HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all?

[Obie]

The county can't change the subdivision rules that were in effect when the subdivision was approved. If it was approved with 40ft right of ways, that's how it can stay.

I could go on but I doubt you would believe me.It has been through the courts.

[Mimosa]

Thank You Obie .
40 ft is fine with us .In addition - a reason for the county to deny any improvements from our collective fuel tax .
At the end of the day - the county will ultimately deny all improvements to sub standard Ag subdivision roads .Mandatory road dues - we think not .Spend another 500K on studies from the state or county on the feasibility of improving the roads in private subdivisions .
Eden Roc is another prime example - where mandatory road fees are optional .
Fern Forest won in court by class action law suit several years ago to over turn the mandatory road dues .
Mrs.Mimosa

[My 2 cents]

Road width is irrelevant to this legislation. There is nothing in the bill that suggests the county taking ownership of the roads. It's more about county oversight.

I agree that oversight is desperately needed in some subdivisions, but what about the others? HA is a special situation and there may be similar ones, but perhaps there are others that are functioning properly, keeping the roads maintained and keeping the residents happy. Why should any of these subdivisions be subjected to the added expense of what amounts to a pseudo-receivership that is both unwanted and unneeded? There needs to be an opt out clause in the bill for those that don't want it (by popular vote, of course).

There also needs to be some constraints on the costs for those that do want it. Right now it's left up to the "entities" how much it will cost, with no limits. No voting. No voice. The "entities" will determine what level of maintenance is required and what level of oversight is required and how much that will cost and bill us for it. Giving them blank check is not a good idea.

[My 2 cents]

Oversight....there is a better way.

It's very frustrating to try to hold directors accountable for rogue behavior. It can take years and cost thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thus the rampant rogue behavior. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to simply report the violation to a government agency with supporting documentation and let them take care of it?

Perhaps the Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO) or the Attorney General's office could field some of these complaints and act on them. My guess is that it would take some extra personell for a short time, but once the tone was set the rogues would start behaving themselves. Waaaay cheaper than the proposed legislation.

It's late. This was just a dream.

[kalakoa]

Road width is irrelevant to this legislation.

Incorrect: road width will be a sticking point that County can use to derail the intent of the legislation.

See also: Bill 37, introduced by O'Hara, would have reduced the minimum right-of-way to 40 feet for "minor streets in rural and agricultural areas". Bill was withdrawn after objection from Public Works citing the "dangerous and unsafe conditions" that would be created by such a narrow right-of-way, because there are AASHTO studies that say this is true.

As is often the case with "must have new rules", there are perfectly usable rules already on the books: simply declare that roads within a subdivision are "alleys", which only require a 20-foot paved right-of-way.

The subdivisions were approved with a 40-foot right-of-way. Either the 60-foot requirement existed (and the plats were illegal as written) or the 60-foot requirement was added later (thereby rendering all existing subdivisions "substandard").

Fortunately, all of this nonsense is paid for with public dollars, so all the public has to do is vote for what they want, because democracy and freedom and America.

[My 2 cents]

Road width is irrelevant to this legislation.

Incorrect: road width will be a sticking point that County can use to derail the intent of the legislation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't doubt you, but could you give an example? I can't come up with one that makes sense. Silly me, thinking it has to.

[kalakoa]

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session20...0_HD1_.HTM

2(a). The pilot project shall apply only to counties with a population of more than one-hundred eighty thousand but less than two-hundred fifty thousand.

Meaning: only Hawaii County has this problem. (Really?)

2(b). "Maintenance" shall include the costs of management, maintenance, and repair of roads and infrastructure, insurance costs and fees for the management and collection of assessments.

Note that "road" is not defined here, or anywhere else in HB2570 HD1.

2©(2). Require the county to assess and collect fees from lot owners in a housing subdivision to pay for the maintenance and improvement of the roads; and
2©(3). Require the county to expend the funds collected to maintain and improve the subdivision roads.
2(e)(2). The interim rules shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws

I thought County was forbidden from funding private roads by its own Code.

[My 2 cents]

Thanks, I see it now. Kinda like what Harry said to me about 10 years ago: "Those aren't really roads, they're just an extension of your driveway".

Class action. I don't care how old it gets, keep saying it.