S.P.A.C.E. Community Meeting - March 6th

[JWFITZ]

Let's start with what it isn't. Community isn't using the law to destroy progressive, constructive, and necessary ventures to either win personal ego battles or protect one's personal financial interests at the expense of the needs of everyone else.

Otherwise the definition of community is specific to the community that defines it. To be part of a community is to defer to the needs of the community. Personal definitions of community don't much matter, and miss the point entirely. That is of course a lot of this problem. If people in this issue focused more on responsibilities than rights obviously not have a problem.

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/

[terry.way]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JWFITZ

Personal definitions of community don't much matter, and miss the point entirely. That is of course a lot of this problem. If people in this issue focused more on responsibilities than rights obviously not have a problem.

---

Wow. I like this a lot.

Interacting with people requires give and take. I inadvertently step on people's toes, so I have to give a lot just to break even: just to not appear as a selfish prick. I learned that relatively recently.

quote:

---

The next buddha may be sangha
Thich nhat hanh

---

The next enlightened one may not be an individual, it may be a community.

[peregrine]

It is not a matter of just not appearing as a selfish pick, it is a matter of not being one. Selfishness come in many forms. A group that calls itself a community can be perfectly selfish. Each member may act cooperatively with the other members, but uncooperatively with non-members. The "community" may act in it's own (perceived) self interest, ignoring the bigger picture of the community at large. Such is the case. Responsibility is the key, but part of our responsibility is to not force one's will above the rights of another. Where conflict arises, it is imperative that we meet the challenge with compassion and honest communication. Community,communication,connection are the stands that make the tie that binds.

"Think cosmically, act personally"

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH

They have to think about what they're opening up as precedent as much as the project at hand

---

Kathy, that is defineneltly part of my concern. I believe that many who have never had the opportunity to work with government on a daily basis, do not realize that there are rules and regulations for government just as there is for the citizens. Often they accuse government of doing or not doing something when government is doing exactly what he people said they want government to do. Most citizens also have not taken the time to understand the regulations so they often want government to open doors and close doors without realizing exactly what door is being open and close.

It appears that many ordinary citizens, what they think is right is based on their immediate wants. On just Punaweb alone, you read people saying how this or that on someone land is bad for the community yet they are also saying those same things are good for the community. They say government isn’t doing enough to protect the community and when government acts, those same people say government is against the community.

To the average person they see drum circles, but the regulations (that the people want for their protection) sees a theater or entertainment venue. Some see farmers markets, but the regulations (that the people want for their protection) may see a retail store. And the art studio, may by regulations (that the people want for their protection) be listed as an art gallery/museum or retail operation. So a developer isn’t looking at what people call it, they look at what the County must classify it as to stay within the regulations (that the people want for their protection) that applies to the codes. On one hand the people want those regulations and on the other hand they don’t want the regulations. Unfortunately they can’t have it both ways.

Another grave concern I have is that when a special use permit is granted, there are specific conditions attached. Some of the conditions relate to issues that are present at the time of issuance. These could be the presence of a prohibited activity, building, or site issues that must be rectified. Other conditions would be prohibitions on activities, building or site conditions. Each condition was affirmatively agreed upon by the applicant. These are things the applicant agreed should not be allowed to continue to exist or should not be allowed to start because it is not in the best interest of the community.

For those things that were to be rectified, failing to do so showed a blatant disregard for the regulations and the community. No matter how you cut it, they are basically thumbing their nose at the people. For those things that they started in violation of their permit, it shows once again a blatant disregard for the regulations and community. How could something that clearly was against the best interest of the community suddenly become good for the community? If that was the case, they would have amended the SUP to allow the activity. But putting that aside, how do you trust someone to follow any new guidelines when they said screw you before?

I bet if a “non community” operation exceeded what their SUP allowed, do you think any one in the “community” would be asking government to cut them some slack? The answer is NO, of course not. They will be yelling and screaming for government to revoke the permit because the operation already showed it doesn’t care about the rules. What makes this any different?

It’s ironic that I am trying to get people to see the reality since the pony I have in this race is for SPACE to get everything they want so when it’s my turn, I can also start asking government for exceptions using SPACE as an example. I can assure you, my activities are not going to be for Kumbaya purposes.

[Rob Tucker]

All you say is true Bob. From what little I know on the SPACE situation SPACE will be making an application for expanded activities on their existing or new special use permit. I believe that assessing the mood of the community this weekend is to try to shape that application.

I have not heard that they are intending to ignore the Planning Department and I have heard that they clearly admit they have exceeded the authority of their original SUP. I understand that they are planning a community meeting to discuss (however successfully they can) the issues. It would seem appropriate to hear from those who oppose or support whatever proposals there are.

The Planning Department will have to proceed under the rules and regulations that guide them. That will include, I am sure, public hearings.

I am not going to assume that SPACE will get an enhanced SUP. I am not going to assume it would be denied. I am not going to assume much of anything. But it's fine and dandy with me that people communicate and discuss as many aspects and theories as they can wrap around the subject.

Part of what has occurred may be (and I am essentially guessing) that there has been such a history in Puna of the CoH randomly and capriciously enforcing regulations (be they zoning, building, traffic, crime) that there is a general sense around that as long as no one complains it's probably okay.

Well, now someone has complained. And the process will do what it does.

[james weatherford]

Bob,

Your comments are clearly from the head and the heart and it takes a good mind and a worthy soul to do that.
Thank you.
In reading your words, I am further convinced that the situation at hand illuminates that the rules prescribe inputs ("activities"), rather than outcomes ("results"). What the community at large wants is a desirable outcome. What they get is a regulation that establishes prescribed inputs which are intended to yield a sought-after outcome. Then, when a good outcome happens despite non-conformance with the rules, conflict arises.
While rules cannot be ignored, neither can results. The actual results (positive or negative) is what matters most.



James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[oink]

The end justifies the means?

You do have a future in politics.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[DanielP]

Some 30 years ago, California mandated that all counties develop and implement a General Plan. Every area in the county was reviewed and zoning was created which addressed the long-term needs of the community. Minimum parcel sizes were increased in rural areas. Commercial zoning was created from Ag parcels where it made sense to allow for future needs. Etc. etc.
I think that it is about time that this sort of process should be considered in Hawaii County.

Dan

Dan

[JerryCarr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

Part of what has occurred may be (and I am essentially guessing) that there has been such a history in Puna of the CoH randomly and capriciously enforcing regulations (be they zoning, building, traffic, crime) that there is a general sense around that as long as no one complains it's probably okay.

---

Bingo! And you might add health and safety regulations to that list, Rob. Sometimes any action taken also seems to be related to how loudly and often people complain or even who it is that's complaining. Since we have no CC&Rs here in HPP, there is a spotty history of code enforcement, and the County's response to complaints has been all over the map, but generally minimal.

[Greg]

Bob, I really respect your grasp of legal concepts and appreciate your explanations of the law to us lay people.

But,

I think you are mistaken to think that SPACE is "basically thumbing their nose at the people." They have admitted to exceeding the limits of their permit and are attempting to rectify the situation.

As an artist myself, I can tell you that creative people think a little differently than those of the more "right brained" and need grounding occasionally to stay the arena(my wife helps with this). It's part of the process; positive, progressive, and quite different from the constraints of a legal document.

I don't see SPACE as thumbing their nose at anyone; But meeting new needs as they come up, and doing it as creatively and expeditiously as possible. They aren't violating the law as much as influencing and shaping it.

I've got to ask; Who is responding to the needs of the Puna Makai community in a more direct and effective way; SPACE, or CoH?

Education, Economy, sustainability, Arts and entertainment; SPACE or CoH?

And this is costing the taxpayers how much?

Believe me, the whole negative can of worms is the result of one or two people looking through the blinders of jealosy, envy, and bitterness. Isn't this obvious enough from the posts in this forum?

I hope the County can see the benefit of allowing SPACE to help meet the needs of our community.

Ammend the legal thingie!




Stoneface