Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CoH to HPP: Trust Us.
#1
CoH to HPP:  Trust Us.
10/21/10

I attended the Hawaiian Paradise Park BoD meeting at which Mayor Kenoi’s assistant Hunter Bishop and Councilwoman Emily Naeole-Beason described the goal of putting a park in HPP as part of a $56 million bond currently before council.  The portion of the bond intended for improvements within HPP is $5.5 million.

Hunter Bishop led off with describing the unmet needs in HPP and the county’s desire to acquire a 20 acre parcel for a public park.  HPP would be required to donate the 20 acres to the county.  Hunter made the point that the HPP board needed to make a decision soon.

I would personally very much like to see Paradise Park acquire a nicely developed 20 acre recreational area.  Once completed the yet to be named  park would be operated and maintained by Parks & Recreation Department.  It is long, long over due. But pay attention to the details.

Emily Naeole-Beason stood and said that she needs  the support of HPP at council and that Brenda Ford was trying to take the $5.5 million to Kona and that Emily was fighting hard to keep the money for Puna.

Three things about the presentation cause me concern and I would like to have the residents of HPP, their Board of Directors and the public at large simply consider some history, facts and current Herald Tribune news.

1.  It was eight years ago, during another election year, that Mainstreet Pahoa Association deeded 56 acres to the County of Hawaii for a district park.  I was on the Board of Directors at the time and personally added my signature to the release of the property to the county.  We were told to “Trust us” and we did just that.  Eight years later nothing has happened.  The land sits doing nothing.  Our community, frustrated by the lack of performance by the Department of Parks and Recreation, turned our attention to building the Pahoa Skate Park and as you know we completed it.  But the 56 acres remain to this day neglected.  Promise not kept.  It became an investment in cynicism. 

2.  While Pahoa’s unused land donation sat these past years it became a bit of a political football with current and past council representatives wanting to use it for purposes other than a district park.  Most recently, just this past summer, Councilwoman Emily Naeole-Beason was proposing placing a homeless shelter on the same donated park land.  These are facts. I am not against a homeless shelter but the land was gifted to the county for a district park.

3.  Councilwoman Naeole-Beason’s description of Brenda Ford attempting to “take the the 5.5 to Kona” and that Emily had to fight her for it is at odds with the recent Herald-Tribune article on the topic.

 (http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/arti...ocal02.txt)

According to the Trib: At council Brenda Ford made a motion for the borrowed money to be specifically earmarked for the Mayor’s priority projects.  Quoting the paper:

“"We, the council, need to know where this money is going, and our constituents need to know," said South Kona Councilwoman Brenda Ford.

Ford proposed amending the bill to tie funding to the projects Kenoi has prioritized and prevent the administration from diverting it.

"It's our responsibility to make sure we know what's going on," she said.

In talking with people actually at the council hearing absolutely no attempt was made by Brenda Ford to divert funds from an HPP park to Kona.  The opposite actually occurred and Brenda Ford attempted to have the funding specified for the HPP park. Brenda’s motion to specify  the funding was defeated with Councilwoman Naeole-Beason voting against it.  

When Hunter Bishop was asked by the HPP BoD about the promised $5.5 million possibly being used for other purposes Hunter admitted that the funds were not dedicated and could in fact be used in other ways and implied that if the HPP BoD doesn’t come together and hand over the 20 acres the money could go somewhere else.  Actually as it stands the money could go somewhere else even if HPP deeds over the land.  This project is in the conceptual stage or even pre conceptual stage.  

Having been on the short end of county promises eight years ongoing I want to offer some small advice to the HPP BoD.  Some of whom are recently elected, just as I was eight years past, and I would like to see HPP succeed where Pahoa did not.

Get a lawyer.  

Examine as quickly as possible at least three things.  A)  Can the transfer of 20 acres be done in a manner that 100% restricts the future use to a public recreational park.  B)   Can the transfer of the 20 acres to the CoH contain legal contingencies which obligate the CoH to actually complete the park within a reasonable amount of time or, failing that, the land would revert back to the HPP Association.  C)  Can HPPOA have practical approval of the development plan.

Hunter  indicated that a dedicated use might be acceptable - he had to check.  Hunter also indicated that conditions of actual performance might be a deal killer.  It is my belief that in numerous locations property has transferred from private to public hands with performance conditions included.

CoH to HPP:  Trust Us.

Pahoa to HPP:  Get a lawyer.  Please.


Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#2
Thank you, Rob, for the report and the warning. Promises made by policitians during election campaigns are . . . uh, well, the most polite thing I can say is dubious. Many of us in HPP have had doubts about the park promise made by Mayor Kenoi at our July General Membership Meeting. I have spoken with some HPP Board members, and they are not of a mind to take a leap of faith and sign over one of our 20 acre parcels of land without binding restrictions and a time frame. I don’t know if a board majority is of this opinion, but I applaud those who are taking this stand.

Another factor, which has been mentioned by James Weatherford, is the road situation. All of the parcels of land suitable for a park are on our private roads some distance from the nearest public highway. As James correctly stated, outside traffic would come into HPP to enjoy a public park, thus creating a great deal of wear and tear on our private roads. We haven’t heard even an election year promise from the County to deal with that issue.

I know some people naively think, “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” I would slightly revise another fable/platitude and say, “Beware of Hawaii County politicians bearing gifts.”
Reply
#3
Trying to connect issues, like roads to parks, is a great way to get nothing done. However, on that train of thought a lot of effort was put forth this summer by FoPF (www.fopf.org) to deliver a Grant-in-Aid (GiA) program for Fuel Tax Revenues (FTR) to be shared with the private subdivisions. This is in motion with reasonable chance of success over the coming year. Given a GiA delivery of maintenance money the cars driving to and from a park in HPP would in fact be contributing to the maintenance of those roads. What does it take to recognize that efforts are well underway on the road maintenance situation?

I will predict that well before any ribbon cutting on a HPP park there will be FTR funds aiding the road maintenance in Puna subdivisions.

HPP needs a park. I don't see finding reasons to object to a park being productive in any way. The underlying complaint seems to be that if there is a park people might even use it.
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#4
Once completed the yet to be named park would be operated and maintained by Parks & Recreation Department.

ROFL.... thats a zinger of a line right there. I also hear planet X will be coming by in 2012 or something HAHAHAHAHA.....
Reply
#5
I say we do it ourselves like the roads. The county could care less about HPP. It's HPP property...let HPP develop and maintain it.
Reply
#6
macuu222, That is not an unreasonable proposal. The CoH $56 million bond issue will have a burden of interest of about $4.5 million per year. Add to that the history of county projects costing nearly twice what they should it is worth considering that the county would deliver (maybe) a $3 million park for $5.5 million.

It is within reason for HPP to take a look, and ask it's residents to approve, a $3 million bond for a wholly owned HPP park. This would be effective except that the overlaying issue is that HPP has already been paying property taxes for a long time without getting much in return and it is very reasonable for HPP to have the CoH install and maintain a park.

A wholly owned HPP park would have ongoing costs of maintenance and I have no practical ida on how to restrict its use to only HPP residents and guests.
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#7
Rob, I like you playing devil's advocate, but I think you know that asking the HPP property owners to take on $3M in debt for a park would not be well received. We already are paying for $12M in bonds for road paving that will only do about 25% of the roads rather than all of them as many were led to believe.

I do see Fuel Tax revenue sharing as a way around the road wear issue, however, providing that the County ever actually creates a legal and durable mechanism for assuring a consistent flow of funds. (It would also be nice if it were unable to be taken away by a future mayor or council.) I brought up the road factor because HPP Board members are already discussing it as a big issue attached to the park project.
Reply
#8
It is my hope that the soon to be formed Ad Hoc committee will form a durable mechanism for the GiA program. The source of funding will be the Highway Fund. Those funds cannot be used to buy furniture for county offices.

It is my belief that the private subdivisions are and will be much more efficient in using maintenance funding than the county is.

Macuu222's suggestion though is on the right path of examining all options and making rationale decisions. I agree that the HPP residents would be hard pressed to approve such a bond issue. I see the underlying issue for a park, road maintenance and PMAR is the question... Is HPP an island in and of itself or is HPP an integral part of the Puna District and the CoH?
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#9
quote:
Originally posted by JerryCarr

I do see Fuel Tax revenue sharing as a way around the road wear issue, however, providing that the County ever actually creates a legal and durable mechanism for assuring a consistent flow of funds. (It would also be nice if it were unable to be taken away by a future mayor or council.)
The first hurdle is the State. They have to authorize FTR to be used for this purpose. That's the biggest stumbling block.

You may be seeing the private roads in HPP, but the legislators are seeing (as the law will have to read) public FTR being given to private developments. What's to stop a private developer in Kona from asking for their fair share of public tax revenue to maintain their private streets in their luxury complex? What’s to stop homeowners who live on a private street anywhere in the state from asking for public tax revenue for maintaining their private streets? Does that mean Shipman can build a private business development and expect tax payer funding to maintain their private streets? All that is required is the roadway be used by the public, no gates, and you have the makings of private property development welfare for road maintenance.

When that door is open, all private developers will be asking for their share. How much money is available for district road maintenance and what will public roads look like when private developments are siphoning off a chunk of that money?

Once FTR is used for private development maintenance issues, what's to stop private property owners from demanding that tax revenue be given to them to maintain shoreline or open space access? It will be the same exact legal argument. What about commercial development where people use their property as a cut through? Don't they have the right to ask for tax payer funding to maintain their private property for a public good?

Ko Olina on Oahu is private roads but required to give public vehicle access to the beaches. They would have every right to start demanding FTR to maintain their streets. How many private roads exist on the Big Island where the public has use of it? Can you afford maintaining all of them? That cute little furry ball that fits in the palm of your hand is really a grizzly bear.
Reply
#10
These are all lovely points about FTR but they would be better served on a separate topic.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)