Posts: 3,217
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
I talked with someone who lives in the south-east side of Leilani on Malama i.e. venting ground zero. He described his house as "hit by agent orange" with extensive rusting and corrosion throughout after only one week. If this goes on for a few months or more like 1955, the house will be almost completely unsalvageable for the reasons geochem pointed out.
My hope right now is that funds are made available to buy out these properties and begin to remove them from the market. Like repurchasing areas prone to flooding, the government (local and federal) should acknowledge the geological reality they so conveniently ignored when establishing these plots and make them conservation lands.
More likely, they'll just return them to the inventory of off-island tax revenue till everyone has forgotten enough and the next round of dreamers can buy their slice of paradise with great views of the volcano.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
My hope right now is that funds are made available to buy out these properties and begin to remove them from the market.
Why in the world would anyone.. gov or otherwise 'buy them out?' We have been through this over and over. It is time to face reality and reality is the people that buy/build on a volcano do so AT THEIR OWN RISK.. not the governments. Not the tax payers, their own risk.
That is why the lava zone map was published. That is why you have to acknowledge it when you buy property. Not to say.. 'hey dude if the volcano comes and bites you we will buy you out.' It is time to stop insuring properties in lava zone 1 period. It is time to stop supporting the illusion that it is ok for people to move in mass in places like Leilani. It is time to stop providing infrastructure, to stop providing roads and schools, to stop the insanity that has got us into this mess in the first place. It is time to realize that living on active volcanoes is something you can do.. but if you do you do it at your own risk. Period.
ETA: I think you and I agree Yak, though you are saying we should decommission those properties gracefully, buy folks out and take them off the market. While I am saying the shock value of people realizing they blew it and lost everything will go a lot further towards stopping this insanity then everyone thinking it's ok Big Brother comes around and buys you out if you screw up.
Posts: 11,243
Threads: 764
Joined: Sep 2012
Why in the world would anyone.. gov or otherwise 'buy them out?'... It is time to face reality and reality is the people that buy/build on a volcano do so AT THEIR OWN RISK..
How about if government face reality, and create a special building zone for lower Puna? If they don't want to buy anyone out, but want to keep collecting taxes, allow tiny houses, or houses on wheels. There would be a certain number of people who would accept the risk of living on top of future volcanic activity if they could hitch their home to a truck when fissures opened. They might even buy up adjacent lots at an extremely affordable price, and perhaps engage in real, low cost agricultural activity.
If the county faced reality, it would better allow future residents of Puna to also face reality if they' wouldn't be required to build a home based on the same requirements as Hilo, Kona, Maui, or Oahu. The county creates the implication that Puna Lave Zone 1 is a long term living situation just like Hamakua Lava Zone 8 with their extensive one-size-fits-all building codes.
Portion of Hawaii’s drinking water that comes from underground wells : 9/10
Gallons of raw sewage that leak into the ground from Hawaii cesspools each day : 53,000,000 - Harper's Index
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 4,322
Threads: 100
Joined: Mar 2014
Why in the world would anyone.. gov or otherwise 'buy them out?'
------------
Government has been doing this for years in flood zones, then prohibiting future building on those lands.
Posts: 785
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2012
There is an alternative that won't cost the government (i.e. current taxpayers) significantly to implement and has the potential to increase property tax income to the county. It's called "transferable development rights" (TDR). The county claims that it can't prohibit construction of a dwelling on a subdivision parcel because that parcel, when bought, includes the right to develop (build) on that lot. TDR says that the right to build can be separated from that lot and used somewhere else (if approved by the county). In one application of the concept I am familiar with, open space in a particular county was the desired outcome and so owners in the donor area of small family farms, could sell development rights for those farms (and give up any future right to subdivide and build) to developers in designated (more urbanized) receiving areas (increasing density to a previously allowed level) who were required to purchase development rights in order to build to that level. In that case, developers were more than happy to spend $50K for development rights that they could use to build homes in the urban area for $1M or more.
In our case, the donor areas would be those at the highest risk of volcanic (and tsunami) hazard and the receiving areas would be, by definition, outside of those areas (e.g. lava hazard zones 3 or above). Currently, developers get a windfall when they can subdivide a large parcel (that's why they do it...). Requiring that they purchase development rights will cut into that windfall, but I suspect continued subdivision and development will continue to occur nonetheless. And the costs cited above need not be the case here - it would have to managed by supply and demand. That process would gradually reduce the density of housing units in the high risk areas and redirect development into areas of lower risk.
There are any number of variants on the theme: one would be that current owners of lots in zones 1 and 2 could hold their development rights and purchase a lot in a new subdivision and use it there (attractive to the developer since he doesn't have to put up the funds for the development right; attractive to the buyer since he doesn't have to pay as much for the lot; attractive to the taxman since he gets a new home on his roles). As for the land that gives up the development right, it can be sold as farm land - never to be built on in the future - which is appropriate since these are ag lots.
I pitched this idea to Harry Kim's planning director 15 years ago during his first term as Mayor, when these subdivisions had far fewer homes built on them. Completely blew me off - not an iota of interest. So if Harry weeps crocodile tears over the impacted homeowners, remember that he is, to a significant degree, responsible for many of those homes that are at risk...
ETA: I realize that implementing something like this effectively and productively would require a good deal careful, intelligent planning - something that is nearly impossible to find in Hawaii - but one can always hope...
Posts: 5,083
Threads: 84
Joined: Feb 2009
quote:
Originally posted by leilanidude
Why in the world would anyone.. gov or otherwise 'buy them out?'
------------
Government has been doing this for years in flood zones, then prohibiting future building on those lands.
They buy them out because of Federal flood insurance.It's cheaper to buy them out than pay the insurance over and over. In my hometown on the Ohio river they also raised the homes up on a 10 ft tall foundation.
The options were raise up,buy out or stay at your own risk.No more insurance.
There is no federal lava insurance program.
Posts: 3,217
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
It sounds to me that most of us agree with the end goal of reducing fixed housing density in zones 1 & 2, it's just a difference in opinion on means to that end.
Given that many of the homes in Leilani don't have insurance, it doesn’t seem to be much of a disincentive to development. The warnings are given and people invest their life savings, without any safty nets, to setup camp between clearly marked flows of an age similar to their parents. It’s not clear to me that whatever shock from inundation would actually carry over to future residents willing to throw the dice (see new Kalapana houses for sale)
As the county helped facilitate, promote, and expand services for these parcels, I would hope (SMDH at me as well) they would be held accountable to help unwind or refine them. While removing them from the market eliminates any future development, it would be costly to some level of government and ultimately reduces the county tax base.
HOTPE’s suggestion seems like a reasonable balance, although I'm not sure the county would support restricting its potential tax revenue, nor making sensible code accomodations, to support tiny house style development. Note the lack of mobile homes on island.
Geochem's suggestion is the most tax neutral to the county, but it does not provide any incentives to administer or replace the free federal money from the on going emergency declarations. The tax-mines have found a new vein to tap and there needs to be soot-covered citizens on hand to haul up those riches.
Posts: 14,138
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
the county helped facilitate, promote, and expand services for these parcels
Then it's up to County to make good on the valuation that they helped support. Leilani residents paid for services, they deserve to get those services.
If the County won't hold up their end of the deal, why should anyone -- especially those in a "private" subdivision -- bother with all those County requirements?
removing them from the market ... would be costly to some level of government
Negotiated settlement with those who lost homes probably cheaper than a class-action from every lot owner -- and that class-action would set precedent for the other "private" subdivisions.
The audacity of some people, demanding the services that they paid for...
Posts: 3,217
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Agreed Kalakoa - the tax-mines will reach a breaking point sometime right? In this lifetime perhaps?
Meanwhile, the subdivision somehow got Leilani Ave to be maintained by the county. Anyone know the history there? Given the county's written commitment to not provide for the upkeep of private roads, they are actually responsible for a subdivision road in lava zone 1 no less. Can they choose not to repair it or is that a requirement?
Posts: 3,217
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Not my favorite source - but an interesting article regarding the state laws put in place after the 1960 tsunami allowing for residential land swaps in the wake of a natural disaster. (see brief DNLR response at bottom)
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesM...one-3.aspx
|
