Concurrency

[Aaron S]

Lately developers and their lackeys have been bemoaning the proposed flooding mitigation and concurrency/impact fee legislation here on the Big Island.

WHT published my letter to the editor on this subject today.

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/...ters01.txt


I am deeply offended whenever I read that developers and their lackeys cry foul whenever legislation is proposed that may reduce their profits. Two instances come to mind, changes to the county flood control mitigation and concurrency/impact fees.

Both North and South Kona are ripe for a catastrophic flooding disaster. Thus the changes to the county flood control mitigation are desperately needed. But the developers claim that the changes are "too costly." I find this line of thinking unacceptable. Protecting the citizens of our community should usurp any loss of profits by developers.

Less developer profits and economic collateral damage have been reasons espoused by opponents of concurrency/impact fees. The taxpayers on this island should not have to bear the whole burden to build infrastructure. In reality it should be both the taxpayers and the developers share equally the cost of infrastructure.

[wax]

Aaron, The problem with this bill (51 - flooding) has nothing at all to do with developers or profits. It is plain ill advised and written by rank amateurs. The County Department of Public Works has an 8 page response to the legislation that is absolutely devistating to those who wrote it (apparently Hoffman, Ford and Jacobsen). Here are a couple of quotes from the DPW letter "Stormwater management regulations are part of Chapter 23 and 25. All references to stormwater management should be deleted to avoid inconsistencies. If inconsistencies in laws do exist, such laws may be deemed to be unenforceable. This issue should be further discussed with Corporation Counsel." "The word “elevation” is being misused and needs to be deleted. Base flood is a design parameter used to determine the amount of water a drainage facility can carry. Base flood elevation is a term use to describe the depth of flow at a particular location so base flood elevation has no meaning in the design of a drainage facility.

There is no definition of flood channel or re-channelization, consequently its intent and application is unclear. It is unclear whether the 100-year standard be applied to roadside swales, temporary ditches and trenches, flows from roof drains, parking lot drainage systems as they all re-channelize existing drainage flows to varying degrees. We need to know the intent and purpose of this section before we are able to make a definitive analysis or suggest appropriate language." "Definition of “Watershed” - Because our island is still volcanically active and/or geologically immature, there are large areas on this island that will not fall within this definition.

Definition of “Historic structure” - As indicated previously by the State NFIP coordinator, item (ii), needs to be change from “with approved programs” to “without approved programs” to comply with the NFIP."
"The Department should not be the repository of all government permits. Under the Freedom of Information Act we will now be responsible to provide copies of these permits to the public. It is our goal to have DPW permits filed electronically. However, we should not be liable for nor bear the cost of keeping permit files and making copies requested by the public for permits issued by the State and Federal governments.

Further, should this condition be retained the Department of Public Works does not have the hardware, software or expertise to address the storage of electronic copies. The implementation of this requirement needs to be discussed with the Data System Department." "Because many natural watercourses are not able to carry the volume of water generated by a 100-year storm, bank overflows are not uncommon. As a result, the proposed language, if applied indiscriminately, will result in the redirection of downstream flows in unstable areas such as South Kona where watercourses are still very immature. The County will then be liable for any resulting flood damages. Further, would a property owner have to improve a channel if he just wants line a channel to protect his property from erosion? We see little benefits and a lot of risks and costs to a property owner to have this provision. Alteration or relocation of watercourses must be done prudently and analyzed on a case by case basis by a licensed engineer to ensure that there is minimal disturbance of natural flow pattern onto adjacent properties."We do not believe that controlling the amount grading to be the best approach to address flooding and erosion. Chapter 10, 23 & 25 already addresses these issues in the urban environment. There are many other stormwater management techniques that should be first considered, such as limiting the amount of impermeable surface and/or infiltration treatments to retain a given volume of water rather than just limiting the amount of grading which will have many serious unintended consequences. We suggest discussing this matter further with Planning Department and DPW. Should this issue be pursued in it’s present form, we will need to discuss impacts with our Planning Department, Real Property Division and Finance Department as the 10 and 20 percentage requirements seems to have no economic or technical justification that we can see."The proposed drainage improvement standard for agricultural subdivisions will be more stringent than urban subdivisions as proposed by Section 27-20(e). This is counter-intuitive and has no technical or scientific justification. Consequently, the design requirements established by this section for agriculture seems to be arbitrary and capricious. Further, the requirement to address existing rainfall contradicts a fundamental engineering/legal principle that a property owner cannot be held responsible for what is naturally occurring.

If drainage design standards for agricultural subdivision are to be considered, this matter should be discussed with the Planning Department, Department of Research and Development, SWCDs, NRCS, State Dept. of Agriculture, State Dept. of Land & Natural Resources and other stakeholders."

Additionally, DLNR and ALL Directors of the Storm Water Managemet Districts STRONGLY suggested that this legislation not be passed as is.

Nonetheless we have such bright lights as Jacobsen saying "We should not give the engineers more time to study this." (Hello, anyone home?)

[Aaron S]

Mahalo for the enlightening information. But according to this WHT article, the developer and their lackeys are complaining how costly
this flood control mitigation will be

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/...ocal04.txt

Go ahead and read it yourself. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything.




Edited by - Aaron S on 05/24/2007 17:22:17

[wax]

Aaron, The point is not so much whether developers opposed it but how sound the bill is. In this case the engineering community, the State and County agencies that are responsible for flood mitigation and land are deeply concerned. They are virtually begging the Council to allow for at least a 90 day review of the amendments made by council. And yet the response - again from the Tribune Herald - is "we will not give 90 days to review." How wise is that? Is this the quality of legislation that we want and will do us good? Is this the quality of thinking, consideration and thoughtfulness we expect from our legislators? That is the point.

Even if you think that developers are routinely cheating, lying for themselves alone sons of guns - when their alarm is more than mirrored by those technicians who are responsible - it is just possible that the legislation is really bad (as in this case). This does show the folly of simply plowing ahead without listening to the - typically objective - engineers and/or technicians who are responsible. You and I may make that mistake - but we are not the ones charged with making responsible decisions because we can make law. This is part of the problem here.

Hopefully, the Council will see the wisdom of backing off for reasonable review - and then move ahead when corrections have been made that incorporate the desired public protections. At that point does it really matter what the developers have to say. (By the way, does it make any more sense to paint all developers with the same brush - then it does to paint any other group with the same brush?)

[Aaron S]

Bill, I've lived here over 31 years. I've
heard the same song and dance by developers
and their lackeys claiming any legislative
changes are too costly over and over again.

I guess it boiled over in my letter. As human
life should count more than how much profit
someone makes.

Lastly, in my view most developers ARE evil.



Edited by - Aaron S on 05/25/2007 10:35:42