+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Puna Politics (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: SB2274-Sustainable Living (/showthread.php?tid=13332)
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - kalakoa - 04-11-2014
Less off-topic than it appears:
Mazie Hirono was "convinced" to approve the Comcast/TimeWarner merger for a mere $9500 in "campaign contributions".
How much did the "certain group" spend lobbying Ruderman?
Yes, the whole "money = speech" thing is a disgraceful end-run around the democratic process, but it's what we have, so how about raise some money and buy enough representation to get your way, instead of whinging about having this done to you.
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - Kapohocat - 04-12-2014
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa...
What's next, people making their own electricity without permits, licenses, inspections, fees, and taxes? How can that possibly be good for "the community"?
It wasnt that long ago that you did not need permits for solar installations... i mean less than 6 yrs ago.
Helco realized they were losing control and pushed for permitting.
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - Guest - 04-25-2014
I am happy to announce the bill is dead and there is nothing more to be said but R.I.P. SB 2274. We did it at 11:59 one minute till high noon...we shot it down! Enjoy your weekend Senator RUDERman. Don't cry too hard Graham Ellis see ya next year if I don't see you first at your dog and pony show on May 1st. We the people are coming after your S.U.P next! Have a great weekend everybody I know I will!!!
It is not that I object to eco-villages, sustainability or conservation of resources but SB 2274 is not about sustainability it's really about development and denying the neighbors the right to object. This bill would allow developers to destroy the forests lands around Kehena beach so they can build malls, roads, restaurants and stores all under the guise of "sustainability" with almost NO oversight!!! What is sustainable about that?
Graham Ellis tried to bamboozle the community by making us believe that SB 2274, the bill he admittedly authored with attorney's, was for everyone. That was easy to do because hardly anyone read the contents of the bill including journalist, bloggers and the so called "watch dogs". Unfortunately for us the watch dogs have been fed a fat steak and now they are over in the corner sleeping or growling at us for opposing SB 2274.
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - kalakoa - 04-26-2014
quote:
SB 2274 is not about sustainability it's really about development and denying the neighbors the right to object.
I consider this a blatant misrepresentation of the bill -- it requires a "Special Use" permit, which process has successfully prevented development in Puna.
Meanwhile, rural residents must drive their "sustainable" cars to a "village commercial center" which has yet to be built.
Nobody seems to understand this simple concept: if you don't embrace the development, you lose any chance of controlling it. SB2274 is a tame, well-mannered attempt -- the next bill will be worse.
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - snorkle - 04-26-2014
As usual, Sativa is delusional and flatters herself. Her mantra must be; "If I can't accomplish anything positive, I'm damn sure not going to let anyone else do it"
Sativa and her friend RJ support most everything Graham stands for, but are bitter and frustrated that he is a successful advocate while they flounder helplessly in their own ineffectiveness.
Graham has brought many positive programs to our area; Sativa and RJ stalk the President on Oahu and wonder why they are hassled by the authorities.
Graham works with our representatives in government for positive change; Sativa and RJ sit on their hands and blubber jealously about being ignored by most everyone.
Don't pay any attention to these "Tinfoil Troopers"; Although not many buy into their covetous rants, they are a distraction and impediment to real progress .
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - Anxious Messiah - 04-26-2014
Hate to break it to you Sativa, you didn't shoot it down. If you had the slightest inkling of how the legislature works, you would understand that your self aggrandizing is what helped push more folks to support it.
The truth of why it didn't make it is the same as why a good portion of bills got caught up in the confusion of hearings at the end.
You might want to educate yourself and look a lot farther down the road at the bigger picture. Then again, maybe you won't.
_________________________________________
Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - Seeb - 04-26-2014
Not being any part of the feud down there. The bill was a Turkey that would have left the county in an indefensible position
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - Seeb - 04-26-2014
You could solve many of the problems stated in the proposal on the county level with building and zoning code changes
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - missydog1 - 04-26-2014
The County is very conservative with rezoning, for good reason. Any rezoning becomes a precedent that can be cited by the next entity that wants to reshape things for its own purposes.
RE: SB2274-Sustainable Living - Anxious Messiah - 04-26-2014
The county is already in an indefensible position. It has a process in place without actually allowing the process to happen, and by default, be enforceable.
That is why you will be seeing a lot more bills to take away county rule in the future.
If the county had just done their job, bills like SB2274 would never see the light of day.
_________________________________________
Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.