08-27-2010, 05:21 AM
It is often interesting to see how one's actions are perceived from other perspectives. Far from trying to weaken the PCDP, the amendments supported by Shipman and many others within Puna and the broader East Hawaii community are designed to strengthen Puna and the CDP. It is noteworthy that when the CDP was first passed then Planning Director Chris Yuen stated that if the County Council wanted the PCDP to be taken seriously the Council should pass the amendments. These are the amendments now up for consideration. The current Planning Director has also expressed her support for the amendment package.
We all see the rapid growth in population within Puna yet with this growth there has been very little growth in infrastructure and less growth in the services needed to support the community. The County and State estimate that in the coming 20 years Puna will house 70,000 to 80,000 residents. A recent study showed that Puna now has less than 1/3 the State average retail, restaurant and service space as the rest of the island. As a community we are highly dependent on Hilo and West Hawaii for the jobs and services that we need. Among other needs, Puna needs a solid job and service (retail, etc.) base if we are to move from being a essentially a suburb of Hilo to becoming a community that can be self sustaining, supporting itself and exporting goods (largely agricultural) to the rest of the State. How to do this while maintaining our raw beauty and rural nature is difficult. But it can be done. The millions of dollars that are needed to accomplish this will come and can come into those areas that the County's General Plan and the PCDP designates - if those parts of the plan that are stopping them from coming are amended. Both Planning Directors appear to have recognized this in their statements.
What are the changes?
1) The document requires that towns/villages use "floating zones" for any new zoning efforts. The County Zoning Code has no such designation. Leaving this requirement in the PCDP puts zoning efforts at risk, diminishing the efforts to plan and zone carefully. Similarly the PCDP strongly infers that Transfer Development Rights - a tool proven unsuccessful across the US and not in the State or County Code - are to be used. Again this inhibits planning and zoning efforts by those who might invest here.
2) Since the last half of the1970's governments have required developers to put in infrastructure to support development AND to upgrade infrastructure affected by such development. The consultant used by the County for the PCDP informed us that restrictions on the amount of retail space to be allowed in Puna were based on the assumption that the Government should put in the infrastructure. We have done the math - the restrictions in table 5-1 virtually eliminate the possibility of bringing the needed services into Puna. These restrictions we were told were "from a book somewhere." The community needs the services and jobs. The LUPG map which is part of the General Plan limits where services can be put - and that is not in question. The point is to allow the market to determine how much is built within the designated areas rather than allowing those limitations to come "from a book somewhere."
3) The document suggest downzoning that would make it very difficult and in some cases impossible for local families to pass usable land on to their heirs. In a high cost area such as Hawaii keeping families - many of whom have this as one of the few ways to keep their families together - from breaking their lands into such parcels is less than fair to those families.
4) It is interesting to note that one of the State's most respected environmentalists has written a letter on the aquifer to the County Council. After reviewing and being involved in many studies he concludes that the restrictions in the PCDP are not called for. Of further note, these restrictions pass on a requirement that would increase costs primarily to the Hawaiian Community on DLNR lands that are not and have not been required of others within the district. One might somehow be able to justify such a pass on if there were scientific evidence supporting it. But there is not, so what we have is a requirement that only the Host Culture must face and then for no well grounded reason. (Interestingly, at the end of the Planning Committee meeting in July Rob Tucker was heard telling Emily Naeole-Beason that he agreed with her that this requirement should be removed from the plan).
Understand that those of us who support the amendments are following up on the call in 2008 to "Pass it now, amend it later." We, too, want to retain the beauty and unique character of Puna. The unintended consequences of the unamended document are significant inhibitors to keeping Puna Puna.
Bill Walter
We all see the rapid growth in population within Puna yet with this growth there has been very little growth in infrastructure and less growth in the services needed to support the community. The County and State estimate that in the coming 20 years Puna will house 70,000 to 80,000 residents. A recent study showed that Puna now has less than 1/3 the State average retail, restaurant and service space as the rest of the island. As a community we are highly dependent on Hilo and West Hawaii for the jobs and services that we need. Among other needs, Puna needs a solid job and service (retail, etc.) base if we are to move from being a essentially a suburb of Hilo to becoming a community that can be self sustaining, supporting itself and exporting goods (largely agricultural) to the rest of the State. How to do this while maintaining our raw beauty and rural nature is difficult. But it can be done. The millions of dollars that are needed to accomplish this will come and can come into those areas that the County's General Plan and the PCDP designates - if those parts of the plan that are stopping them from coming are amended. Both Planning Directors appear to have recognized this in their statements.
What are the changes?
1) The document requires that towns/villages use "floating zones" for any new zoning efforts. The County Zoning Code has no such designation. Leaving this requirement in the PCDP puts zoning efforts at risk, diminishing the efforts to plan and zone carefully. Similarly the PCDP strongly infers that Transfer Development Rights - a tool proven unsuccessful across the US and not in the State or County Code - are to be used. Again this inhibits planning and zoning efforts by those who might invest here.
2) Since the last half of the1970's governments have required developers to put in infrastructure to support development AND to upgrade infrastructure affected by such development. The consultant used by the County for the PCDP informed us that restrictions on the amount of retail space to be allowed in Puna were based on the assumption that the Government should put in the infrastructure. We have done the math - the restrictions in table 5-1 virtually eliminate the possibility of bringing the needed services into Puna. These restrictions we were told were "from a book somewhere." The community needs the services and jobs. The LUPG map which is part of the General Plan limits where services can be put - and that is not in question. The point is to allow the market to determine how much is built within the designated areas rather than allowing those limitations to come "from a book somewhere."
3) The document suggest downzoning that would make it very difficult and in some cases impossible for local families to pass usable land on to their heirs. In a high cost area such as Hawaii keeping families - many of whom have this as one of the few ways to keep their families together - from breaking their lands into such parcels is less than fair to those families.
4) It is interesting to note that one of the State's most respected environmentalists has written a letter on the aquifer to the County Council. After reviewing and being involved in many studies he concludes that the restrictions in the PCDP are not called for. Of further note, these restrictions pass on a requirement that would increase costs primarily to the Hawaiian Community on DLNR lands that are not and have not been required of others within the district. One might somehow be able to justify such a pass on if there were scientific evidence supporting it. But there is not, so what we have is a requirement that only the Host Culture must face and then for no well grounded reason. (Interestingly, at the end of the Planning Committee meeting in July Rob Tucker was heard telling Emily Naeole-Beason that he agreed with her that this requirement should be removed from the plan).
Understand that those of us who support the amendments are following up on the call in 2008 to "Pass it now, amend it later." We, too, want to retain the beauty and unique character of Puna. The unintended consequences of the unamended document are significant inhibitors to keeping Puna Puna.
Bill Walter
Bill Walter