Landscape that Fugly Longs

[Rob Tucker]

Aloha Bill,

It is always interesting to me that at the same moment we can be so close in our opinions and at the same time be so far apart.

I have discussed designing in a local style with you before and have seen success in your efforts. At the time of our face to face conversation however we were having coffee at MacDonald's in Keaau and as I listened to your devotion to local design I was looking at the red and yellow plastic of the MacDonald's. So there are exceptions to your rules. They may be exceptions that others might want to avoid.

Regarding Bill 194.... You are incorrect. There were substantial portions of the CDP removed which you had objections to and which I frankly also felt needed amendment. My approach, through FoPF, was to seek a simple process for improving the design and scope of village centers with more community input - something you objected to. "We don't need any more levels of community input" was your position. Your approach was to have those sections removed completely. And they were to Shipman's benefit and the district's detriment.

I refer to charts, developed by Plan Pacific, in which the size and scope of commercial buildings were detailed and which included call for "vernacular architecture". Those are now gone. Not modified in a sensible manner.... simply gone.

I understood Shipman's chafing at a proposed limit of 50,000 sf for any Keaau Village Center venture and agreed with your position. It could preclude a big box anchor for your future Gateway Shopping Center. But there are other village centers in Puna which just might have wanted to place some limits on the scale and scope of commercial operations and it was your focus on Shipman's wants that obliterated the opportunities for other areas to come to other conclusions. That is Plantation Politics.

So for the moment Shipman has had its way.

Regarding FoPF's proposed amendment for each village center to have it's own Steering Committee to improve on Plan Pacific's charts.....

It was and remains a simple and elegant way to meet Shipman's needs and the needs of various communities. It was a vehicle which could have served your needs. You clearly said so to the Planning Commission. But later you were opposed and managed to guide our Planning Director to take your position. This was disingenuous to say the least. The mission statement of the PCDP calls for ongoing and continuing participation in the process. Shipman has taken positions that make it clear that paternalism is alive and well in plantation thinking. What's good for Shipman must, of course, be good for everyone everywhere else. I do not agree with that. I am much more willing to support Shipman's intentions than Shipman is to support others.

So to me it still comes down to your statement to me in 2008.... "If I can't have the PCDP amended the way I want when I want then I want it to fail".

It is not over Bill. You can and should expect to see a number of issues revived in the upcoming council in 2011 and 2012. What has occurred with Bill 194 can be summed up by a statement from the Chairman of the Planning Commission: "Something stinks".

The Planning Commission did not give Bill 194 a favorable recommendation.

.