06-18-2012, 01:58 AM
So let me know if I have this straight. I'm sure I'm not totally accurate.
Side A:
Yes rezone it. We need more commercial space in Pahoa and this property is located in an area that you would logically expect it to go commercial at some point anyhow, so lets do it.
Yes, the owner may be trying profit by taking the initiative to try and get it rezoned so he can resale at a much higher price. So what, he's providing a service for us, if in fact we do want more commercial property in Pahoa. It's capitalism at work.
Besides, as long as the use fits the proposed zoning it's not our business to further restrict the owner within this process. There are other avenues for that, if the residents are concerned enough to act.
Yes, there may be some backlash against T.E.H. for alleged actions she may have taken to interfere with attempted uses of the property.
Yes, this issue may be confused as there are vying factions in Puna and this battle has become a proxy of that conflict.
----------
Side B:
No, don't rezone. The owners may intend uses for the property other than those laid out in the application. Although uses would likely conform to the new zoning, we allege dishonesty in the application process and this should result in denial.
We believe profit is the motive in the rezoning request and we don't believe anyone should profit directly from this process. Our leanings are more socialist than capitalist and this is obviously capitalism.
We don't really want any growth in Puna and we believe this is a legitimate battle in our anti-growth agenda. - or - We only want growth that conforms exactly to our vision of what Puna growth should be and we will attempt to stop all other growth, although the mechanism to implement our vision doesn't yet actually exist.
We are allied with T.E.H. on other issues and feel it's in our best interest to support her on this issue.
There is obviously (IMHO) personal interest on the part of some, as certain uses of the property could negatively affect personal or family income.
--------------
As for James, he appears to me to be exercising the apparent right of a politician to be vague, in the hope that he won't offend any potential voters. However, I think it's fairly easy to read between his lines.
Was I close?
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Side A:
Yes rezone it. We need more commercial space in Pahoa and this property is located in an area that you would logically expect it to go commercial at some point anyhow, so lets do it.
Yes, the owner may be trying profit by taking the initiative to try and get it rezoned so he can resale at a much higher price. So what, he's providing a service for us, if in fact we do want more commercial property in Pahoa. It's capitalism at work.
Besides, as long as the use fits the proposed zoning it's not our business to further restrict the owner within this process. There are other avenues for that, if the residents are concerned enough to act.
Yes, there may be some backlash against T.E.H. for alleged actions she may have taken to interfere with attempted uses of the property.
Yes, this issue may be confused as there are vying factions in Puna and this battle has become a proxy of that conflict.
----------
Side B:
No, don't rezone. The owners may intend uses for the property other than those laid out in the application. Although uses would likely conform to the new zoning, we allege dishonesty in the application process and this should result in denial.
We believe profit is the motive in the rezoning request and we don't believe anyone should profit directly from this process. Our leanings are more socialist than capitalist and this is obviously capitalism.
We don't really want any growth in Puna and we believe this is a legitimate battle in our anti-growth agenda. - or - We only want growth that conforms exactly to our vision of what Puna growth should be and we will attempt to stop all other growth, although the mechanism to implement our vision doesn't yet actually exist.
We are allied with T.E.H. on other issues and feel it's in our best interest to support her on this issue.
There is obviously (IMHO) personal interest on the part of some, as certain uses of the property could negatively affect personal or family income.
--------------
As for James, he appears to me to be exercising the apparent right of a politician to be vague, in the hope that he won't offend any potential voters. However, I think it's fairly easy to read between his lines.
Was I close?
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
S. FL
Big Islander to be.