08-07-2008, 02:07 PM
For whatever that is worth. I do not claim to be any sort of spokesman, nor expert, on anything, except drilling like a laser beam to hatch out a meaningful life for myself. I have considerable concerns with the PCDP, and its future, and its effects. I have little concern with its aims. I believe that the aim and the will behind the plan was benign, even if protectionist. Meaning, that I'm not lost on the intent to draw the line on future development behind where "I got MY piece of Hawaii, and bugger the rest of you, even all you native people and poor young folks trying to scratch out a life somewhere." I personally am repulsed by that sort of profiteering, and protectionism, even if subconscious, but need to reconcile myself to the fact that there will come a day in which that line is drawn. And, really, why not now? Non-rhetorically, why not? Hawaii is a precious, precious thing. It's a shame, as far as I'm concerned that anyone lives here at all. But facts are facts--even the inflexible can bend under unrelentless pressure.
My concerns.
The PCDP has much in it to preserve the ecology of Puna. There are hints and suggestions and actions involving a myriad of new regulations, fees, and other hoops any potential builder must jump through to break ground here in Hawaii. This, I find, utterly unsatisfactory. If you want to inhibit development, there is only one way: a moratorium and prohibition on new homes. Period. Else wise, you only prohibit modest homes on modest properties by modest people of modest means. Favors and variances abound for those who have the means of the more than modest. This influences makes a mockery of the plan in general, and unless we want to turn Puna into another version of Maui with some or another superstar owning the bulk of the whole changes must be made.
As well, much is made of "green building."
Regulations, fees, grading permits, etc etc etc, absolutely preclude "green construction." Green construction, in reality, has one core precept: impact. That impact can be evaluated in several terms. The first would be the actual physical impact on the dirt. This is unquestionably important. The second may be the impact on the economy. The third may be the impact of the means by which the funds were earned to build the structure. There is no good in pretending to build "green" when the only way to afford to do so would be to profiteer by a highly paid cooperate job at Haliburton or some such other. The actual financial footprint of the build site is every bit as important as any other measure, and when you are looking at potentially 30000 dollars worth of permits, fees, grading, historical analysis, or whatever, you absolutely preclude low impact building. Absolutely, you do. I personally, take these issues very seriously, and personally very seriously. The fees imposed by the PCDP, as I read it, would cost more than the whole of the structure I inhabit. I defy any of you "greens" to build a "greener" house. The result? You force people to build unsalable properties at their own expense, and charge them the highest possible per square foot costs to do so. Again, the result? You may preclude the building of spec homes, or small homes, but encourage the building of super expensive complexes--ie., Malibu, et al. This is a devastation of the ecology on par with unrestrained development, and it offends me even more as local, honest, native people are wholly sold up the river in THIS scenario. I understand as well that the image is often more valued than the reality, and there is much more to be had in looking green that being it, whatever that means, but I'm concerned with a future that isn't and doesn't even bother to look, at all ecological.
It is very easy to assume that prohibitions and policy will have the effect intended. This assumption is foolhardy in the extreme.
Anyway, running out of steam, and inviting comments.
My concerns.
The PCDP has much in it to preserve the ecology of Puna. There are hints and suggestions and actions involving a myriad of new regulations, fees, and other hoops any potential builder must jump through to break ground here in Hawaii. This, I find, utterly unsatisfactory. If you want to inhibit development, there is only one way: a moratorium and prohibition on new homes. Period. Else wise, you only prohibit modest homes on modest properties by modest people of modest means. Favors and variances abound for those who have the means of the more than modest. This influences makes a mockery of the plan in general, and unless we want to turn Puna into another version of Maui with some or another superstar owning the bulk of the whole changes must be made.
As well, much is made of "green building."
Regulations, fees, grading permits, etc etc etc, absolutely preclude "green construction." Green construction, in reality, has one core precept: impact. That impact can be evaluated in several terms. The first would be the actual physical impact on the dirt. This is unquestionably important. The second may be the impact on the economy. The third may be the impact of the means by which the funds were earned to build the structure. There is no good in pretending to build "green" when the only way to afford to do so would be to profiteer by a highly paid cooperate job at Haliburton or some such other. The actual financial footprint of the build site is every bit as important as any other measure, and when you are looking at potentially 30000 dollars worth of permits, fees, grading, historical analysis, or whatever, you absolutely preclude low impact building. Absolutely, you do. I personally, take these issues very seriously, and personally very seriously. The fees imposed by the PCDP, as I read it, would cost more than the whole of the structure I inhabit. I defy any of you "greens" to build a "greener" house. The result? You force people to build unsalable properties at their own expense, and charge them the highest possible per square foot costs to do so. Again, the result? You may preclude the building of spec homes, or small homes, but encourage the building of super expensive complexes--ie., Malibu, et al. This is a devastation of the ecology on par with unrestrained development, and it offends me even more as local, honest, native people are wholly sold up the river in THIS scenario. I understand as well that the image is often more valued than the reality, and there is much more to be had in looking green that being it, whatever that means, but I'm concerned with a future that isn't and doesn't even bother to look, at all ecological.
It is very easy to assume that prohibitions and policy will have the effect intended. This assumption is foolhardy in the extreme.
Anyway, running out of steam, and inviting comments.