06-11-2009, 05:51 AM
I agree.
It's also important to recognize that destruction of green space, restrictions or competition for agri-tourism, or activities that make trivial that destroy or simply make trivial "eco-tourism" destroy our competitive advantage.
It's important that we recognize not all business ventures are created equal. Some add to the appeal and "advantage" of Puna as a destination for tourism. Most however, simply exploit the traffic that the few constructive ventures create, and often in so doing destroy the "authenticity" that is critical to the fundamental appeal. If there is going to be any sort of sustainable plan here, the first kind of businesses must be encouraged and the second must be discouraged. That means financially, politically, personally, and socially. I'd argue it's completely the opposite that holds right now.
The same applies to new immigrants. There are people that would do Puna good to have them here, and we could stand another 100000 of those. These are people that create value in the community, preserve heritage, and fit in harmoniously with the whole without creating a burden on resources or infrastructure. They live lightly. Unfortunately, they're rare. What we don't need are any more consumptive, meddlesome, exploitative people who are demanding of things at public cost for personal interest. These build conspicuous big houses with columns that scream "mainland" amidst modest homes and immediately start complaining about chickens and demanding asphalt, and of course, law enforcement after they've been ripped off a couple of times. There's a difference. Again there's a place to encourage the former and discourage the later.
It's also important to recognize that destruction of green space, restrictions or competition for agri-tourism, or activities that make trivial that destroy or simply make trivial "eco-tourism" destroy our competitive advantage.
It's important that we recognize not all business ventures are created equal. Some add to the appeal and "advantage" of Puna as a destination for tourism. Most however, simply exploit the traffic that the few constructive ventures create, and often in so doing destroy the "authenticity" that is critical to the fundamental appeal. If there is going to be any sort of sustainable plan here, the first kind of businesses must be encouraged and the second must be discouraged. That means financially, politically, personally, and socially. I'd argue it's completely the opposite that holds right now.
The same applies to new immigrants. There are people that would do Puna good to have them here, and we could stand another 100000 of those. These are people that create value in the community, preserve heritage, and fit in harmoniously with the whole without creating a burden on resources or infrastructure. They live lightly. Unfortunately, they're rare. What we don't need are any more consumptive, meddlesome, exploitative people who are demanding of things at public cost for personal interest. These build conspicuous big houses with columns that scream "mainland" amidst modest homes and immediately start complaining about chickens and demanding asphalt, and of course, law enforcement after they've been ripped off a couple of times. There's a difference. Again there's a place to encourage the former and discourage the later.