05-18-2018, 12:37 AM
It sounds to me that most of us agree with the end goal of reducing fixed housing density in zones 1 & 2, it's just a difference in opinion on means to that end.
Given that many of the homes in Leilani don't have insurance, it doesn’t seem to be much of a disincentive to development. The warnings are given and people invest their life savings, without any safty nets, to setup camp between clearly marked flows of an age similar to their parents. It’s not clear to me that whatever shock from inundation would actually carry over to future residents willing to throw the dice (see new Kalapana houses for sale)
As the county helped facilitate, promote, and expand services for these parcels, I would hope (SMDH at me as well) they would be held accountable to help unwind or refine them. While removing them from the market eliminates any future development, it would be costly to some level of government and ultimately reduces the county tax base.
HOTPE’s suggestion seems like a reasonable balance, although I'm not sure the county would support restricting its potential tax revenue, nor making sensible code accomodations, to support tiny house style development. Note the lack of mobile homes on island.
Geochem's suggestion is the most tax neutral to the county, but it does not provide any incentives to administer or replace the free federal money from the on going emergency declarations. The tax-mines have found a new vein to tap and there needs to be soot-covered citizens on hand to haul up those riches.
Given that many of the homes in Leilani don't have insurance, it doesn’t seem to be much of a disincentive to development. The warnings are given and people invest their life savings, without any safty nets, to setup camp between clearly marked flows of an age similar to their parents. It’s not clear to me that whatever shock from inundation would actually carry over to future residents willing to throw the dice (see new Kalapana houses for sale)
As the county helped facilitate, promote, and expand services for these parcels, I would hope (SMDH at me as well) they would be held accountable to help unwind or refine them. While removing them from the market eliminates any future development, it would be costly to some level of government and ultimately reduces the county tax base.
HOTPE’s suggestion seems like a reasonable balance, although I'm not sure the county would support restricting its potential tax revenue, nor making sensible code accomodations, to support tiny house style development. Note the lack of mobile homes on island.
Geochem's suggestion is the most tax neutral to the county, but it does not provide any incentives to administer or replace the free federal money from the on going emergency declarations. The tax-mines have found a new vein to tap and there needs to be soot-covered citizens on hand to haul up those riches.