07-07-2016, 09:24 AM
Rob,
I fully understand - it was a quick fix confidence scheme by the then county administrators to generate revenue. Unfortunately, I know of no way we can go back to penalize those administrators for the con that they perpetrated?
I'm arguing that we shouldn't compound the errors of the previous administrations by continuing to make these unsustainable subdivisions more attractive to future buyers. Prior to the most recent real estate bubble, I approached Harry Kim's administration suggesting that they invoke a strategy that has been used to preserve "open space" in parts of the Mainland. It's a concept called "transferable development rights" that would have allowed then-current owners of un-developed lots to recoup some or all of their investment in the Puna parcels (at minimal cost to the taxpayers - who, for the most part, aren't responsible for the bad decisions made by prior county administrations) while reducing the population density in those subdivisions. They blew me off - couldn't be bothered to even consider it.
I understand that a lot of people bought in Puna because the lots were/are cheaper. My response to that is: if they couldn't afford to purchase a more expensive home outside of a high lava flow hazard zone, can those same people any more afford to lose their home to a lava flow in the "less expensive" area?
And perhaps to clarify my earlier post: my point is that the needs and viability of the agricultural community (which will always represent a minority of the voters) always seem to be dismissed as irrelevant/unimportant and fall victim to desires and demands of the majority non-agricultural community.
I fully understand - it was a quick fix confidence scheme by the then county administrators to generate revenue. Unfortunately, I know of no way we can go back to penalize those administrators for the con that they perpetrated?
I'm arguing that we shouldn't compound the errors of the previous administrations by continuing to make these unsustainable subdivisions more attractive to future buyers. Prior to the most recent real estate bubble, I approached Harry Kim's administration suggesting that they invoke a strategy that has been used to preserve "open space" in parts of the Mainland. It's a concept called "transferable development rights" that would have allowed then-current owners of un-developed lots to recoup some or all of their investment in the Puna parcels (at minimal cost to the taxpayers - who, for the most part, aren't responsible for the bad decisions made by prior county administrations) while reducing the population density in those subdivisions. They blew me off - couldn't be bothered to even consider it.
I understand that a lot of people bought in Puna because the lots were/are cheaper. My response to that is: if they couldn't afford to purchase a more expensive home outside of a high lava flow hazard zone, can those same people any more afford to lose their home to a lava flow in the "less expensive" area?
And perhaps to clarify my earlier post: my point is that the needs and viability of the agricultural community (which will always represent a minority of the voters) always seem to be dismissed as irrelevant/unimportant and fall victim to desires and demands of the majority non-agricultural community.