03-03-2010, 05:03 AM
Earlier Jay stated:
"We need to not plan for population growth, but resource cost increase. Population growth is dependent on static resource costs. That's a fantasy. Cost's will and have risen. This will flatten the growth profile here locally. The evidence is there, if we want to talk evidence, well, let's have at it."
I have not seen any evidence that population growth is dependent on static resource costs. Population growth is dependent on people making babies and immigration and migration. Population growth is measurable and is done by census and other metrics (vehicle registration is another metric). The State of Hawaii has identified Puna as having the fastest rate of growth in the state. Our 2010 census is expected to verify this. We plan for population growth.
Attempting to plan for growth using anticipated growth of costs is simply playing the stock market. No planners do that. It may well be that increased costs in one location (California for example) will make a location like Puna more attractive. And that is capable of inspiring more people to move here.
Costs move in cycles. Population growth moves in a rather constant upward track by birthrate and immigration. Nevertheless our growth rate can be documented and the availability of empty affordable lots is a known factor. In that manner the stage is set for a Puna population in excess of 200,000. What year might that occur? Hopefully far in the future but I would not bet on any specific date.
The PCDP is attempting to not do what was done to us fifty years ago... leave a congested planning nightmare for the next generations. Decade by decade this planning will have to be studied and revised as Bob has suggested. That is why something like a CDP is considered a living document.
I will admit that Pele may have the last word. The destruction of Kapoho in 1960 and Kalpana in the 1980's probably slowed things down for a period. But today we are the fastest growing district in the state.
"We need to not plan for population growth, but resource cost increase. Population growth is dependent on static resource costs. That's a fantasy. Cost's will and have risen. This will flatten the growth profile here locally. The evidence is there, if we want to talk evidence, well, let's have at it."
I have not seen any evidence that population growth is dependent on static resource costs. Population growth is dependent on people making babies and immigration and migration. Population growth is measurable and is done by census and other metrics (vehicle registration is another metric). The State of Hawaii has identified Puna as having the fastest rate of growth in the state. Our 2010 census is expected to verify this. We plan for population growth.
Attempting to plan for growth using anticipated growth of costs is simply playing the stock market. No planners do that. It may well be that increased costs in one location (California for example) will make a location like Puna more attractive. And that is capable of inspiring more people to move here.
Costs move in cycles. Population growth moves in a rather constant upward track by birthrate and immigration. Nevertheless our growth rate can be documented and the availability of empty affordable lots is a known factor. In that manner the stage is set for a Puna population in excess of 200,000. What year might that occur? Hopefully far in the future but I would not bet on any specific date.
The PCDP is attempting to not do what was done to us fifty years ago... leave a congested planning nightmare for the next generations. Decade by decade this planning will have to be studied and revised as Bob has suggested. That is why something like a CDP is considered a living document.
I will admit that Pele may have the last word. The destruction of Kapoho in 1960 and Kalpana in the 1980's probably slowed things down for a period. But today we are the fastest growing district in the state.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator