08-27-2009, 05:19 AM
Thanks Rob O. and I hear what you're saying but then developers who cited such comparatives would be comparing apples and oranges, public interest vs. private interests not to mention the type of project to be executed comparatively. I doubt such rebuttal would fly these days as private projects have lost more and more leeway in every respect including court protections, there’s nothing “clean ” or environmentally friendly about private development.
As per what sort of impact would arise from such a project, the point would be mute as no harm would come to the area and very much the opposite would occur and such a study would be more so considered an environmental promotional study. On the other hand if we had a private developer trying to put in a marina and houses… there would be negative effects known long before a study was prompted. So the nature of the project in and of itself is constructive with regard to environmental outcomes. I’ve no doubt any legitimate study would show this to not be true. In such a case, should the government protect itself from impact studies, the project could not be compared with private developments proposals by the very nature of what private development means.
I guess is what I'm getting at is the fact that the even though the county /government retains immunity from the legislation it only exercises the immunity when appropriate. A good example would be the restoration of a natural stream or river for Salmon runs or pick your cause. In this case no impact studies are warranted because there is no negative impact to take place.
In this case we could also require a Nene reserve with enclosed trail and a multitude of other natural enhancing projects.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
As per what sort of impact would arise from such a project, the point would be mute as no harm would come to the area and very much the opposite would occur and such a study would be more so considered an environmental promotional study. On the other hand if we had a private developer trying to put in a marina and houses… there would be negative effects known long before a study was prompted. So the nature of the project in and of itself is constructive with regard to environmental outcomes. I’ve no doubt any legitimate study would show this to not be true. In such a case, should the government protect itself from impact studies, the project could not be compared with private developments proposals by the very nature of what private development means.
I guess is what I'm getting at is the fact that the even though the county /government retains immunity from the legislation it only exercises the immunity when appropriate. A good example would be the restoration of a natural stream or river for Salmon runs or pick your cause. In this case no impact studies are warranted because there is no negative impact to take place.
In this case we could also require a Nene reserve with enclosed trail and a multitude of other natural enhancing projects.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.