Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Puna to Hilo and back again
#21
the HPP landowners are individual homeowners with relatively little clout and the Shipman Estate is a deep pocketed organization

Nor are these the only two landowners; PMAR also crosses some State land, among others.

I often wonder why Shipman wouldn't want a PMAR with C-zoned frontage -- that property would be worth far more than the current "conservation" or "ag" uses.

many are workers who commute to Hilo daily and drive their kids to Keaau for school, instead of retirees who wanted that "country" experience

Around here, it often seems that decisions, once made, can never be revisited...

I'll point out, again, that HPP has a "development plan" that includes using the 20-acre parcels for "neighborhood commercial centers". This plan is 20 years old; the various goals have been brought forward into the PCDP, now 8 years old. I realize that nothing happens overnight, but we really should have more to show than endless "studies" and "working groups"...

makes me glad I telecommute

Yes -- as long as all new residents also telecommute, the congestion won't get any worse. Of course, that only helps for the properties that can get broadband... everyone else will be sitting in traffic... ain't progress great?
Reply
#22
In Hawaii County the rule is one acre, one vote.

To which I would add: it's far easier for a single large ladowner to vote en bloc -- HPP (and the rest) might have enough political pull to be useful, if only they'd all agree on a single issue.
Reply
#23
I don't think it's so much one acre one vote as the fact that those with a lot of acres can afford to buy entire politicians on their own, just like anywhere else in the world. In the mean time, us one acre types need to really band together to purchase politicians.

Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Reply
#24
quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford
3. The US DOT will support maintenance funding on only one route point to point and not two parallel routes between the same points (this has already been shown in Kona).


James, please cite your source for your comment, and which road are you speaking of in Kona?

Reply
#25

Aaron,
The source is HDOT.
Because I am less than perfectly versed in the names of roads in Kona, I just know it involved one that was recently (in the last 10 years or less) finished.
Reply
#26
BillyB makes excellent points. Listen to that man.

Puna will never gain political traction. Folks either forgot....or were never taught when they moved here...that in Hawaii, it's all about the politics. Fight it all you want. Old pidgin adage: Bumbai you learn.
Reply
#27
quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford
Aaron,
The source is HDOT.
Because I am less than perfectly versed in the names of roads in Kona, I just know it involved one that was recently (in the last 10 years or less) finished.


Was it Ane Keohokalole Highway. There isn't any other roads that I'm aware of that meet this criteria. The county is starting preliminaey work in extending this highway. It goes parallel to Queen Kaahumanu Highway.
Reply
#28


Was it Ane Keohokalole Highway. There isn't any other roads that I'm aware of that meet this criteria. The county is starting preliminaey work in extending this highway. It goes parallel to Queen Kaahumanu Highway.
[/quote]
It may well be.
I was told about the policy, by HDOT officials, 4 to 5 years ago, and they named the highways then. But, my ignorance regarding the roads there meant I did not remember the name.
The Fed policy should be easily verifiable with a call to them or HDOT.
Reply
#29
I spoke to my contacts at HDOT and FHWA public affairs. Neither of them are aware of any policy that you stated previously in this thread, James.

FHWA public affairs response:

"I can't confirm or deny that, since there are many examples of federal funding being used for maintenance on parallel routes -- such as I-80 and I-70 which both connect in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Decisions about how federal funds are to be used are generally up to the states but I am not aware of anything that would validate this claim."
Reply
#30
Decisions about how federal funds are to be used are generally up to the states

In our case, this includes "not using" the funds.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)