Tenting proposal

[janet]

Ms. Edwards,

I wholeheartedly support Ms. Naeole’s proposed Council bill (#319) to regularize and regulate the living in tents during construction of homes.

However, according to the article in yesterday’s Hawaii Tribune Herald [“Bill would legalize living in tents”], Public Works Director McClure pointed out that the proposed bill does not address sections of the Building Code concerning “…danger to human life, insufficient ventilation, fire codes, unsafe air, food or drink…”.

Could you, as Ms. Naeole’s legislative assistant, please explain why the bill, as proposed, falls short of what is needed to deal with this issue comprehensively?

[gtill]

I don't see the tents themselves being the problem. The problem would be sanitation and water availability. If in fact they're using tent while building, the septic or cess and outhouse should be built first, and a water supply.
In the 60s& 70s, people came in and tried to wing it, hence smelly hippies! Not so bad in the wet and cold country(mauka), but rampant staph etc down below.
The tents aren't the problem, but it's what comes with them.
This isn't to denigrate the hippie name, many are still here, and doing well, because they've figured out their lifestyles, and cope well. My first attempt to bring my family here was a crash, mostly because we were underfunded and no good work available, like today.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by janet

However, according to the article in yesterday’s Hawaii Tribune Herald [“Bill would legalize living in tents”], Public Works Director McClure pointed out that the proposed bill does not address sections of the Building Code concerning “…danger to human life, insufficient ventilation, fire codes, unsafe air, food or drink…”.

---

Bill 319, specifically deals with the absolute prohibition of tents for residential use.

Chapter 4, Article 1, Sections 5-1.0.8 states "No tent of plastic, canvas, or similar material shall be used for residential purposes."

The Council Member's bill strikes the above phrase and replaces it with "A property owner may use a tent of canvas, plastic, or similar material for temporary residence as long as there is adequate sanitation and an active building permit, or for three years while constructing a permanent home...."

Without such an amendment, no matter what is ultimately changed to set standards to address the issues raised for temporary tent residences, tents would still be prohibited.

Bill 319 simply removes the absolute prohibition so everything else can be modified to conform. In other words, even if there were language in all the other parts of the code to set standards for fire, ventilation, food, etc, unless Charter 5, Article 1, sections 5-1.0.8 is changed, it's a moot point.

Now, in defense of the Council Member, I'm not sure why it was even mentioned, as it was, that the bill was an amendment to a section of the code dealing with tents like in carnivals. It gives the impression the Council member is modifying an unrelated section. Although the section is about those tents, it is also the place where using tents as residences is prohibited. So this is the correct area to amend.

I don't think it will pass simply because of the open ended time period with a building permit and a three year time frame without a building permit (or at least that's how it comes across in reading the actual bill). Reduce it to 18 months maximum and only with a building permit and it has a much better chance.

[janet]

Ms. Edwards,

Despite Mr. Orts' lucid (and appreciated) amplification, indicating that the matter could be "fixed" at a later date, my question remains.

Why did the original proposal not address the issue in all its aspects? Would it not be in everyone's interest to deal with the matter only once?

Does Ms. Naeole wish to continue to give the impression that she puts out good ideas without ample preparation, hoping that someone else will pick up the pieces later?

[olin137]

While I agree with the concept of letting builders tent on their property while building, a major problem is who's going to enforce such a new regulation? If there's no enforcement of things like traffic, theft, nuisance animals, etc., why would anyone think allowing "limited" tent living be any different? Also, the argument of allowing tenting to prevent thefts is addressing the theft problem at the wrong level - laws should be enforced without citizens needing to guard their own property night and day.

Olin

[JerryCarr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by olin137

Also, the argument of allowing tenting to prevent thefts is addressing the theft problem at the wrong level - laws should be enforced without citizens needing to guard their own property night and day.

Olin

---

Thank you, Olin, for pointing out what should be obvious, but somehow got overlooked in all this.

Cheers,
Jerry

[janet]

I had included this thread in the Elections forum because I wanted to point out Ms. Naeole's shortcomings as our Council representative and for Ms. Edwards to have a chance to reply in that forum.

Since the thread has been hijacked onto the merits of the proposal, rather than the procedure, I agree that it belongs in the general forum.

[missydog1]

well, will it be enforced, in any case, I have my doubts.

As an example, I had a close neighbor who was building adjacent (not at this house), and utilizing a full crew, all of them camping there, some in cars.

I was disgusted that they didn't at least rent a lua and a full crew and owners were going in the bushes. So I did call the Health Dept, and they said,

IF the stench of excrement travels on to your property, we would agree to come out, OR if you can visibly see piles of SH*T in plain view. In other words, even though you KNOW people are pooping on the ground because they are there all day (and night), that's not enough.

So much for the concern and interest in keeping things healthy.
By the way, this property was in a Special Management Area due to its proximity to the coast, and the building area was above a stream.
[]
And my house was only 20 feet away from the nexus of activity.

[DickWilson]

quote:

---

Also, the argument of allowing tenting to prevent thefts is addressing the theft problem at the wrong level - laws should be enforced without citizens needing to guard their own property night and day.

Olin

---

Olin; While I agree with your post, Given the reports of thefts, I feel that as someone planning to build, It would be crazy to depend on the police to protect my property from theft and would disregard any prohibition on staying on my construction site to present a very unpleasant greeting to any thieve's.

dick wilson

[jerry]

Does anyone know if there is a (generally unenforced) rule requiring the placement of a porta potti on all construction sites?

Jerry
Art and Orchids B&B
http://www.artandorchids.com