10-05-2009, 09:59 AM
What I find amazing about this whole thing. It’s all pure rubbish to begin with.
2 years ago in the Hawaii Tribune, the building director was quoted as saying something along the following... “The council member is referencing a portion of the code pertaining to event tents, etc. We have no way of enforcing her proposed bill.”
This means that the current code does not prohibit personal use tents on personal private property. It also means the county would like people to continue thinking it has a ban on tents even though legally they don’t. It is a clever way to avoid being taken to court for civil rights violations; they can always claim the code does not apply if anyone were to challenge it. That’s the bottom line and it’s precisely why the bill did not fly. Neither the county nor the people need the bill to scare people away from living in tents or to allow living in tents; respectively. It’s a lose inference ban and works perfectly for the county as is.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
2 years ago in the Hawaii Tribune, the building director was quoted as saying something along the following... “The council member is referencing a portion of the code pertaining to event tents, etc. We have no way of enforcing her proposed bill.”
This means that the current code does not prohibit personal use tents on personal private property. It also means the county would like people to continue thinking it has a ban on tents even though legally they don’t. It is a clever way to avoid being taken to court for civil rights violations; they can always claim the code does not apply if anyone were to challenge it. That’s the bottom line and it’s precisely why the bill did not fly. Neither the county nor the people need the bill to scare people away from living in tents or to allow living in tents; respectively. It’s a lose inference ban and works perfectly for the county as is.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.