09-28-2014, 05:07 AM
in a democracy, shouldn't the majority rule these questions?
The local version of "democracy" is "one acre, one vote". Shipman (and a handful of others) want commercial development to be concentrated in "designated zones" which happen to be on land they own. Letting ordinary people develop their land means taking money out of Shipman's pockets.
If you don't like "follow the money", the alternate explanation is simpler: there is no clear majority. For everyone who wants a corner store, there's someone who opposes the "congestion and crime" that is somehow automatically included with any development.
Ironically, developing a modern telecommunications infrastructure would create plenty of opportunity without adding (and likely reducing) traffic congestion, but somehow this doesn't happen either.
services seem to find a way ... in much of the rest of the developed world.
It could easily be argued that Puna is not part of "the developed world".
The local version of "democracy" is "one acre, one vote". Shipman (and a handful of others) want commercial development to be concentrated in "designated zones" which happen to be on land they own. Letting ordinary people develop their land means taking money out of Shipman's pockets.
If you don't like "follow the money", the alternate explanation is simpler: there is no clear majority. For everyone who wants a corner store, there's someone who opposes the "congestion and crime" that is somehow automatically included with any development.
Ironically, developing a modern telecommunications infrastructure would create plenty of opportunity without adding (and likely reducing) traffic congestion, but somehow this doesn't happen either.
services seem to find a way ... in much of the rest of the developed world.
It could easily be argued that Puna is not part of "the developed world".