HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all?

[Midnight Rambler]

Again, I doubt the county would do a great job with this, but could they be any worse than the people running HPP?

Or Orchidland...

I wonder, though, if said entity would be any better, or do things more appropriately, given that they would still not be accountable to the residents AFAICT.

The underlying, unacknowledged problem is that handling this is work, and no one is going to do it for free. So either a big chunk of the payments go towards hiring someone to manage it (hopefully properly), in the county system, or you get volunteers in the community association doing it because they like the feeling of power, which is not the kind of person you want in that job.

[mermaid53]

It's a very good sign that Joy San Buenaventura is acknowledging that many Puna subdivisions are experiencing the same serious issues when it comes to managing their roads. I'm glad that she's making an attempt to do something about it.

[My 2 cents]

In reading the testimony what jumped out at me was the amount that came from HA, mostly in support, and the numbers they quoted on the current compliance rate, approximately 10%. This would suggest that approximately 90% of the property owners in HA are perfectly happy with the way things are right now. Where else can you find this kind of unity? HPP and Orchidland certainly don't have it. Why should the 10% be empowered to enforce something on the 90% that they don't want? Perhaps the past and current conditions were instrumental in the decisions to live there for those 90%. This is just an observation, probably not a popular one. Perhaps there should be an opt-out clause, but instead there is this:

(f) A court-approved entity, even though not approved by a majority of the lot owners within a subdivision, may continue to collect and assess fees for a subdivision and be otherwise, responsible for the maintenance, repair, and operation of the subdivision roads.

So the majority of the property owners get this whether they want it or not. Majority vote means nothing.

Even more worrisome is that the "assessments shall be determined by an association, corporation, or other entity"

This is a wide open money pit. There is no limit to the reasons that these entities can come up with to raise fees, and apparently no limit to how much or how often those raises can be.

I have had strong concerns about the voting procedures in OLCA (probably the same in others) that you can't vote on the fees that are MANDATORY against you unless you pay them. Call it taxation w/o representation, call it poll tax, whatever. It's wrong. I understand that legally it's not "taxation w/o representation" because OLCA is not a government entity. I'm wondering, if the government gets involved with this, especially if it becomes a SID, does it become tax w/o rep? Or will everyone get to vote on what the fees are?

[loffelkopffl]

see Hawaii state supreme court ruling #8699

[Peter Epperson]

I've been driving HA roads since 1975. I have been on the road committee and have for many years volunteered my time and equipment to maintain the stretch of road that I drive most. Mandatory fees have been a topic here for decades. I would prefer that all residents and landowners act like adults and responsibly and voluntarily contribute to the road maintenance but that has never worked. We have tried and tried to believe that we could find some way to make a voluntary system work but the reality is that most people won't give up money that they aren't required to. Consequently, just a few of us volunteers get saddled with keeping the roads passable.
We have a looming crisis on Road One in HA. The pavement is falling apart and we are seeing a building boom driven by low land prices. You know why the land prices are so low? Because of the crappy roads. For those who have long opposed any road improvements because they figured "if we don't build it they won't come"... well that backfired didn't it? The school bus companies threaten to discontinue service if we don't improve the road. Any realistic alternatives that anyone can think of? I didn't think so. Every time I have asked that question at road meetings all I have ever gotten was silence and people staring at their hands.
And a question for Mimosa: Instead of accusing Sheldon of somehow intending to profit on road work, which is stupid, could your opposition to MRF's possibly be tied to the fact that you own multiple lots and have in the past felt that you would be unreasonably impacted?

[Durian Fiend]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Epperson

We have tried and tried to believe that we could find some way to make a voluntary system work but the reality is that most people won't give up money that they aren't required to. Consequently, just a few of us volunteers get saddled with keeping the roads passable...

---

Curious-Any idea what percentage of owners contribute?

[Peter Epperson]

quote:

---

Curious-Any idea what percentage of owners contribute?

---

In our best years it never rose above 10%. A few years ago one of our local infrastructure saboteurs acquired a list of donors and sent them letters telling them that our road committee was an illegal organization and they could be liable to prosecution if they continued to contribute money to road maintenance. I doubt that we are even getting 5% compliance now.

[EightFingers]

Sounds like:
“Let someone else pay my share, but I still get to use what I should have paid for.”.

Sounds like EBT.

[oink]

quote:

---

Originally posted by loffelkopffl

see Hawaii state supreme court ruling #8699

---

Any chance of a useful link and or description?

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Chunkster]

I support this bill and applaud Joy Sanbuenaventura for having the courage to address an 800 pound gorilla that's been in everyone in Puna's living room for about 50 years now. At first glance, the responses to this thread on Punaweb made me think of some of the obstacles it will confront. Some people (seems mostly Hawaiian Acres) want the status quo while others find something to like about it, whether it's enforced maintenance dues collection by an existing or new organization or the abolition of a failed one or auditing/regulating them. In my own case, I would like nothing better than to see the failed HPPOA abolished. In short, I thought, "There's a whole lot of stuff in that bill, and that might make it hard to pass."

Upon reflection, however, I think Joy may have been crazy like a fox in putting all that in there. There's something for nearly everyone in the Puna subdivisions to like in it, with the exception of those who prefer the existing anarchy of places like HA. So from a Puna PR perspective, it might be very good.

As usual, however, the county is standing by with a monkey wrench to throw in. They probably see this as a back door way to finally make them responsible for the mess they created, even though they might get paid for their help. We are already hearing about the need for studies and more time to figure all this out. I fully expect Harry Kim and his cohort to be calling in markers in the legislature to get Joy's bill rejected.

And then there is the "watch out what you wish for" factor. I constantly point out here on Punaweb how the county has made a shambles of any number of departments, services, and projects, and yet here I am advocating for them to take a big role in subdivision management. The reason for that is that they started the mess and need to be made to clean it up.

I have owned property in HPP for 15 years and participated in its elections, meetings, and committees, and I can honestly tell you that there is no possible way the county could do worse than the current and past boards and management of the place. It's time to try something new.