Puna Trafic

[Rob Tucker]

Wax, Lacking any proposed route for a proposed PMAR it is a bit premature for the residents of DDHL lands to feel the heat of traffic impact. HPP has determined, after a years effort, that 1% of it's property owners are against PMAR. Fortunately the funding seems to be forthcoming for a thorough study which may result in a recommended route after twenty years of talk. Then I think that the polling and posturing will be appropriate.

Shipman has plenty and sufficient land outside of it's AG lands to accommodate an alternate route... and I consider it a practical matter that a route through their makai lands would benefit them in ways major and minor. But I am a cynic when it comes to DHHL & Shipman. I have had close dealings with them both and after approaching them with open mind and eyes I now know better.

We agree on many aspects of Puna's needs but the methods are points of difference. I did reject Fukumoto's Second City proposal some years ago and can not for the life of me see Puna operating on any practical level as though our county seat, airport, harbor and host of existing commercial and industrial areas are or will be off limits.

I agree with James that serious improvements are needed in Puna for jobs, services and other needs.... but that does not change two facts on which the PCDP took hard looks....

1. Puna has the lots at this time to support a population of approx. 200,000 and projections are that someday it will.

2. Hwy 130 is inadequate to the current needs much less any doubling or tripling or quadrupling of residents.

Once construction starts on Hwy 130 and continues for several years the attitudes of many people opposed to PMAR will be reevaluated.
I am of the opinion that there will be no one single solution to a graceful future for Puna and I reject any thinking that thinks there
is a magic bullet. It will be a combination of things that works best for the most people. I also think that PMAR, properly done, would be of great benefit to HPP and its residents and would elevate HPP in stature and value.

[punaticbychoice]

I'm with you Rob.

[oink]

I don't recall getting the survey. I would have voted with the 24% with my 2 votes.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[james weatherford]

Rob,
Please note, contrary to what you indicate above, there is a proposed route -- Nanawale to Hilo and through areas that are less developed.
All lines from Nanawale to Hilo go through HPP and the less developed part of HPP is between 5th and 15th. How does one go from Nanawale to Hilo, between 5th and 15th in HPP, without going through at least one, if not more Hawaiian Homelands properties, notably, in Panaewa and Makuu?

[JerryCarr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oink

I don't recall getting the survey. I would have voted with the 24% with my 2 votes.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

---

We could not get the HPPOA board to agree to mail the survey to all lot owners due to postage cost issues. They did, however, include a link to the on-line survey on the cover page of the mandatory financial information packet that goes out every year. There was also a link on the HPPOA website, and the HPP office had pen and ink surveys available during regular business hours. Sorry you missed it.

While 200 responses may not seem like a lot, it actually exceeds the number who vote in some board of director elections. Long-time observers of the HPP deliberative process have actually expressed amazement at the level of interest PMAR has drawn. Yes,the apathy in HPP is actually that bad!

[Rob Tucker]

Check it out on Google Earth. It is quite doable without impacting the existing residents of Panaewa or Makuu. Neither Panaewa or Makuu extend to the shore with their existing housing.

I think the place to enter Hilo is at Puainako.

Puainako (just past the Prince Kuhio Shopping Center) is already a two way divided roadway for some reason and there is nothing makai of it. A PMAR approaching Puainka could have a turn off for the airport too.

[csgray]

James and Rob,
I have a lot of respect for both of you and wish you guys could just agree to disagree on some things and cool the sniping at each other. Both of you are long term involved residents of Puna and both of you care deeply about what happens here. In the bigger picture I would guess you actually agree more than you disagree, so could you both just bring the civility level up a notch or two and the passive aggressive sniping down by the same amount? You are both intelligent people with a wealth of personal history and experience that benefits Puna in many ways, if you could communicate in a clear and impersonal manner it might really help all of us who live here figure out these big important issues.


Carol

[Rob Tucker]

Jerry, I really do congratulate you on the 200 people who engaged with you on the subject. I truly know how much work that was and what the challenge is like faced with a ownership base of 8,800 and ingrained apathy. Don't think your efforts are not appreciated. I believe the $1.5 million for the study of PMAR is very good news and will hopefully mean that all owners and stakeholders can be thoroughly consulted. I know that you and James Weatherford opposed release of the $1.5 million. It's okay to disagree on that...

Carol, Thanks for the calming note. To the largest degree I think we have been very on topic here but I will try to dial down any sniping at my part. I do get frustrated from time to time. There are a lot of issues in the air and James Weatherford Has some (not all) positions I do not understand or disagree with.... so he will be having to defend them.

[james weatherford]

Indeed, apologies, Carol and everyone else.
Rob and I and are both blessed with the curse of the caring

I look forward to engaging any and all constituents in a conversation on what my candidacy is about.

As a starter, I'd direct folks to jamesweatherford.com