Ford, Ruderman: More precincts need redo

[kalakoa]

Let us stipulate, for the sake of argument, that "sustainability" as defined by SB2274 is a "Bad Thing".

The economy of the County needs to grow in order to meet its current and future fiscal obligations.

Please suggest alternatives.

[Guest]

Well first let's start by, not allowing the non/con profit, to write the legislation and to use their membership to get it passed, which is a total violation of federal law. But let me not get into that now.

I know many where shocked about the demise of SB2274 but next time PLEASE READ THE LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO SUPPORT IT! If you had read the bill, you would see, that the section Ruderman was amending, allowed for geothermal resources. That in and of itself, should have raised the eyebrows of the Puno Pono Alliance, and yet we were told by the president, Bob Pettricci, not to come to the meeting under the threat of the police being called. How pono is that?

As far an alternative, I believe in community involvement and consensus on issues like this. And that it should be a transparent process. How can we expect a transparent process, when the legislation that was introduced, was written by a very select group of people, who stood to directly benefit from it?

[Rob Tucker]

All kinds of legislation gets drafted by all kinds of people for all kinds of purposes. A small percentage actually becomes law. Who, under our state constitution, is prohibited from drafting legislation?

[kalakoa]

PLEASE READ THE LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU DECIDE

Here we go again.

I did read the legislation, several times. It does not, of itself, "allow" anything; it merely directs County to create a process for allowing things.

I believe in community involvement and consensus on issues like this.

I am specifically asking how County can enhance revenue-generating opportunities. Sustainability practices and small-scale ag tourism can both generate revenue. Does community involvement and consensus generate revenue?

Try it this way: there are those who would stifle development in order to preserve their "country lifestyle". Is it fair that everyone be taxed to subsidize peace and quiet for some? Should I have to move to town when my "country" revenue is no longer adequate?

All I see are claims that "sustainability = geothermal-powered Walmart on the beach" and the even more ridiculous "ag tourism = people selling mason jars full of Roundup". I might even be willing to consider either or both of these claims at face value IF presented with some reasonable alternatives.

Instead, it seems like everyone in "the country" is perfectly willing to drive (complete with poisoning the environment by turning fossil fuel into emissions) at least 30 minutes for everything, while insisting that their little country shack has little (if any) taxable value.

[Guest]

Rob, now that is a good question. Here is the answer. 501©3's are NOT allowed to do direct or grassroots lobbying let alone writing legislation, which Graham admits to doing. They are allowed to comment in general about policy but not about a specific piece of legislation.

If a nonprofit wants to lobby they have to create a political action committee but there are many rules that govern that particular situation. I think it becomes a 501H. The other thing, I would like to point out is that the organization that Graham started in 2010, the Hawai'i Sustainable Community Alliance (HSCA), is under the fiscal sponsorship of the Hawaii Volcano Circus (HVC). This particular organization, HSCA has to behave like a nonprofit because they are under the fiscal sponsorship of a nonprofit. And here is the ultimate rub...the mission statement for HSCA is nothing like or not in sync with the mission statement of HVC, which it has to be.

[Guest]

kalakoa, just go through the special use process that has already been developed. It gives neighborhoods the right to know what is going down and gives the residents an opportunity to object or submit their input to the planning commission who will ultimately decide whether the project goes forward or not.

Why do you think all of the other islands took themselves out of sb2274 except for Maui? Graham and Ruderman boasted about no opposition in the house and senate... maybe that was because the other island were exempted from this bill.

Not bad,kalakoa, for someone "who can't step away from her bong."

[Rob Tucker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sativa

Rob, now that is a good question. Here is the answer. 501©3's are NOT allowed to do direct or grassroots lobbying let alone writing legislation, which Graham admits to doing.

---

Sativa, Graham is also an individual. You may consider him to be a 501c3 but he is not one. He may be involved in a 501c3 but that does not restrict his rights or opportunities as an individual.

[kalakoa]

just go through the special use process that has already been developed.

You mean the Special Use Process that worked so well for SPACE?

[Guest]

Rob Tucker quote:
"Sativa, Graham is also an individual. You may consider him to be a 501c3 but he is not one. He may be involved in a 501c3 but that does not restrict his rights or opportunities as an individual."


Yeah but look at Graham's testimony. He spoke and wrote letters for sb 2274 as the president of Hawaii Sustainable Community Alliance (HSCA). So did his girlfriend, Dena, who is Secretary of the conprofit. Rob, what we are saying, is that Graham authored and championed sb2274, as the president of HSCA, and HSCA is under the fiscal sponsorship of the Hawaii Volcano Circus. Also, on their website HSCA claims to be a state nonprofit. I may be wrong but I cannot find them registered with the state.
Here is the link:
http://ag.hawaii.gov/tax/

Scroll down to "Internet List of Exempt Charities"

[kalakoa]

Yeah but look at Graham's testimony.

Compared to the misleading statements made in a public forum?