Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
There will be a County Council Committee meeting on 5/16/12 at 10:00am at the County Bldg. (in Hilo). Dominic Yagong has drafted a bill relating to the Relocation Fund. Please review the bill carefully, and submit testimony either for or against the changes.
Agenda:
http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/...Page1.aspx
Communication 710 Document:
http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/WebLink8/...Page1.aspx
Bill 256 Document (Draft #1):
http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/WebLink8/...Page1.aspx
Submit Testimony:
Office of the County Clerk at 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720, by facsimile to (808) 961-8912; or by e-mail to counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us.
Posts: 8,489
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
The bill seems to be quite appropriate in it's purpose and one that I can generally support.
What I like about it:
1. It maintains the fund for relocation purposes.
2. It terminates the slush fund (community benefit) created by Emily Naeole.
3. It folds back monies from the sale of property.
What I don't like about it:
4. The relocation funds must be claimed or applied on or before Dec. 31, 2012. What happens to accumulating fund cash after that?
5. Apparently after relocation of all qualified residents the funds would only be available for Public Safety Program. Which is fine until
such time as the needs of Public Safety have been addressed. Does cash just accumulate after that? Gain interest? Purpose?
6. The existing "community benefit" aspect is removed and there seems to be no future potential for "community benefits". It would seem
to me that there should, somehow & someday, be benefits to the community from geothermal operations.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
Thank you for your comments. Point(s) taken, and there are other issues which concern me as well. It is disappointing that this thread did not get more attention, as these kinds of bills and legislation will affect our entire community.
I gather the State will need to get involved, as will the EPA, due to the continued health issues that are raised. It's odd that in all of these years, only recently have we heard about the continued health problems. We have a serious issue that needs to be verified and addressed. However, the County really has no standing when it comes to regulation of the existing plant.
Where was the County for all these years, and what have they done to ensure public health and safety? One (1) meeting in Pahoa and all of this arises? The threat of more lawsuits seems to motivate our elected officials, especially in a political environment. It's no secret that "they settled our case for millions", as over 70 people sued and "won" monetary rewards. It seems another class action suit is pending, per the testimony at the Pahoa Council special meeting by various testifiers.
Overall,PGV/ORMAT is responsible for certain conditions as the developer, and our State and Federal Government is responsible to enforce what is required to protect our community.
As to the relocation fund, it has been in place and has conditions that need to be met. If people purchased their property after the plant was in operation, they should have done their own due diligence. Why should the Puna tax payer be penalized because the buyer did not do their homework? It just seems unfair.
The only fund available to the host community, Puna, for community benefits is at risk due to issues that should be taken care of by the developer, the State and the Federal Goverment. Puna loses if this passes. Again.
We are all concerned about health issues, and want to be certain our community is safe. I hope the facts of this matter will eventually be revealed, on all sides of this argument and concern.
This community deserves answers, and all we have so far is posturing, accusations, elections coming up, and nothing of substance to make these kinds of decisions. Just my opinion, as always. Mahalo.
