10-29-2012, 09:11 AM
I will give my version of the meeting, but I feel obliged to make a disclaimer up front that I have opposed a special assessment from the outset and also had issues with the survey on several levels. Having a strong opinion, I cannot claim to be objective.
It was the biggest crowd I've ever seen at an HPP function. There were lots of angry people there, and nearly all opposed even the hint of a special assessment. To be fair, one or two people did say it would be nice to get the roads paved, but even they couldn't see how a large number of property owners could ever afford an assessment when they have trouble paying the current fees. The current fee delinquency rate runs 11-12%, IIRC, and would no doubt skyrocket with a special assessment added.
The BOD president said that the survey was just a means of getting some cover with the DOH, but most of us weren't buying it. Along with some others, I pointed out that the literature accompanying the survey and the survey itself came across as an effort to sell us something. The president also said that she called ahead of her meeting with the DOH to see if we needed a lawyer, and they told her we didn't. When she got there, the DOH had an state attorney there. That attorney suggested the assessment based on having read the HPP By-Laws that the BOD president sent him. During my three minutes, I pointed out that the whole thing sounded like a poker game where our side was afraid to call a bluff and folded without making the other guy show his cards. Now pardon me for being cynical, but if an official of the State threatening to fine me told me I didn't need a lawyer, I would have run to one . . . and I wouldn't take their lawyer's advice and start a hu-hu over an assessment that I keep telling my constituents that I don't really want.
I need to say that I have worked on committees with the BOD president and respect her dedication and past service. I just strongly feel like the fugitive dust issues and related negotiations have not been handled in an effective way. A Committee of the Membership on the subject of fugitive dust was formed which should be helpful moving forward. Membership committees are more independent than Board committees. We'll see how they deal with all this.
On an related note, a propery owner pointedly asked the General Manager why an expensive traffic counting machine had not been repaired despite repeated requests over the past year. No response was given. I mention this because at one point about three months ago a board member called me and asked if I knew how to fix it. Having no mechanical ability, I said no and asked why the GM didn't call somebody and get it fixed. She said she didn't know, but she felt that it was important because we needed traffic count information, and she was trying to find someone to fix it. Such information is indeed important for several reasons. It can be used in relation to the dust (most dust comes from traffic) and in relation to the impact of the looming Highway 130 construction diversions onto our roads.
At least one person suggested abolishing the association and starting from scratch, a suggestion which is not at all crazy to anyone who has followed this. As I have noted before in this forum, many are nostalgic for the days when HPP was in receivership and run by a court process.
Finally, I gave a report on the Puna Makai Altenate Route. The HPP Committee on PMAR, which I chair, met with County Planning Director Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd in July. We were informed that the County is now going to do formal scoping studies on PMAR, something we had asked for all along instead of going directly into an Environmental Impact Statement. We were also notified at the meeting that the proposed road is now being called simply the "Puna Alternate Route" and that mauka routings will be considered in the scoping process. Scoping is a community based input process that will better define the project before going to an EIS. This is what we were asking for all along.
I'm sorry if some of this sounds a bit like a rant. I welcome other points of view or corrections of what I have written.
Edited to add: I just saw Rene's post, and I should have mentioned that there were indeed two or three people who seemed to like the assessment idea or at least go along with it. I also want to thank Rene for a very good presentation on the Puna Community Medical Center. This a worthy project that is already making a difference and that we all should support.
It was the biggest crowd I've ever seen at an HPP function. There were lots of angry people there, and nearly all opposed even the hint of a special assessment. To be fair, one or two people did say it would be nice to get the roads paved, but even they couldn't see how a large number of property owners could ever afford an assessment when they have trouble paying the current fees. The current fee delinquency rate runs 11-12%, IIRC, and would no doubt skyrocket with a special assessment added.
The BOD president said that the survey was just a means of getting some cover with the DOH, but most of us weren't buying it. Along with some others, I pointed out that the literature accompanying the survey and the survey itself came across as an effort to sell us something. The president also said that she called ahead of her meeting with the DOH to see if we needed a lawyer, and they told her we didn't. When she got there, the DOH had an state attorney there. That attorney suggested the assessment based on having read the HPP By-Laws that the BOD president sent him. During my three minutes, I pointed out that the whole thing sounded like a poker game where our side was afraid to call a bluff and folded without making the other guy show his cards. Now pardon me for being cynical, but if an official of the State threatening to fine me told me I didn't need a lawyer, I would have run to one . . . and I wouldn't take their lawyer's advice and start a hu-hu over an assessment that I keep telling my constituents that I don't really want.
I need to say that I have worked on committees with the BOD president and respect her dedication and past service. I just strongly feel like the fugitive dust issues and related negotiations have not been handled in an effective way. A Committee of the Membership on the subject of fugitive dust was formed which should be helpful moving forward. Membership committees are more independent than Board committees. We'll see how they deal with all this.
On an related note, a propery owner pointedly asked the General Manager why an expensive traffic counting machine had not been repaired despite repeated requests over the past year. No response was given. I mention this because at one point about three months ago a board member called me and asked if I knew how to fix it. Having no mechanical ability, I said no and asked why the GM didn't call somebody and get it fixed. She said she didn't know, but she felt that it was important because we needed traffic count information, and she was trying to find someone to fix it. Such information is indeed important for several reasons. It can be used in relation to the dust (most dust comes from traffic) and in relation to the impact of the looming Highway 130 construction diversions onto our roads.
At least one person suggested abolishing the association and starting from scratch, a suggestion which is not at all crazy to anyone who has followed this. As I have noted before in this forum, many are nostalgic for the days when HPP was in receivership and run by a court process.
Finally, I gave a report on the Puna Makai Altenate Route. The HPP Committee on PMAR, which I chair, met with County Planning Director Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd in July. We were informed that the County is now going to do formal scoping studies on PMAR, something we had asked for all along instead of going directly into an Environmental Impact Statement. We were also notified at the meeting that the proposed road is now being called simply the "Puna Alternate Route" and that mauka routings will be considered in the scoping process. Scoping is a community based input process that will better define the project before going to an EIS. This is what we were asking for all along.
I'm sorry if some of this sounds a bit like a rant. I welcome other points of view or corrections of what I have written.
Edited to add: I just saw Rene's post, and I should have mentioned that there were indeed two or three people who seemed to like the assessment idea or at least go along with it. I also want to thank Rene for a very good presentation on the Puna Community Medical Center. This a worthy project that is already making a difference and that we all should support.