07-29-2008, 08:56 AM
I know that I am making lots of people uncomfortable in that I don't beat around the bush about what I've seen going on with the Puna CDP. But I've spent 25 years in this state as a daily newspaper and TV journalist and the last 8 years as a school teacher. And everything I've stated is based on my 1st Amendment rights. So here is the testimony I'm sending to the County Council. And feel free to exercise your 1st Amendment rights as well...just don't go to the 2nd Amendment[
]
___
Aloha Chairman Pilago and fellow Council Members,
Having worked literally hundreds of hours on the Puna CDP, I am dedicated to the passing of a plan that truly represents the needs and visions of the diverse population of Puna. I was pleasantly surprised when the Federal Highways Administration upheld the claims of the civil rights suit that state and county long-range plans did not reflect input by the community beyond those plans put forth by the district’s large landowners. So I took the opportunity after years as a working journalist and public school teacher to do volunteer work in support of my home communities, that of the Island of Hawaii and my home district, in managing growth and coordinating the delivery of government services. Thus my involvement as a member of the Puna CDP Transportation Working Group. There were numerous participants (including a world-renowned geologist) who were not retired but juggling families, careers, et al but felt the call to public service through this process.
In my opinion, the Puna CDP in its holistic view truly represents the majority of the Puna population’s desires and needs for maintaining the district’s rural and cultural roots, its ever-growing need for transportation, social services infrastructure (particularly medical), and connectivity to the island and the world. It represents researched visions for short-term, midrange and long-term goals and objectives for Puna’s entire population, not just its entitled citizens. It’s apparently in the actions that the Puna CDP final draft seemed to take on a form of its own, not seen or reviewed by those who spent so much time working on it.
The County paid a very able, dedicated, and in my view, honorable consultant, John Whalen, about a third of a million dollars to hear, then advise the Puna public. His three working papers that respond to the input of the working groups as well as the Puna Steering Committee delineate how to achieve the Puna vision. However, they are quite thick and require real diligence in truly absorbing all the information. But they were not included in the Puna CDP Final Draft, which I am told was passed without actually being seen in written form by a Steering Committee that barely got together a quorum for the final vote!
Regarding this whole process in Puna, I definitely believe it was deliberately manipulated and mismanaged by the County Administration for its own purposes. Working group requests for input from public officials and other information was seemingly stonewalled and/or misrepresented while a less-than-6-months deadline for the working groups’ reports was pushed on us. So the reports the Steering Committee got to discuss were already a year old when the committee started publicly reviewing them! For most of the 2 years I was involved in the process, there was one County Planner having to manage the whole process as the other assigned planner quit in frustration! In my opinion, this haste and often contradictory direction from the Planning Department served the purpose of the County Administration of giving lip service to the public input while actually undermining their needs and desires.
Punans have been described as mostly retirees or farmers throughout the latter part of this process. That simply is not true. Young local families who do not inherit a home in Hilo often get their starts in adult life by living in Puna. Although we are zoned agricultural, we really are a residential community dependent on Hilo for most of our services. Puna has the state’s fastest growing population and it is one of the largest indigenous, most economically disadvantaged populations, with growing percentages of senior citizens, children and disabled living at the far end of one-way in and one-way out roads in a district that rivals the size of the entire island of Oahu.
There is validity, in my opinion, in many of the proposed amendments to the Puna CDP Final Draft. But as we were told by our County advisors, the plan could be amended after passage.
Yes, it is best to do things right the first time but this was a huge undertaking pushed to completion in a very small timeframe, covering all manner of needs in a district with the least infrastructure, a district that was mined by the real estate industry and the County for decades while ignoring the needs of the public living here.
Therefore, I am convinced of the arguments put forth by Rob Tucker and the Friends of Puna’s Future in support of passing the plan first, then amending it. That process keeps the community at large involved.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond and your consideration of my comments. Malama pono. Frankie Stapleton,
Member of: Nanawale Community Association, Hawaii AARP, League of Women Voters, Hawaii County Democratic Party, Friends of Puna’s Future
]___
Aloha Chairman Pilago and fellow Council Members,
Having worked literally hundreds of hours on the Puna CDP, I am dedicated to the passing of a plan that truly represents the needs and visions of the diverse population of Puna. I was pleasantly surprised when the Federal Highways Administration upheld the claims of the civil rights suit that state and county long-range plans did not reflect input by the community beyond those plans put forth by the district’s large landowners. So I took the opportunity after years as a working journalist and public school teacher to do volunteer work in support of my home communities, that of the Island of Hawaii and my home district, in managing growth and coordinating the delivery of government services. Thus my involvement as a member of the Puna CDP Transportation Working Group. There were numerous participants (including a world-renowned geologist) who were not retired but juggling families, careers, et al but felt the call to public service through this process.
In my opinion, the Puna CDP in its holistic view truly represents the majority of the Puna population’s desires and needs for maintaining the district’s rural and cultural roots, its ever-growing need for transportation, social services infrastructure (particularly medical), and connectivity to the island and the world. It represents researched visions for short-term, midrange and long-term goals and objectives for Puna’s entire population, not just its entitled citizens. It’s apparently in the actions that the Puna CDP final draft seemed to take on a form of its own, not seen or reviewed by those who spent so much time working on it.
The County paid a very able, dedicated, and in my view, honorable consultant, John Whalen, about a third of a million dollars to hear, then advise the Puna public. His three working papers that respond to the input of the working groups as well as the Puna Steering Committee delineate how to achieve the Puna vision. However, they are quite thick and require real diligence in truly absorbing all the information. But they were not included in the Puna CDP Final Draft, which I am told was passed without actually being seen in written form by a Steering Committee that barely got together a quorum for the final vote!
Regarding this whole process in Puna, I definitely believe it was deliberately manipulated and mismanaged by the County Administration for its own purposes. Working group requests for input from public officials and other information was seemingly stonewalled and/or misrepresented while a less-than-6-months deadline for the working groups’ reports was pushed on us. So the reports the Steering Committee got to discuss were already a year old when the committee started publicly reviewing them! For most of the 2 years I was involved in the process, there was one County Planner having to manage the whole process as the other assigned planner quit in frustration! In my opinion, this haste and often contradictory direction from the Planning Department served the purpose of the County Administration of giving lip service to the public input while actually undermining their needs and desires.
Punans have been described as mostly retirees or farmers throughout the latter part of this process. That simply is not true. Young local families who do not inherit a home in Hilo often get their starts in adult life by living in Puna. Although we are zoned agricultural, we really are a residential community dependent on Hilo for most of our services. Puna has the state’s fastest growing population and it is one of the largest indigenous, most economically disadvantaged populations, with growing percentages of senior citizens, children and disabled living at the far end of one-way in and one-way out roads in a district that rivals the size of the entire island of Oahu.
There is validity, in my opinion, in many of the proposed amendments to the Puna CDP Final Draft. But as we were told by our County advisors, the plan could be amended after passage.
Yes, it is best to do things right the first time but this was a huge undertaking pushed to completion in a very small timeframe, covering all manner of needs in a district with the least infrastructure, a district that was mined by the real estate industry and the County for decades while ignoring the needs of the public living here.
Therefore, I am convinced of the arguments put forth by Rob Tucker and the Friends of Puna’s Future in support of passing the plan first, then amending it. That process keeps the community at large involved.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond and your consideration of my comments. Malama pono. Frankie Stapleton,
Member of: Nanawale Community Association, Hawaii AARP, League of Women Voters, Hawaii County Democratic Party, Friends of Puna’s Future