Kelena - 08-15-2012
I was there.
First I thanked the board for the opportunity to speak and my neighbors who cared enough to take time from there day to come. Then I said something along these lines:
1. The question before the board is whether we should we should have a membership-wide vote on paving every road in the association for an approximate cost of $20 million dollars.
2. However, before we get to the merits of that request, pro or con, I think we need to understand the context in which it has been raised. I think we have the cart before the horse.
3. There has been an administrative complaint regarding dust on a particular road in HPP. [I later learned there may be more than one].
4. That complaint is pending.
5. I am no expert on the merits of the underlying complaint.
6. However, my opinion as a layman, and not as a lawyer, is that I am skeptical of the merits of that complaint, with all due respect to the member of the association who lodged it.
7. You cannot move next to an airport and then complain about the sound of airplanes. You cannot move into a frog-infested area having notice of those frogs and then complain about them. When you come to the nuisance, you lose your right to complain generally speaking.
8. It simply cannot be the law that every dusty road must be paved, when someone living on that dusty road complains, unless some unusual action, such as construction, has made a normal situation worse. It is one thing if you maintain a road in a "clean manner" [words from the regulation]. It is another thing if you kick up a lot of dust while doing that.
9. However, I defer to a qualified land use attorney on that question. And that is what the board should do as well.
10. The board should immediately engage the services of a qualified land use attorney specialist to advise us whether there is any merit WHATSOEVER to the complaint, and then to advise us on a proper course of action.
11. By bringing this proposal [the proposal to present for a membership-wide vote the question of paving all roads in HPP] forward at all the Board has made the following mistakes: 1) It is basically ceding the merits of the action without knowing its legal rights, 2) It is conducting a legal strategy in the wide open before God and man, 3) It is relying on legal advice from the opposing side. [This is because Board members attended a meeting at which a Deputy Attorney General was present and who suggested mitigation measures, which the board than investigated without knowing first whether we were REQUIRED to mitigate].
12. As to the merits of the directly matter before the board tonight [whether to vote on paving all roads], they are doubtful. We have a bad track record in this regard.
13. The board should table this matter until a resolution of the dust complaint. And it should invest heavily in legal counsel to resolve the dust complaint.
14. After the dust settles, the Board can then revisit this issue.
[end of my remarks]
My central points, in case they aren't clear were as follows: Here we are reacting to a dust complaint by proposing to pave all roads in HPP (to the tune of $20 million or more) at the suggestion of a Deputy Attorney General, whose task it is to make things go away (get people to settle). We are doing this without even knowing, on the first hand, whether there is any merit to the complaint whatsoever, that is to say, whether the few lot owners out of 10,000 have a legal leg to stand on or are just kicking up dust. Only a qualified (Honolulu or dual-licensed attorney from California) can tell us that. We are reacting in public without even consulting with a qualified attorney.
Do that first. And spend money on it, as another speaker said.
Many speakers talked of mitigation measures: how you can make the roads less dusty. I regard any such discussion as a concession that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THE DUST ISSUE. Such a concession is inadvisable. Our position, I think, should be that NOTHING need be done unless it is legally required. And we need legal advice on that, and perhaps ultimately, the opinion of a judge.
An investment of $20,000 in a good attorney is cheaper than $20 million to pave all roads.
Whether all roads should be paved and whether HPP is willing to pay for them is a question that is ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the question of whether we must mitigate dust on a particular road or roads. We should address one question at a time, like this:
1) Are we legally obligated to do anything about normally occuring dust on dirt roads in the subdivision [every single subdivision on the island should be interested in the answer to that question, although there is something slightly unique to HPP that I will not discuss here].
2) If we have no legal obligation to do anything about dust, as Ceelo Green said "Forget you".
3) If we do have some obligation, what is our obligation and what is the most economical way of meeting that expense? I doubt that paving all roads is it.
Get a lawyer, HPP. And not an Association Counsel, as fine a man as he may be.
The question for that land use attorney is very simple, but I won't express it here. In my personal opinion, the answer to that question is resolved against the complainants, who should immediately begin expecting something less than HPP paving their dang road.
There is also a political component to this. Mssrs. Blas and Ilagan: Are you prepared to push for the resolution or removal of any ambiguity that could be exploited by parties complaining about dust on unpaved roads, in any subdivision in Puna or are you going to assemble a team of volunteers (Fred) or listen to the people (Gregor) for an answer?
In the meantime, HPP, here's what you need to know:
1) We need to get legal counsel to advise us on the merit, or lack thereof, of the dust complaints. Spare no expense. Association counsel will not do.
2) We should not even CONSIDER paving all roads, until we know whether we must mitigate dust complaints, and to what degree.
3) We should consider the question of paving all roads, coolly, calmly and not in reaction to a particular complaint on a particular road.