11-25-2008, 04:45 AM
This very interesting post is from Kristine Kubat's blog located at:
http://kubehead.com/
Used with permission
As Follows:
Chuck Flaherty’s comment on this issue is rather long but well worth the time it takes to read and digest. He has been at this for seven years and could use some support right about now. Please read and stay posted for more on community efforts to preserve the native ecosystem and prevent flooding as well as other environmental disasters. It is just shameful how these litigants have been treated not only by the Kim Administration but the local media.
I am reposting Chuck’s comment here for folks to read:
Aloha Kristine,
Here’s a portion of the letter that I sent to the mayor today as efforts to remedy the county’s breach of the settlement agreement continue.
“With regard to the thoughts which were provided in your letter of November 5, 2008, please consider the following comments.
1. Breach of Section 10.1 of the Addendum to Settlement Agreement and Section 17.1 of Exhibit “A” of the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement.
Most of the items listed in your November 5, 2008 letter with regard to Chapters 10 and 27 simply reiterate prior law and, therefore, represent neither substantive changes nor do they accomplish the objectives of the settlement agreement. .
The state agency letters (SHPD, DBEDT, DOH) listed in your November 5, 2008 letter were not introduced into the county council as communications or otherwise made available to the general public. As such, please send me copies of these letters.
Also, please identify the Certified Floodplain Manager who is intended to spearhead public outreach and education. I note that this effort was not described in your letter as an on-going program.
I would like to provide you with a brief refresher history on these matters.
In 2001, Hokuli’a plaintiffs Charles Flaherty, Jack Kelly, and Michele Wilkins gave all of their damage awards from the ocean runoff to your administration to pay for a project to revise Chapter 10. These funds were matched by the county and the state.
The project did not begin until 2004 and was completed in December 2005. Yet the revision project was not released by Wilson-Okamoto (the same consultant who prepared the Kona Community Development Plan) until March 14, 2006, one hour after the Hokuli’a settlement agreement was approved by the Third Circuit Court.
If you will remember, this five year delay was the sole reason that I negotiated those terms which require revisions to strengthen regulations under Chapters 10, 23, and 27 and which required those revisions to be introduced into the County Council by September 14, 2006.
Representatives of your administration met with the former plaintiffs in May, August, and October 2006 to discuss revisions to Chapter 10, but refused to make any changes other than a requirement for grubbing/grading permit signs to be displayed on appropriate properties. They also refused in these meetings to consider revisions to Chapter 27 until Chapter 10 had been addressed.
In the October 2006 meeting, representatives of your administration promised that the Chapter 10 revision would be reviewed by Corporation Council and introduced into the County Council by February 2007. Instead, your administration introduced a revision to Chapter 27 in February 2007 without any notice to the plaintiffs. The Hokuli’a plaintiffs were never informed that the DPW was revising Chapter 27, even as we were meeting to discuss revisions to Chapter 10. Clearly, the DPW did not act in good faith.
Two years later, your administration finally delivered on its promise to introduce a revision to Chapter 10. Rather than strengthening Chapter 10, the proposed revision would weaken the current law.
As a result, I sent you a determination of breach of numerous terms of the settlement agreement.
Last month, the county council postponed consideration of your administration’s proposed revision of Chapter 10 and instructed your administration to give communities around the island an opportunity to tell representatives of your administration about the problems that they are having with the existing grubbing and grading ordinance and to present their ideas for changes to the law in order to make it better.
During the past eight years, illegal bulldozing has grown worse because it has now become common knowledge that your administration is not regulating grubbing and grading activities. In public testimony on proposed revisions to the county flood control law last year, even developers and their associates stated that the primary problem was the fact that the county was not regulating existing laws or taking action against known perpetrators.
When “we the people”, the government, deregulate good laws either through change or neglect, the lower forms of human nature, the outlaws, take over. And that is why we are now hearing about residents being threatened with harm when they attempt to stop or report illegal activities and why an increasing number of residents are experiencing unprecedented flooding.
It is important that you understand that your administration’s lack of regulation is ultimately responsible for a sometimes serious disintegration of civil behavior and “aloha” within our island’s communities.”
http://kubehead.com/
Used with permission
As Follows:
Chuck Flaherty’s comment on this issue is rather long but well worth the time it takes to read and digest. He has been at this for seven years and could use some support right about now. Please read and stay posted for more on community efforts to preserve the native ecosystem and prevent flooding as well as other environmental disasters. It is just shameful how these litigants have been treated not only by the Kim Administration but the local media.
I am reposting Chuck’s comment here for folks to read:
Aloha Kristine,
Here’s a portion of the letter that I sent to the mayor today as efforts to remedy the county’s breach of the settlement agreement continue.
“With regard to the thoughts which were provided in your letter of November 5, 2008, please consider the following comments.
1. Breach of Section 10.1 of the Addendum to Settlement Agreement and Section 17.1 of Exhibit “A” of the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement.
Most of the items listed in your November 5, 2008 letter with regard to Chapters 10 and 27 simply reiterate prior law and, therefore, represent neither substantive changes nor do they accomplish the objectives of the settlement agreement. .
The state agency letters (SHPD, DBEDT, DOH) listed in your November 5, 2008 letter were not introduced into the county council as communications or otherwise made available to the general public. As such, please send me copies of these letters.
Also, please identify the Certified Floodplain Manager who is intended to spearhead public outreach and education. I note that this effort was not described in your letter as an on-going program.
I would like to provide you with a brief refresher history on these matters.
In 2001, Hokuli’a plaintiffs Charles Flaherty, Jack Kelly, and Michele Wilkins gave all of their damage awards from the ocean runoff to your administration to pay for a project to revise Chapter 10. These funds were matched by the county and the state.
The project did not begin until 2004 and was completed in December 2005. Yet the revision project was not released by Wilson-Okamoto (the same consultant who prepared the Kona Community Development Plan) until March 14, 2006, one hour after the Hokuli’a settlement agreement was approved by the Third Circuit Court.
If you will remember, this five year delay was the sole reason that I negotiated those terms which require revisions to strengthen regulations under Chapters 10, 23, and 27 and which required those revisions to be introduced into the County Council by September 14, 2006.
Representatives of your administration met with the former plaintiffs in May, August, and October 2006 to discuss revisions to Chapter 10, but refused to make any changes other than a requirement for grubbing/grading permit signs to be displayed on appropriate properties. They also refused in these meetings to consider revisions to Chapter 27 until Chapter 10 had been addressed.
In the October 2006 meeting, representatives of your administration promised that the Chapter 10 revision would be reviewed by Corporation Council and introduced into the County Council by February 2007. Instead, your administration introduced a revision to Chapter 27 in February 2007 without any notice to the plaintiffs. The Hokuli’a plaintiffs were never informed that the DPW was revising Chapter 27, even as we were meeting to discuss revisions to Chapter 10. Clearly, the DPW did not act in good faith.
Two years later, your administration finally delivered on its promise to introduce a revision to Chapter 10. Rather than strengthening Chapter 10, the proposed revision would weaken the current law.
As a result, I sent you a determination of breach of numerous terms of the settlement agreement.
Last month, the county council postponed consideration of your administration’s proposed revision of Chapter 10 and instructed your administration to give communities around the island an opportunity to tell representatives of your administration about the problems that they are having with the existing grubbing and grading ordinance and to present their ideas for changes to the law in order to make it better.
During the past eight years, illegal bulldozing has grown worse because it has now become common knowledge that your administration is not regulating grubbing and grading activities. In public testimony on proposed revisions to the county flood control law last year, even developers and their associates stated that the primary problem was the fact that the county was not regulating existing laws or taking action against known perpetrators.
When “we the people”, the government, deregulate good laws either through change or neglect, the lower forms of human nature, the outlaws, take over. And that is why we are now hearing about residents being threatened with harm when they attempt to stop or report illegal activities and why an increasing number of residents are experiencing unprecedented flooding.
It is important that you understand that your administration’s lack of regulation is ultimately responsible for a sometimes serious disintegration of civil behavior and “aloha” within our island’s communities.”
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator