More on Homeless Native Hawaiians

[randomq]

How many hours have you volunteered with Puna outreach organizations and local charities? Have you talked to a lot of local families?

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkD

Questions from Leilanidude and comments:

1. Does it make any difference what size the house is? A large house signifies an affluent owner, and these folks have a track record of commandeering the shorelines (I discussed details in other threads).

2. Do Hawaiians not ever build big houses on the shoreline and try to block access through their property? Sure Hawaiians sometime do. But if one goes to Alii Drive or North Shore Oahu or North Shore Kauai and surveys the shoreline ownership, Caucasians dominate.

I look for patterns of behavior in most things. We can ignore these patterns, but I see more value in noting them.

Another comment on the race thing. If we dispensed with this we would not have affirmative action in college admissions. If we selected students purely on academic achievement, the ratio of students would be something like: 90% Asian, 7% white and 3% other

Several days ago, another access issue on Portlock, Oahu. The landowners are at it again.

---

MarkD,
Can't help but challenge your biases a little bit here:
"...an affluent owner, and these folks have a track record of commandeering the shorelines" Really? are they the only ones that commandeer the shoreline? I recall some news stories about "homeless" commandeering beach parks around the state and making other beach-goers distinctly uncomfortable... It's an annual tradition in Keaukaha for Hawaiian families to pitch tents along the shoreline in the summer and spend most of the summer there. How welcome do you think a Caucasian family would be if they decided to set up a tent there during the summer? (I don't, by the way, resent the beach camping - seems like a fun tradition - even though it is clearly illegal.

" Sure Hawaiians sometime do. But if one goes to Alii Drive or North Shore Oahu or North Shore Kauai and surveys the shoreline ownership, Caucasians dominate."
Not sure that that is necessarily true - but regardless, the only real commonality is wealth. And I would again respond: so what? It's a market economy - those with wealth have greater access to scarce and desirable resources. The high-rise condos going up along Oahu shorelines (blocking the ocean views of the commoners living mauka) are being marketed to wealthy Chinese; during the Japan bubble in the '80's, wealthy Japanese investors were buying up shoreline properties (some of whom still own those properties). But somehow we only talk about wealthy Caucasian owners... why is that? What is the narrative that we're trying to promote here???? Would it be any different if all the homes along Ali'i drive were owned by wealthy Chinese - as they may be under other economic conditions?

Wealthy people (of any ethnicity) are acquisitive - mostly, that's how they got wealthy. And unless they were born into wealth, probably had to make significant sacrifices to gain that wealth. It seems many want to envy the wealth without envying the sacrifices that were made to gain it... And in my admittedly limited experience interacting with a few wealthy people, that wealth didn't necessarily do much to improve the intangible qualities of life for them.

"Several days ago, another access issue on Portlock, Oahu...."
Why do you think those access disputes occur? Is it because "those mean old haoles want to keep us from getting to the beach?" Is that the narrative? Reference was made in the linked article about the Papaikou Mill access. Why did that dispute blow up? Because those going down to the beach were creating a nuisance, littering, having drunken night-time parties on the beach and generally intruding on the landowner. Sure, the legal types can pontificate on how the state laws don't guarantee access across private property, but the property owners have a right to quiet enjoyment ("Quiet enjoyment is a right to the undisturbed use and enjoyment of real property by a tenant or landowner.") of the property
they paid for. I suspect that if a bunch of drunken louts decided to build a campfire in your front yard and leave trash behind on a weekly basis, you'd get pretty sick of it plenty fast. This is another instance of dereliction by the state - if they are going to guarantee access, then they need to also protect the rights of the landowner over whose property access is occurring. Another case in point: there was a dispute on Maui some years ago because a resident claimed that the only acceptable access across George Harrison's land was to pass close to Harrison's house (apparently so that said resident could take off-island visitors to see Harrison's house for pay). Why should we expect the wealthy to give up property rights (in this case, privacy) that we all (should) have under the law?

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

nuisance, littering, having drunken night-time parties on the beach and generally intruding on the landowner.

I had a customer on Maui who built her dream home in Kihei on the mauka side of a public access beach. The young folks would drink and smoke and party all night long and she could live with that, but often when couples became frisky they would make their way off the sandy beach and onto her soft, manicured lawn. When they got rollin' they'd set off a bank of motion detector lights, waking her up, and worried about burglars she'd look out the window only to see the Maui version of Live Cinemax.

From dream to nightmare. She finally had to sell the property.

[Tink]

Too bad she didn't tie her lawn sprinklers to a motion detector at night!


Community begins with Aloha

[Guest]

The PGV power plant in lower Puna has ruined plenty of land owners rights of that Quite enjoyment Geochem writes about. Even though many nearby residents have complained, The daily pollution of noise and gas releases from the PGV seems to be aloud day or night. The PGV makes sure to payoff the folks like Helco, county, OHA and the state while keeping property values low for near by residents. The really rich have endless rights while the poor have their limited rights taken away. jmo
How has the most recently planned county buyout worked out for the county or many residents on the relocation list?
http://bigislandnow.com/2013/05/31/analy...rt-1-of-2/

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

gypsy,
In the article you linked, it said before 2012 the homes purchased from the relocation fund were built prior to construction of PGV, and much of the funding was also spent on projects that benefited the entire community. Then after 2012:

Since 2012, the county has designated 25 homes for purchase, at a tentative total cost of $5,437,649... Of these, 24 were built after the power plant’s construction.

Due to the surge in relocation requests, there are now no funds available for community benefits.

Did you wish to point out that people who built and bought their homes after PGV was already built, knowing the plant was in their neighborhood, are in fact taking money away from community programs? That they have turned a fund meant to benefit all of Puna into a cash cow for the few?

[Guest]

HOTPE.

You brought up some valid points regarding the relocation fund. Several community benefits probably did not have to come before the relocation of folks who were on the relocation list for years if not decades. Maybe if the politicians had kept their hands out of the fund there would have been more in the relocation fund to begin with. If the relocation fund money was not spent on many other things besides relocation, like rent for the county councils elected reps or the Pahoa transfer station and road to pohoiki it may have withstood the relocation surge. jmo

Also, many of the folks who may have bought after the PGV plant was built or constructed may not have known the PGV power plant was going to expand the way it did over the years. The communication between the PGV, County, realtors and perspective buyers could have been better to say the least. They may not have known how they or their kids could have been impacted by the nearby PGV power plant until they were impacted. Which is why they may have changed their minds and wanted to relocate after buying. Some see very cheap land or homes near the ocean and get caught in an impulse sale, especially if the realtor say's nothing about the nearby PGV power plant and possible impacts. jmo
A relocation Fund should have been set aside to help relocate folks from an expanding geothermal power plant that effects some close residents quality of life. If after relocation requested folks have been relocated by the fund then maybe the politicians could use the extra funds left over for their office rents or roads, not vice-a-versa. jmo

[Obie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gypsy69

HOTPE.

You brought up some valid points regarding the relocation fund. Several community benefits probably did not have to come before the relocation of folks who were on the relocation list for years if not decades. Maybe if the politicians had kept their hands out of the fund there would have been more in the relocation fund to begin with. If the relocation fund money was not spent on many other things besides relocation, like rent for the county councils elected reps or the Pahoa transfer station and road to pohoiki it may have withstood the relocation surge. jmo


Also, many of the folks who may have bought after the PGV plant was built or constructed may not have known the PGV power plant was going to expand the way it did over the years. The communication between the PGV, County, realtors and perspective buyers could have been better to say the least. They may not have known how they or their kids could have been impacted by the nearby PGV power plant until they were impacted. Which is why they may have changed their minds and wanted to relocate after buying. Some see very cheap land or homes near the ocean and get caught in an impulse sale, especially if the realtor say's nothing about the nearby PGV power plant and possible impacts. jmo
A relocation Fund should have been set aside to help relocate folks from an expanding geothermal power plant that effects some close residents quality of life. If after relocation requested folks have been relocated by the fund then maybe the politicians could use the extra funds left over for their office rents or roads, not vice-a-versa. jmo

---

You were offered a buyout, yet you are still here ?? jmo

[leilanidude]

Back to the topic...

Trying to compare people who were born here and been here all their lives to people who recently moved here is not a valid point to make. This island has always been a economically challenged place. The people who moved here had to first make it financially in order to afford the move.

As far as housing goes, how many families are on the County housing assistance? Of those, what are the percentage breakdowns between race/ethnicity? Does that breakdown compare to the overall mix of the population?

ps - County housing does not help the poor as it artificially causes rents to be higher. The vouchers for 2 and 3 bedroom homes are higher than what the typical house would have rented for in the first place. This causes rental inflation.

Here are the 2017 fair market rental rates for Hawaii County voucher programs:

Studio $859
1BR $991
2BR $1271
3BR $1629
4BR $2046

[MarkD]

geochem,

I appreciate your points. I agree it does make sense to view the issue in terms other than race. Caucasians’ long history in the islands means they were the first with the practice of instituting private property on the shorelines, but many other affluent folks, mostly Asians, are now here. I guess we could just identify them as rich folks.

But all property owners along the shoreline are not rich. I own a tiny 300 sq. ft box in Waikiki. And I along with the other some 80,000 people shared our 1-mile long Waikiki beach without problem.

Condos by ocean work. People who live in condos mostly understand the concept of public areas. Set the condos back a reasonable distance from the shore (Waikiki is too close), put a promenade/public area in front, and have the area policed for homeless and partiers (Yes these folks are perennial problem along the shore. They cause the exact same problem in inland parks.)

Single family homes do not work well along shorelines, except for the owners. They want privacy, and they want to expand their front (or back) yard as far seaward as possible. It’s just the nature of the situation.

But the homeowners are here, and little will change in shoreline zoning until sea level rise comes. (Read below about our most recent king tides.) And then I am fairly certain that the issue of what to do with houses along the shoreline will be a never-ending topic.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35512...ide-impact