05-31-2012, 06:11 AM
Having been drawn into a circular argument with Rob Tucker over on Big Island Chronicle (see links posted by James Weatherford earlier in this thread,) I determined not to get into another one here. There are, however, some facts that I feel compelled to state. Despite my desire not to engage in endless argument, the truth needs to be told.
First, Rob has referred to the HPPOA Committee on PMAR as James' committee and to James as an obstructionist. The committee was formed when I presented a resolution to the HPPOA General Membership calling for HPP to gather facts and reach a consensus position on a proposal with tremendous potential to impact our community. I am the chairman of that committee to this day, not James, and I anticipated that our work could go on for years, which it likely will. James presented his own proposal for PMAR early in the process, something one doesn't get from an obstructionist. The committee was not packed with PMAR opponents. Several members expressed willingness to see something built that reflected community input and sensible mitigation for the inevitable negative effects.
We began trying to gather facts about the proposal, mostly through discussions with the County Planning Department. We gathered opinions from our members via open meetings, speaking to other HPP organizations, and eventually through a survey. It was this process that led us to write Governor Abercrombie, asking that he not release the $1.5 million Faye Hanohano appropriation. To say our discussions with Planning were frustrating would be a gross understatement. We asked simple questions that any planning agency should be able to answer. These included:
Where will it begin and end?
What other roads will it connect to?
How wide will the right of way be?
How will the County mitigate the impact of additional traffic on our private roads?
The obfuscation, evasion, and outright withholding of information on the part of County Planning were shocking, even for those of us who saw the County with a cynical eye. We were repeatedly told that only a full-on Environmental Impact Statement could answer those questions. Our research told us otherwise. There are two examples of their attitude which are burned into my memory:
Example one was our request for the right of way width. Asking over a period of four months produced no answer. Knowing that Federal funding required PMAR to be designated as a "major rural collector" road, we researched the requirements for such a road and found that they have 120 foot rights of way. When confronted with this, the County guy said, "Yes, that's what it is." So why couldn't they just tell us that to begin with? That is not a way to build trust and confidence.
Example two occurred when I relayed a frequently mentioned concern from HPP lot owners, which was that they didn't trust the County to keep promises made for mitigation of negative impact. The reply was, "I don't blame you." There's that trust and confidence thing again.
It was at this point that I wrote the letter to the Governor. It should be noted that all five members of the committee, not just James Weatherford and I, agreed to send the letter. It should also be noted that James insisted that I tone down some of my language, which I did. All five members agreed to the revised wording, and the letter was sent. That letter (and the current position of our committee) did not ask for a permanent abandonment of PMAR. We simply want it to be better defined before going to an full EIS.
Our research has told us two important things about the EIS process. First, many projects similar to PMAR have been better defined in advance of an EIS. When we asked County Planning why they didn't spend some of the $588,000 they already had available for PMAR on better defining the project, we were given a very disdainful, "No way!" Second, the EIS process usually results in the planning agency applicant getting what it wants. In this case, we didn't know what that would be. It also should be noted that the EIS process can be "gamed" by selecting consultants whose prime selling point is a promise to get what the applicant agency wants approved. Hence, the strong need to better define or "scope" the project in advance, especially given the level of trust we had in the County.
Not long after our letter was sent, four Hawaiian Homelands communities sent their own letter to the Governor, expressing their own concerns about PMAR. These included the communities of Maku'u, Panaewa, Keaukaha, and Kaumana Scattered Lots. So HPP is not alone in having grave concerns about PMAR.
During all the discussion on PMAR over on Big Island Chronicle, I asked why we should trust the County, given their attitude and history. I hope you all are beginning to understand why we don't.
And finally, I have not decided whom to support in the County Council election in which James Weatherford is a candidate. My defense of him is based on my experience of what the truth of the HPP experience on PMAR has been up to this point. Rob Tucker has described me as one of the more "level-headed" people active in HPP affairs. I'm describing this whole process as accurately as I can. It was that bad.
First, Rob has referred to the HPPOA Committee on PMAR as James' committee and to James as an obstructionist. The committee was formed when I presented a resolution to the HPPOA General Membership calling for HPP to gather facts and reach a consensus position on a proposal with tremendous potential to impact our community. I am the chairman of that committee to this day, not James, and I anticipated that our work could go on for years, which it likely will. James presented his own proposal for PMAR early in the process, something one doesn't get from an obstructionist. The committee was not packed with PMAR opponents. Several members expressed willingness to see something built that reflected community input and sensible mitigation for the inevitable negative effects.
We began trying to gather facts about the proposal, mostly through discussions with the County Planning Department. We gathered opinions from our members via open meetings, speaking to other HPP organizations, and eventually through a survey. It was this process that led us to write Governor Abercrombie, asking that he not release the $1.5 million Faye Hanohano appropriation. To say our discussions with Planning were frustrating would be a gross understatement. We asked simple questions that any planning agency should be able to answer. These included:
Where will it begin and end?
What other roads will it connect to?
How wide will the right of way be?
How will the County mitigate the impact of additional traffic on our private roads?
The obfuscation, evasion, and outright withholding of information on the part of County Planning were shocking, even for those of us who saw the County with a cynical eye. We were repeatedly told that only a full-on Environmental Impact Statement could answer those questions. Our research told us otherwise. There are two examples of their attitude which are burned into my memory:
Example one was our request for the right of way width. Asking over a period of four months produced no answer. Knowing that Federal funding required PMAR to be designated as a "major rural collector" road, we researched the requirements for such a road and found that they have 120 foot rights of way. When confronted with this, the County guy said, "Yes, that's what it is." So why couldn't they just tell us that to begin with? That is not a way to build trust and confidence.
Example two occurred when I relayed a frequently mentioned concern from HPP lot owners, which was that they didn't trust the County to keep promises made for mitigation of negative impact. The reply was, "I don't blame you." There's that trust and confidence thing again.
It was at this point that I wrote the letter to the Governor. It should be noted that all five members of the committee, not just James Weatherford and I, agreed to send the letter. It should also be noted that James insisted that I tone down some of my language, which I did. All five members agreed to the revised wording, and the letter was sent. That letter (and the current position of our committee) did not ask for a permanent abandonment of PMAR. We simply want it to be better defined before going to an full EIS.
Our research has told us two important things about the EIS process. First, many projects similar to PMAR have been better defined in advance of an EIS. When we asked County Planning why they didn't spend some of the $588,000 they already had available for PMAR on better defining the project, we were given a very disdainful, "No way!" Second, the EIS process usually results in the planning agency applicant getting what it wants. In this case, we didn't know what that would be. It also should be noted that the EIS process can be "gamed" by selecting consultants whose prime selling point is a promise to get what the applicant agency wants approved. Hence, the strong need to better define or "scope" the project in advance, especially given the level of trust we had in the County.
Not long after our letter was sent, four Hawaiian Homelands communities sent their own letter to the Governor, expressing their own concerns about PMAR. These included the communities of Maku'u, Panaewa, Keaukaha, and Kaumana Scattered Lots. So HPP is not alone in having grave concerns about PMAR.
During all the discussion on PMAR over on Big Island Chronicle, I asked why we should trust the County, given their attitude and history. I hope you all are beginning to understand why we don't.
And finally, I have not decided whom to support in the County Council election in which James Weatherford is a candidate. My defense of him is based on my experience of what the truth of the HPP experience on PMAR has been up to this point. Rob Tucker has described me as one of the more "level-headed" people active in HPP affairs. I'm describing this whole process as accurately as I can. It was that bad.