There goes our park in HPP

[macuu222]

I new it was too good to be true...

"Another change turned a proposed $5.5 million park in Hawaiian Paradise Park into generic recreational facilities to be located somewhere in lower Puna."

No doubt "somewhere in lower puna" means somewhere that isn't in a "private subdivision"

I'm not surprised...In the 21 years I've lived in the park...I've never seen the county give HPP anything....not even the time of day. And I expect the state and the federal government to be the same way. The only way to get things done in a private subdivision like HPP is to have it payed for by its residents. It would be naive of people to think otherwise...


http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/arti...ocal05.txt

[Carey]

HPP is a private agricultural subdivision, initially had gates, and is not a residential subdivision, per the platted subdivision.

The SCPEA of 1928 was a DOC planning act that foresaw the current problems that the psuedo-residential, yet actually agriculturally zoned subdivisions within Hawaii County, are having. Most of the subdivisions were created under territorial law, and should have come under the SCPEA.... but the agricultural zoning was a way around providing municipal improvements.

Too bad that the zoning was/is not residential, but if it was, the landowners (past & current) would have needed to pay for the improvements required by residential code.... one of the reasons why a residential zoned lot in Hawaii county costs more than an agriculturally zoned lot - the residential improvements are required for residential subdivision lots, not for agricultural zoned lots.

[Seeb]

Knew it was a scam, HPP was never going to get a park it was just a line holder for the bond.
There is land that the county was already given in hpp that they did nothing with

[JerryCarr]

Seeb makes a good point about the land we already donated being left with no facilities whatsoever. There were negotiations between HPP and the County about HPP donating one of our 20 acre parcels for the current proposal. This resulted in a lot of back and forth, some of which involved HPP insisting on deed reversion should the park not be built as promised within a specified amount of time. There were also concerns about the liability and wear issues associated with the location being some distance down one of our private roads. There is probably more, but there still might be a chance . . . or not.

[Kelena]

Bring back the gates.

[Royall]

Oooooo. That would piss off a lot of commuters that use HPP as a short cut past the morning slow down!!

Royall

[Kelena]

Toll roads.

[JerryCarr]

Now that's an interesting idea. Charging non-members a toll to get around the bottleneck. I like it. The HPPOA board has been (somewhat) worried about all the cars using our roads for that purpose, and it will only get worse when they begin construction of the widening of Hwy 130. Charging will not only reduce the wear and tear, but generate income. I'm sure there's some law against it, but then that's what we have lawyers for.

[Kelena]

I'm not working this weekend! I'm very lazy.

What it comes down to for me is this: It would be fundamentally unfair for the government to treat HPP as a private subdivision with private roads, that must be maintained with private funds while contending --if it does-- that these private roads must be a public throughway.

HPP should turn its supposed weakness into its strength. If the government asserts we are on our own as a private subdivision when it benefits the government to do so, HPP should assert that it is indeed a private subdivision when it benefits HPP to do so. Of course, the government could condemn its way through HPP if it needs to (and give HPP just compensation for doing so). But right now it doesn't need to do that because HPP is going along with being treated as a throughway, with all the wear and tear that entails.

I doubt HPP is alone among private subdivisions that are normally neither fish nor fowl but which become a fish when the government wants fish, or become fowl when the government wants chicken. And so if the law be against us, then we should contact other similar put-upon subdivisions, unite that political power and get the law changed.

I use the word "law" here broadly because I think the following holds true as a general statement: Hawaii real property law is more custom, political might (or the failure to assert political might), and local improvisation than it is something that we would recognize as law.

Right now I am thinking boulders. Lots of really big boulders.

[punaticbychoice]

The County has the land, a Community Center,and a pool in Pahoa.
Put the facilities there.
Where they they service Puna as a whole.