Seaview BOD meeting

[DanielP]

"SPACE has formally withdrawn its request for a letter from the Seaview Association."

I think that was a good move.

[StillHope]

Thank you,Terry.
I know,it's possible to get a peaceful solution.Very difficult,but possible.
The fact that the endorsement letter is withdrawn just got SPACE a lot of points in "my book".
I think the way to win is not to fight unreasonable people who are against,but to prove your good intentions to the reasonable ones who are against or not sure.
I don't think it's too late to arrange the meeting with immediate neighbors only.
Anyway - how about during big events arranging a shuttle from mailbox area to SPACE and manual control of the entrance (with decals (vehicle stickers) for the residents?

___________________________
Whatever you assume,please
just ask a question first.

[Ryan S.]

Oh come on this thread was just getting a little greasy, we have almost a week to kick it around till the big meeting.It would give us a taste of what the real circus show/county planning hearing will be about.I think Seaview folks love these devisive issues more than Oprah!

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by StillHope

Is it possible for SPACE instead of expanding and possibly creating more problems just to go back to comply with the original terms -and everyone lives "happily ever after"?

---

Sure, SPACE can withdraw their application and only do what the original permit authorized. Or, the commission could deny the application and SPACE would be limited to what previously was authorized. Or they can allow some things and deny others. The commission will ultimately have the final word.

What will make this a difficult decision is that unlike most SUP applications, one already exists and the terms of that permit was violated. The Commission members will have to figure out if they could trust the applicant to keep their word.

If there is any opposition from a neighboring property owner claiming the applicants activities negatively impact their lives coupled with the failure of the applicant to live up to the first permit, the commission has a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

It will come down to if the opposition can afford a mainland firm that specializes in tearing the heck out these things, or if they are united enough to seek out those who know where the fuses are buried and know how and when to light them.

Take for example the small issue of parking. It was mentioned that other members own Seaview lots that are used for parking. Were those TMK’s included in the application? Was the use of other lots for parking to support the activities explained? If its missing or silent, one could argue that the applicant didn't include all land involved in the application and is trying to pull a fast one over on the commission. If those other properties are integral to the operation under the permit, someone can raise that as a material omission designed to fool the commission by reducing the full impact.

I'm sure if someone had a good reason to pick over the application, and if they are experienced in these matters, they probably could find other material deficiencies.

[Rob Tucker]

I have to say that Malibu style lawyerly picking the threads of every possible way to defeat the intentions of real people is something I hope stays as far from our shores as possible.

I do want to stay out of the Seaview issue because I do not live there. I don't have a horse in the race. I also think that others who do not live there should stay well out of the details as well.

What does underlie all of this that does interest me is the neglect of planning and services for all Puna over the past decades that have given rise to local people trying to address their own needs. I encourage all meddlers to let the Kalapana Seaview area folks find their own solutions.

Sorry to vent.

[KeaauRich]

Rob, I agree with you for the most part - my only concern is that the lives of all the subdivisions in Puna are intertwined in many ways. So while I agree that those of us outside Seaview shouldn't be overly involved in this specific issue, I am worried about precedents that could be set in one subdivision that could affect another, be it the way the board interprets its role or the way landowners comply/don't comply with land use regulations. It will be interesting to see how the County officials proceed in this matter...

[John S. Rabi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker
...What does underlie all of this that does interest me is the neglect of planning and services for all Puna over the past decades...

---

You should read my letter to the editor in the today's edition of the West Hawaii Today about this, I said exactly the same things!

Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
808.327.3185
johnrabi@johnrabi.com
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
(This is what I think of the Kona Board of Realtors http://KonaBoardOfRealtors.info)

[StillHope]

I agree with both of you,Rob add KeauuRich.
I am a homeowner in Seaview,but I still think that it should have been between the SUP holders and the immediate neighbors only.
I live at the very opposite end of KSECA and my house is not on the main street so I most likely will have all the convenience without paying the price.

But as KR mentioned (and Bob Orts and others mentioned before)-what happens in Saview will affect all subdivisions in Puna and possibly the whole island.

Isn't it why Rob posted Grahm's letter (in bold color print)
on the forum in the first place?

I believe that the SUP holders didn't break their agreement on purpose
thinking that they are going to get away with violations.
People were busy doing great things for the community.

But if county approves this "new and improved" SUP that will open the door to any SUP holder to disregard people around,continue to violate the agreement : "It's OK,we will just change the name(title,format-whatever)later.

And as Bob Orts mentioned ,that SUP holder might turn out not to be so
"good for the community"...

___________________________
Whatever you assume,please
just ask a question first.

[Rob Tucker]

Try to remember that the use and proliferation of Special Use Permits is a band aide for the general lack of planning and zoning on the part of the CoH. Every SUP is there because there was no other plan or zoning opportunity to go by. SUPs should be the exception not the rule, but 80,000 lots all zoned AG with no other planning gives us what we got. Stress.

Many residents of Puna have had to become very creative with the definition of "agricultural". It's not because they want to its because they have had too. The many and varied subdivisions of Puna were not put together to build communities. They were put together so that the large landowners could make a quick buck. They made their bucks, they moved on down the road of history and now the mess needs to be unraveled by those who live here and will live here. Swept under the rug in all this is the county's complicity and culpability.

[DanielP]

Stillhope,
The immediate neighbors will be involved at the county hearings. For any SUP all neighbors within 500 feet of the location must be served notice and their positions are given extra weight in the decision process.

Rob,
You are spot on with the problem of planning (or lack thereof) and I hope that the PCDP process will really work for the long haul.

I am guessing the SPACE is an extrodinarily wonderful concept and I understand how it has grown. Unfortunately, the existing location may not be appropriate from a planning perspective. Then again, it might be.

Dan