08-12-2008, 03:27 AM
Then perhaps we can agree that with the same threats facing this island, and many of the same people from California and the West Coast in general moving here, with the same attitudes and same expectations--it's perhaps not that irrational to expect Puna to move in the same direction as the whole of the West Coast of the US, at some point, with a complete loss of affordable housing--unless policy is SPECIFICALLY written into the plan and code that deliberately encourages small, minimally impacting, ecologically benign, affordable development. So far to my mind that attitude doesn't exist within the plan, at least in a direct, forceful, and transparent enough manner. Perhaps this could be corrected, and as far as I can see would go a long long way to making the whole of the thing better.
Again, I agree wholly with the sentiment behind the process. I simply don't believe that the long term consequences will be that which is intended. Since we have a whole list of failed community plans up and down the West Coast to draw from to ask, "why didn't this work?" it's a little foolhardy to ignore the fact that by and large they have failed in their mission. This failure is certainly a possibility here, and we're playing games with some of the most precious land on earth, and due caution is warranted.
Again, I agree wholly with the sentiment behind the process. I simply don't believe that the long term consequences will be that which is intended. Since we have a whole list of failed community plans up and down the West Coast to draw from to ask, "why didn't this work?" it's a little foolhardy to ignore the fact that by and large they have failed in their mission. This failure is certainly a possibility here, and we're playing games with some of the most precious land on earth, and due caution is warranted.