Posts: 527
Threads: 84
Joined: Feb 2012
quote:
Originally posted by ElysianWort
I hate to says but when you people move out there you knew how the roads where. I f you want freeways everywhere maybe you should move back to where you came from.
jrw
I came from here. Been living here 40 years. My parents moved out here when I was 5 years old, too young to understand the conditions of the road. I am kamaaina through and through. So when people tell me to go back where I came from I have the urge to curse them out. Understandable?
I apologize to you but not to the people who bought out there knowing there was only one way out and thought the government should take care of them.
jrw
jrw
Posts: 7,743
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
The only thing I want 'government' to do is to get out of the way.
Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
thought the government should take care of them
Wait, what? I pay taxes, for which I expect some services -- and I'm not asking for water, sewer, gas, and trash collection, just basic roads that are sufficient for the flow of traffic generated by myself and my fellow taxpayers.
If government doesn't want to provide services, fine, they can stop collecting the taxes.
Posts: 471
Threads: 68
Joined: Aug 2011
Hawaii state government is proven Oahu-centric. With traffic ruling the lives of Oahu people....as well as alarming traffic issues now in Maui and Kauai, state legislators will have marginal sympathy at best for the "traffic woes" of Puna. You all do realize that there is only One road IN and OUT of Lahaina Maui? Did you all know that there is only one major Highway IN and OUT that serves Waianae and much of Oahu's far West side? Same goes for Kauai, who had a nightmare scenario recently with the landslides and closure of the only road in and out of Hanalei for months on end. The State DOT has its challenges to say the least.
Given that reality, Puna will always be a lesser priority. The quarterly carmaggedon fiasco on 130 will rear its ugly head at least once or twice per year.
Posts: 10,275
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
"The quarterly carmaggedon fiasco on 130 will rear its ugly head at least once or twice per year."
Shouldn't that be four times per year?
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
I apologize to you but not to the people who bought out there knowing there was only one way out and thought the government should take care of them.
jrw
Thanks for understanding and the apology. I see your point too. Clearly.
I still take the stance of something needing to change in the topic of transportation routes. But I realize there may not be any changes- anytime soon that is.
Yet another reason to continue setting up my property for sustainable living so I rarely need to go out with the vehicle for anything.
Posts: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Shouldn't that be four times per year?
Better question: how many times per year is acceptable?
something needing to change in the topic of transportation routes
Every building permit County sells carries some obligation for infrastructure to keep up with population growth, but this doesn't happen.
It has been suggested that it would be cheaper for County to purchase vacant lots as a way of slowing population growth, but somehow this isn't happening either.
I would gladly do my part, but owners of the vacant lots adjoining mine have expressed no interest in selling. It's not clear what they're waiting for; without infrastructure, the property will never accrue valuation that makes it a profitable long-term investment -- back-of-the-napkin says the theoretical "gain" is about equal to the property taxes paid over the time these absentee owners have been "investing".
Posts: 11,051
Threads: 753
Joined: Sep 2012
cheaper for County to purchase vacant lots as a way of slowing population growth
Or, the County could provide a real estate tax exemption for homeowners who purchase vacant lots. The vacant lot requires no County services, it reduces growth and the demand for additional services, traffic on highways, the need for additional stop lights, etc.
The County reduces it's spending when a taxpaying homeowner buys a vacant lot, so why not reimburse the vacant lot owner with their savings as a tax exemption?
"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: 14,121
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
County could provide a real estate tax exemption for homeowners who purchase vacant lots.
See above; County would first have to "incentivize" the sale.
why not reimburse the vacant lot owner with their savings as a tax exemption?
On the contrary: homeowners affected by County's refusal to deploy infrastructure should contest their property tax valuation.
