07-07-2016, 09:42 AM
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?
Interesting question. Better question: if people's homes and lives are at stake, why is County even issuing building permits in a "high lava flow hazard zone"?
the needs and viability of the agricultural community (which will always represent a minority of the voters)
I hate to keep bringing up this technicality, I really do, but it's important: why are the "private subdivisions" totally "agricultural" when necessary to waive land-use requirements, yet they're magically "residential" when considering the will of the people?
Again, yet, still: can we just stop pretending that Puna isn't a huge bedroom community? Either it's "agricultural" (and this is what we get), or it's really "residential" (and massively underserved).
Interesting question. Better question: if people's homes and lives are at stake, why is County even issuing building permits in a "high lava flow hazard zone"?
the needs and viability of the agricultural community (which will always represent a minority of the voters)
I hate to keep bringing up this technicality, I really do, but it's important: why are the "private subdivisions" totally "agricultural" when necessary to waive land-use requirements, yet they're magically "residential" when considering the will of the people?
Again, yet, still: can we just stop pretending that Puna isn't a huge bedroom community? Either it's "agricultural" (and this is what we get), or it's really "residential" (and massively underserved).