02-15-2012, 05:45 AM
Rob, frankly your cynicism is coming through fairly strongly. I always start with the statement that is made and take it at face value. In the case of the residents of Hawaiian Home lands, their concerns are the impact of additional traffic on quality of life, security, theft and crime. Those are very reasonable concerns. When you add to that that the statement comes from current residents and that they have virtually no benefit from greater DHHL income - the statement stands on its own and can be accepted for the reasons given. As to Shipman, their statements have to do with protection of agricultural lands both their complete loss to more pavement and to increases in what is apparently a severe problem to all farm areas: agricultural theft and illegal hunting/trespassing. I, too, have seen parts of their master plan and they show a very long term commitment to agriculture exactly where the county shows PMAR. All of that adds up to reasons why they would object to PMAR as presented. It is all in a line. Whether they have or have not benefitted from prior roads is tangential. There is no solid reason to not take them at their word.
Beyond that is the greater question and that is the impact of the road on the long term health of Puna. James points to this issue and so do many others. You used to be among those who were very concerned that all road infrastructure primarily leading to Hilo sucked strength out of Puna and should be rethought. I agree with that reasoning personally. I believe that infrastructure $ in Puna need to be focused almost singularly on making all of Puna stronger, more self sustaining and better able to support Puna residents. In terms of priorities, then, PMAR contributes at a much lower level to these principles than do other investments that can be made and are very desperately needed. It is that simple. Whether DHHL or Shipman or others agree is not so much the point as the point itself. We need to make Puna stronger and better able to stand on its own. For $200 million there is a lot more bang we can get then PMAR and PMAR arguably sucks strength from us at least in the near term (i.e. greater dependence on the existing urban area - Hilo; loss of productive agricultural lands and jobs; influx of more crime; etc.). That is my point.
Beyond that is the greater question and that is the impact of the road on the long term health of Puna. James points to this issue and so do many others. You used to be among those who were very concerned that all road infrastructure primarily leading to Hilo sucked strength out of Puna and should be rethought. I agree with that reasoning personally. I believe that infrastructure $ in Puna need to be focused almost singularly on making all of Puna stronger, more self sustaining and better able to support Puna residents. In terms of priorities, then, PMAR contributes at a much lower level to these principles than do other investments that can be made and are very desperately needed. It is that simple. Whether DHHL or Shipman or others agree is not so much the point as the point itself. We need to make Puna stronger and better able to stand on its own. For $200 million there is a lot more bang we can get then PMAR and PMAR arguably sucks strength from us at least in the near term (i.e. greater dependence on the existing urban area - Hilo; loss of productive agricultural lands and jobs; influx of more crime; etc.). That is my point.