02-26-2010, 02:15 PM
Well, it hardly needs a topic, it's really the elephant in the room. Here you go. It's all very simple. I appreciate the invite, but you're asking for disaster. We're not ready as a community to face these issues. Give it a year.
Nonetheless, here they are.
1) Don't throw around the term sustainability unless you're willing to define and quantify it.
2) Don't assume you're planning for the future unless you're willing to define and quantify it.
Neither of these exist, at least to my knowledge, even with slant reference, in the PCDP. Or at the state level, or anywhere. The default assumption is that we'll continue to rely on tourism, building houses and all the same. That US GDP will increase at 3 percent forever, that oil will always be cheap, and that it will always rain a lot in Puna. And a whole pile of other completely unsupportable assumptions. These assumption are nothing short of a hallucination. Many are turned off by the complete dogmatic unwillingness to even discuss them--they are simply taken as fact. The state is projecting near 8 percent growth to justify their current budget down the road. I'd suggest, and again I appreciate the invitation for the input, is that most people in my "community" view the PCDP as "business as usual" -- just the "kindler, gentler" kind. I know a lot of people who support Ms. Naeole, not because they think she's capable, but rather that they think she's incompetent. And that can come across as a good thing, because she's demonstrated a willingness to leave people alone or incapably prosecute.
I think, instructively, it's very helpful to step aside from ideology and look at our future practically and empirically. Our societal needs in the same manner. Demand quantification. This takes guts. I don't personally claim to have the answers, but I do claim to have the guts to ask the questions. If we ask those questions: If that's done, the smoke clears very rapidly. In the short term, that's a losing proposition for the PCDP, as you'll lose advocates as many as you'll gain, and those you gain may well be less financially capable. There's a lot of people backing and fighting that issue for the sole reason that they've got a financial dog in the fight. In the long term, however, it's the only answer.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/
Nonetheless, here they are.
1) Don't throw around the term sustainability unless you're willing to define and quantify it.
2) Don't assume you're planning for the future unless you're willing to define and quantify it.
Neither of these exist, at least to my knowledge, even with slant reference, in the PCDP. Or at the state level, or anywhere. The default assumption is that we'll continue to rely on tourism, building houses and all the same. That US GDP will increase at 3 percent forever, that oil will always be cheap, and that it will always rain a lot in Puna. And a whole pile of other completely unsupportable assumptions. These assumption are nothing short of a hallucination. Many are turned off by the complete dogmatic unwillingness to even discuss them--they are simply taken as fact. The state is projecting near 8 percent growth to justify their current budget down the road. I'd suggest, and again I appreciate the invitation for the input, is that most people in my "community" view the PCDP as "business as usual" -- just the "kindler, gentler" kind. I know a lot of people who support Ms. Naeole, not because they think she's capable, but rather that they think she's incompetent. And that can come across as a good thing, because she's demonstrated a willingness to leave people alone or incapably prosecute.
I think, instructively, it's very helpful to step aside from ideology and look at our future practically and empirically. Our societal needs in the same manner. Demand quantification. This takes guts. I don't personally claim to have the answers, but I do claim to have the guts to ask the questions. If we ask those questions: If that's done, the smoke clears very rapidly. In the short term, that's a losing proposition for the PCDP, as you'll lose advocates as many as you'll gain, and those you gain may well be less financially capable. There's a lot of people backing and fighting that issue for the sole reason that they've got a financial dog in the fight. In the long term, however, it's the only answer.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/