+- 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: Uncle BIlly's (/showthread.php?tid=20289)
Uncle BIlly's - kalakoa - 10-15-2018
Tourism is a critical part of our local economy, right?
https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2018/10/15/hawaii-news/only-one-firm-shows-interest-in-former-uncle-billys-site-study-needed-before-state-can-proceed-with-redevelopment/
A spokesman for the state Department of Land and Natural Resources said in an email that $1 million or more will be sought from the state Legislature next session to fund the environmental assessment or impact statement regarding demolition and reconstruction.
"If approved, funding would be available after July 2019," said AJ McWhorter, DLNR communications specialist, regarding the study. "It would likely take one to two years after receipt of funding to procure a consultant to conduct the EA/EIS and complete the process..."
Tower says demolition would take six to 12 months at a cost of $5.3 million. Hotel development would take 12 to 18 months.
In the unlikely event that everything goes smoothly, we could have a new hotel in just 5 short years. Tourists can wait that long, right?
RE: Uncle BIlly's - Chunkster - 10-15-2018
With hoops like that to jump through, is it any wonder only one firm expressed interest? I'm surprised they got even one interested party, but then again, it might be one of those "right" people who somehow manage to make tons of money off such Byzantine arrangements.
RE: Uncle BIlly's - glinda - 10-15-2018
Tourists can wait that long, right?
Are tourists really waiting for anything in Hilo?
RE: Uncle BIlly's - PaulW - 10-15-2018
The County (i.e. the hotel lobby) wants to destroy all vacation rentals so I guess tourists will indeed be needing more hotels in Hilo.
RE: Uncle BIlly's - leilanidude - 10-15-2018
A spokesman for the state Department of Land and Natural Resources said in an email that $1 million or more will be sought from the state Legislature next session to fund the environmental assessment or impact statement regarding demolition and reconstruction.
---------------
^This^ is absurd. It took an EIS to build it in the first place, then another one to tear it down and rebuild it? Its a parking lot and a building now and will be a parking lot and a building when they finish!
RE: Uncle BIlly's - MarkD - 10-15-2018
leilanidude: >This^ is absurd. It took an EIS to build it in the first place, then another one to tear it down and rebuild it? Its a parking lot and a building now and will be a parking lot and a building when they finish!
You're 100% correct
To repeat from first post: "(DLNR) said in an email that $1 million or more will be sought from the state Legislature next session to fund the environmental assessment or impact statement regarding demolition and reconstruction."
- - - -
$1 million for what? There is an aging hotel on site. It needs to be torn down and replaced. It's straightforward. Want building permits? Fine. Why are assessments needed? There are other hotels on either side. Banyan Drive abuts a commercial harbor. This is not some rural shoreline.
All this relates to rules that environmentalists got in decades ago when few people were paying attention. These onerous rule are:
1) unnecessary, being based on fictitious claims of supposed environmental damage that might occur;
2) a huge drag on construction projects;
3) a deterrence to community plans to engage in shoreline modification for recreation; and
4) designed to enrich consultants for shoreline projects in Hawaii.
Pick up any EIS for a shoreline project. Look at the authors. They are local consultants. When they first went into business they generated boilerplate EIS documents. Every time a new shoreline project requires their environmental assessment, they pull up these documents, enter the new address and TMK of the site, and do, sure, maybe 60-80 of work in evaluation per site. Maybe a bit more. It is a very rote process because shoreline issues and facts are similar most of the time.
Go read 3 or 4 shoreline EISs some time. Compare them.
And then the consultants bill the state $60-$100 K for the environmental assessment. (I just approximated that figure for one assessment. I have no idea how another $900 K is spent or how many [repetitive] EISs are needed.)
And people wonder why I complain about the environmentalists who engineered and continue to perpetuate this shoreline scam. This whole EIS business is a fraud.
RE: Uncle BIlly's - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 10-15-2018
Every time a new shoreline project requires their environmental assessment, they pull up these documents, enter the new address and TMK of the site
This is true of private construction on Conservation District lands too.
Same consultant.
Document is word for word cut & paste except new TMK, etc
"No one is such a LIAR as the indignant man." Beyond Good & Evil, 1886 - Friedrich Nietzsche
RE: Uncle BIlly's - MarkD - 10-15-2018
Laughing all the way to the bank.
RE: Uncle BIlly's - kalakoa - 10-15-2018
4) designed to enrich consultants for shoreline projects in Hawaii.
As an extra added bonus, we get to wait a couple more years for the demolition/construction jobs.
Here's an idea: instead of County looking for "reconstruction funding", how about just getting out of the way? Expediting the permit process is effectively free, the Building and Planning staff are getting paid ether way.
RE: Uncle BIlly's - terracore - 10-15-2018
When it comes time to build we'll be in or recovering from a recession so the lot will sit vacant due to lack of development capital until the economy improves by which time the EIS will have expired and the whole process will have to start from scratch. I predict the first guest checks in sometime between 2028-2032.