12-07-2006, 12:56 PM
Aloha,
Following up on various comments on my original post...
Re this:
"I remember at the meeting someone said we need smaller ag lots for young/beginner farmers to get started on, and to live on (thinking susutainability). My eyes opened wide when I heard that, but I didn't say anything, because I get the logic."
Yes, IF they are actually farmers, and IF they cannot be used as commuter-houselots, and IF those small farming lots are clustered at the edge of much higher-density areas, so that the market for the farmers' production is close at hand. Then likewise the farmers can live close at hand without necessarily needing to build a dwelling on the "ag" land, which helps avoid the issue Pete brings up of tyring to legislate what is a "farm" dwelling and what is a commuter/suburban home...a very difficult and easily corruptable situation, as we already know. Like 'ohana dwellings.
To avoid denying live-on ability to such small farmers as wanted it, the same pattern of a very small buildable portion and the remainder as ag/forestry-only easement could be applied at any scale, really.
At present we already have tens of thousands of small "ag" lots for those hypothetical beginning farmers - in theory anyhow. In practice they are 95% suburban commuter houselots. And some great percentage of them are not particularly good to extremely difficult land for "ag" as well.
Also re small lots for "beginners" - and this was a surprise to me as well - I heard relatively recently from a solid ag source that farmers are often eager to lease land rather than buy it. Various reasons, such as being able to work on cash flow instead of having to carry huge debt load, or simply being unable to buy anything (due to "ag" land sold at speculative houselot prices for example). And flexibility in size/location of land, for reasons of climate/crops/useage, etc. Leasing can include small ag leases for the small farmers. This does not pay for e.g. Shipman which needs an additional profit from the lease. This would not be such an issue for a farmers' cooperative or agricultural community that owns the land itself and leases to its members/residents and other local agriculturalists.
So owning is only one path and not necessarily the most desired, apparently.
How many actual working Puna farmers are on the Ag working group and subgroups? Not to mention Land use...! If not many, better get ahold of some and recruit them, or at least find out what they actually want and what would actually work for them.
Re this:
"The Rural designation, as far as I can tell from the zoning code, is simply a way to wedge small residential lots into a large lot Ag zone. This is one definition of suburban sprawl and, in my opinion, the eventual death of a "rural character.""
As I said, the lot size is pretty much irrelevant in terms of real ag use versus houselot use. HPP is suburban sprawl, so is Orchidland and Ainaloa and Leilani and so on and on and on all through upper and lower Puna. Just happens to be larger lot sprawl instead of smaller lot sprawl.
The alleged "rural character" is due to most of it being less than 25%-30% built out (on average), so many of us have multiple empty lots all around us.
Portions of HPP are now visually suburban, the roads closest to 130 and closest to the coast being the obvious examples. Ainaloa Blvd. likewise, and Kahakai and so on.
And more importantly, and leading to our alleged "transportation" issues (which are really land use issues), movement patterns are almost entirely suburban - "rush hours" daily as well as most all trips are to and from an urban center (Hilo) for the vast majority of residents.
SUB-URBAN, as in tied to and dependent on a nearby urban area but not a direct part of that urban area.
Rural, my 'okole.
And:
"You can not keep half acre lots (under the current rules) from becoming anything other than residential. How could you require agricultural activity?"
That's exactly it - trying to legislate (define in order to require) "agricultural activity" is a horrific can of worms, like trying to legislate what a "farm dwelling" is vs. a suburban home.
Right now Puna may as well be called (by the state definition anyhow) "rural," because the vast majority of the lots are suburban houselots in usage and in market terms, they are not working ag lots. The arbitrary size distinctions the state makes vs the various lot sizes already here are largely irrelevant.
The current types of ordinances and codes and zoning etc. cannot successfully "preserve" ag land for ag use because all they can do is pick a minimum lot size for what will be sold as suburban houselots (and will be called "rural" in real estate PR).
If anyone is trying to "fix" our land use issues *without* proposing significant new and modified county (and state) ordinances for land use and zoning, all I can say is good luck and hasta la vista, Puna. We can't get out of the current box without getting *out* of the current box.
"Following" what the state is doing is also a lost cause. We are the ones living here, we need to be *driving* what the state is doing.
See, in theory WE are the county and WE are our part of the state. There is supposedly something called representation that is supposed to be happening FROM us TO the legislators.
However more often it happens the other way around - when we let it. So we gotta stop letting them drive us and start driving them. The whole CDP process is a good place to start making that change.
Plantation days pau, brah.
John S.
Following up on various comments on my original post...
Re this:
"I remember at the meeting someone said we need smaller ag lots for young/beginner farmers to get started on, and to live on (thinking susutainability). My eyes opened wide when I heard that, but I didn't say anything, because I get the logic."
Yes, IF they are actually farmers, and IF they cannot be used as commuter-houselots, and IF those small farming lots are clustered at the edge of much higher-density areas, so that the market for the farmers' production is close at hand. Then likewise the farmers can live close at hand without necessarily needing to build a dwelling on the "ag" land, which helps avoid the issue Pete brings up of tyring to legislate what is a "farm" dwelling and what is a commuter/suburban home...a very difficult and easily corruptable situation, as we already know. Like 'ohana dwellings.
To avoid denying live-on ability to such small farmers as wanted it, the same pattern of a very small buildable portion and the remainder as ag/forestry-only easement could be applied at any scale, really.
At present we already have tens of thousands of small "ag" lots for those hypothetical beginning farmers - in theory anyhow. In practice they are 95% suburban commuter houselots. And some great percentage of them are not particularly good to extremely difficult land for "ag" as well.
Also re small lots for "beginners" - and this was a surprise to me as well - I heard relatively recently from a solid ag source that farmers are often eager to lease land rather than buy it. Various reasons, such as being able to work on cash flow instead of having to carry huge debt load, or simply being unable to buy anything (due to "ag" land sold at speculative houselot prices for example). And flexibility in size/location of land, for reasons of climate/crops/useage, etc. Leasing can include small ag leases for the small farmers. This does not pay for e.g. Shipman which needs an additional profit from the lease. This would not be such an issue for a farmers' cooperative or agricultural community that owns the land itself and leases to its members/residents and other local agriculturalists.
So owning is only one path and not necessarily the most desired, apparently.
How many actual working Puna farmers are on the Ag working group and subgroups? Not to mention Land use...! If not many, better get ahold of some and recruit them, or at least find out what they actually want and what would actually work for them.
Re this:
"The Rural designation, as far as I can tell from the zoning code, is simply a way to wedge small residential lots into a large lot Ag zone. This is one definition of suburban sprawl and, in my opinion, the eventual death of a "rural character.""
As I said, the lot size is pretty much irrelevant in terms of real ag use versus houselot use. HPP is suburban sprawl, so is Orchidland and Ainaloa and Leilani and so on and on and on all through upper and lower Puna. Just happens to be larger lot sprawl instead of smaller lot sprawl.
The alleged "rural character" is due to most of it being less than 25%-30% built out (on average), so many of us have multiple empty lots all around us.
Portions of HPP are now visually suburban, the roads closest to 130 and closest to the coast being the obvious examples. Ainaloa Blvd. likewise, and Kahakai and so on.
And more importantly, and leading to our alleged "transportation" issues (which are really land use issues), movement patterns are almost entirely suburban - "rush hours" daily as well as most all trips are to and from an urban center (Hilo) for the vast majority of residents.
SUB-URBAN, as in tied to and dependent on a nearby urban area but not a direct part of that urban area.
Rural, my 'okole.
And:
"You can not keep half acre lots (under the current rules) from becoming anything other than residential. How could you require agricultural activity?"
That's exactly it - trying to legislate (define in order to require) "agricultural activity" is a horrific can of worms, like trying to legislate what a "farm dwelling" is vs. a suburban home.
Right now Puna may as well be called (by the state definition anyhow) "rural," because the vast majority of the lots are suburban houselots in usage and in market terms, they are not working ag lots. The arbitrary size distinctions the state makes vs the various lot sizes already here are largely irrelevant.
The current types of ordinances and codes and zoning etc. cannot successfully "preserve" ag land for ag use because all they can do is pick a minimum lot size for what will be sold as suburban houselots (and will be called "rural" in real estate PR).
If anyone is trying to "fix" our land use issues *without* proposing significant new and modified county (and state) ordinances for land use and zoning, all I can say is good luck and hasta la vista, Puna. We can't get out of the current box without getting *out* of the current box.
"Following" what the state is doing is also a lost cause. We are the ones living here, we need to be *driving* what the state is doing.
See, in theory WE are the county and WE are our part of the state. There is supposedly something called representation that is supposed to be happening FROM us TO the legislators.
However more often it happens the other way around - when we let it. So we gotta stop letting them drive us and start driving them. The whole CDP process is a good place to start making that change.
Plantation days pau, brah.
John S.