04-16-2017, 03:43 AM
Here's an example:
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/loc...s-concerns
"I never knew how spiritual it was, because I never knew what was back there"
...
"Personally, I don't want to see any development," she said. "This isn't the area. It's already too crowded."
Bascially: any substantive development will turn out to be on "sacred lands" and/or "too close to someone's house", which means a "contested case hearing" and then more lawsuits when that hearing doesn't produce the "right" answer.
Government goes along with it every time, thus validating all these claims of "sacred lands".
It's time for the "protectors" to designate some officially "non-sacred lands" for the poor unfortunate haoles and their development. Of course, we would have to beg State for permission, since we have almost zero control over zoning and land-use. The designated "haole lands" would be far away from anyone's house, so require new road construction, but ... it would all be cheaper in the long run.
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/loc...s-concerns
"I never knew how spiritual it was, because I never knew what was back there"
...
"Personally, I don't want to see any development," she said. "This isn't the area. It's already too crowded."
Bascially: any substantive development will turn out to be on "sacred lands" and/or "too close to someone's house", which means a "contested case hearing" and then more lawsuits when that hearing doesn't produce the "right" answer.
Government goes along with it every time, thus validating all these claims of "sacred lands".
It's time for the "protectors" to designate some officially "non-sacred lands" for the poor unfortunate haoles and their development. Of course, we would have to beg State for permission, since we have almost zero control over zoning and land-use. The designated "haole lands" would be far away from anyone's house, so require new road construction, but ... it would all be cheaper in the long run.