07-31-2008, 05:47 AM
This is interesting news for sure. Thanks again to those whose efforts have come before and have now been rewarded.
Now the real work begins. If public interest in the plan wanes at this moment, real dangers present themselves. Time and time again have development plans been twisted and interpreted to promote interests wholly not their intent--and without constant vigilance there is a real risk of that here, especially in the political climate that currently exists. For those who think I'm unduly negative, you may wish to study the development plans of cities I've lived in that have undergone similar changes and development. Bend, Or. Boise, ID. Bellingham, WA. Santa Monica and Malibu, CA. Other examples do abound. The California Coastal Commission is perhaps the finest example of such plans, lauded initially, that have in fact encouraged the most destructive development I've ever seen. Once you create so many obstacles for the the small time land owner that the fees and processes are simply too much to bear, the ONLY development that occurs is large, expensive, and destructive, and these interests are in essence protected and allowed to develop more or less without competition.
It is very important that the principles of the plan be implemented on a fair and equitable basis. If enforcement is required, it is very important that the MOST egregious offenders to our ecology and lifestyle in Puna be targeted first. Seldom, if ever, has this been observed to be the case, and in any rate those most egregious offenders often have the means to financially defend themselves, and amend their way out of requirements for compliance. If suddenly we see enforcement on the small level--suddenly one needs a permit to scrape a pad to park a pick-up--resentment will be extreme and voluntary compliance non-existent.
It is clear to me from many of the posts on this forum that there is a remarkable lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground here in Puna. Once you get outside of the "desirable" developments, and HPP and Pahoa in general, there is an environment of extreme rural poverty, ignorance, illiteracy. A fair number of Puna's citizens live in conditions that I wouldn't subject my chickens to. The economy for working class people here is terrible, to the point of true third world conditions--malnutrition and hunger-- with less opportunity all the time, and this against a background of large new homes and comfortably overfed baby boomers in nicely pressed Hawaiian shirts. There is a very misleading picture painted by this forum, certainly not intentionally but a reflection of the amalgam of its participants, and paint an utterly unrealistic picture of Puna to those of you who have not spent that much time here, or much time outside the the Haole enclaves. This lack of knowledge is the best way for me to reconcile myself with what I see as a marked lack of empathy for these people--on this forum, and the PCDP in general, and I would recommend for all of us a little exploration of the issue and research would be warranted at this point.
Now the real work begins. If public interest in the plan wanes at this moment, real dangers present themselves. Time and time again have development plans been twisted and interpreted to promote interests wholly not their intent--and without constant vigilance there is a real risk of that here, especially in the political climate that currently exists. For those who think I'm unduly negative, you may wish to study the development plans of cities I've lived in that have undergone similar changes and development. Bend, Or. Boise, ID. Bellingham, WA. Santa Monica and Malibu, CA. Other examples do abound. The California Coastal Commission is perhaps the finest example of such plans, lauded initially, that have in fact encouraged the most destructive development I've ever seen. Once you create so many obstacles for the the small time land owner that the fees and processes are simply too much to bear, the ONLY development that occurs is large, expensive, and destructive, and these interests are in essence protected and allowed to develop more or less without competition.
It is very important that the principles of the plan be implemented on a fair and equitable basis. If enforcement is required, it is very important that the MOST egregious offenders to our ecology and lifestyle in Puna be targeted first. Seldom, if ever, has this been observed to be the case, and in any rate those most egregious offenders often have the means to financially defend themselves, and amend their way out of requirements for compliance. If suddenly we see enforcement on the small level--suddenly one needs a permit to scrape a pad to park a pick-up--resentment will be extreme and voluntary compliance non-existent.
It is clear to me from many of the posts on this forum that there is a remarkable lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground here in Puna. Once you get outside of the "desirable" developments, and HPP and Pahoa in general, there is an environment of extreme rural poverty, ignorance, illiteracy. A fair number of Puna's citizens live in conditions that I wouldn't subject my chickens to. The economy for working class people here is terrible, to the point of true third world conditions--malnutrition and hunger-- with less opportunity all the time, and this against a background of large new homes and comfortably overfed baby boomers in nicely pressed Hawaiian shirts. There is a very misleading picture painted by this forum, certainly not intentionally but a reflection of the amalgam of its participants, and paint an utterly unrealistic picture of Puna to those of you who have not spent that much time here, or much time outside the the Haole enclaves. This lack of knowledge is the best way for me to reconcile myself with what I see as a marked lack of empathy for these people--on this forum, and the PCDP in general, and I would recommend for all of us a little exploration of the issue and research would be warranted at this point.