Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tenting proposal
#31
I was right there with you Rob, until you got to the last sentence. I assume by Pacific island group you refer to Oceania with the exclusion or New Zealand and Australia. I would like to shoot for a much higher standard, when compared to the rest of Oceania.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Reply
#32
I believe you are right. What I read concerned Oceania. From what I hear the S.O.L. in New Zealand and Australia is very high.

Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#33
This is a bill for HOMELESS/POOR people and it IS turning into rich against poor.
This is so poor folks can live on their land in a tent or shack or whatever and not be hassled by the "man".

Being able to protect your valuables is an aside to get folks to support it.

People have been living like this FOREVER, ALL OVER THE WORLD being as sustainable as they can. Look around! Its a tropical island for gosh sakes!
You want to get rid of all these folks? Send them to the beaches or worse into a already overburdened budget cut system that really isn't that effective and only helps folks who meet a certain criteria.

Health and Safety codes are set up to keep the "system" moving,lots and lots of revenue and jobs are supported by these "overbuilt" codes, The codes that keep folks from being truly sustainable.
The codes that turn poor folks into law breakers for wanting a roof over their heads.

I'm not saying the codes should not exist they have merit (especially to insurance companies).
I'm saying we need some loopholes, this bill was one of those.

So if we say this is a bill so pacific islanders can live the way their ancestors did you'd all be happy.... can't go against that without being an elitist can you?

LOOK AROUND,LOOK AROUND,LOOK AROUND.
Reply
#34
If you are saying that society should not have minimum standards such as building codes then there is no point in arguing. No progress can be made.
Reply
#35
The bill was not addressed to help the homeless or the poor. The beneficiaries would have been required to own the property, to have building permits and to complete the building of their homes within three years.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)