James Weatherford: Bill 209 Yes? or No?

[james weatherford]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerryCarr
The fact that the property may be sold is irrelevant. Isn't it true that any property owner in Pahoa has the right to sell and that the zoning designation goes along with it?

---

Thanks for that, Jerry.
Please think about this: if there is one lesson to have been learned from the global economic and financial turmoil of the past 10 years -- from boom to bust -- is the peril of instability wrought by activities only about speculation and zero about creating real wealth. Instability wrought from speculation.

In a good case scenario, an entrepreneur buys a rundown parcel zoned residential and applies to rezone to commercial in order to open up a locally owned business of the sort the local economy desperately needs. For whatever reasons, the business plan changes after the rezoning application is submitted and the parcel is listed for sale. All part of doing business. No harm done.

In a bad case scenario, buying a rundown parcel zoned residential and then putting it up for sale in sync with applying for commercial rezoning could be a variation on the 'flipping' that drove up real estate prices just less than ten years ago. No real wealth is created. Speculation drives transactions. The local economy is left to deal with the unstable outcome.

At this point, not having the same access as a sitting Council member, I do not have enough information on the case in point to know what scenario might apply. It is my hope that, when Bill 209 is being deliberated before him, that my Council representative will be consider the impact on the stability of the local economy.

[Rob Tucker]

And that means what exactly?

[Seeb]

Rob, do you have a beef with one of the parties in this dispute
you seem to be itching for a fight

[Rob Tucker]

I have a position on the rezoning... but the two parties to the application are the applicant and the county, not me. I am interested in getting a yes or no type answer from our candidate for district 4. Once on council long winded "on the one hand and the other hand" answers don't count. It comes down to yea or nay. James wants to be in a position to say yea or nay to such applications.

I am not in favor of people meddling in other people's business myself. An activity is either a legal activity or it is not. Equal treatment under the law approach.

[DanielP]

I have no dog in this fight, just experience with planning issues and bldg. dept. issues.

James, I think that your position is pure hogwash. Some intellectual rationalization to either obstruct or to micro-manage.

After all, if there were no speculators there would be no HPP, or any residential or small acreage properties, anywhere.

James, I think that you should reconsider what the process of zoning is all about and not get it confused with Use Permits.

Dan

[oink]

So let me know if I have this straight. I'm sure I'm not totally accurate.

Side A:
Yes rezone it. We need more commercial space in Pahoa and this property is located in an area that you would logically expect it to go commercial at some point anyhow, so lets do it.

Yes, the owner may be trying profit by taking the initiative to try and get it rezoned so he can resale at a much higher price. So what, he's providing a service for us, if in fact we do want more commercial property in Pahoa. It's capitalism at work.

Besides, as long as the use fits the proposed zoning it's not our business to further restrict the owner within this process. There are other avenues for that, if the residents are concerned enough to act.

Yes, there may be some backlash against T.E.H. for alleged actions she may have taken to interfere with attempted uses of the property.

Yes, this issue may be confused as there are vying factions in Puna and this battle has become a proxy of that conflict.
----------
Side B:
No, don't rezone. The owners may intend uses for the property other than those laid out in the application. Although uses would likely conform to the new zoning, we allege dishonesty in the application process and this should result in denial.

We believe profit is the motive in the rezoning request and we don't believe anyone should profit directly from this process. Our leanings are more socialist than capitalist and this is obviously capitalism.

We don't really want any growth in Puna and we believe this is a legitimate battle in our anti-growth agenda. - or - We only want growth that conforms exactly to our vision of what Puna growth should be and we will attempt to stop all other growth, although the mechanism to implement our vision doesn't yet actually exist.

We are allied with T.E.H. on other issues and feel it's in our best interest to support her on this issue.

There is obviously (IMHO) personal interest on the part of some, as certain uses of the property could negatively affect personal or family income.
--------------
As for James, he appears to me to be exercising the apparent right of a politician to be vague, in the hope that he won't offend any potential voters. However, I think it's fairly easy to read between his lines.

Was I close?

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Seeb]

Or C) Don't spot zone. make it commercial from the elementary school to longs and build off street parking

[DanielP]

Seeb, That would just be too sensible. Each change of use should address parking with a use permit tied to the square footage of the building and lot. Minimum lot size could be addressed via zoning.

[csgray]

Seeb,
There are some long stretches of purely residential uses between Longs and the 7-11, I know someone whose grandparents live in the same house they've lived in for over 75 years in one of those stretches. They shouldn't have to endure a business going in right next door to them. Many places use a system where the zoning flips over once a certain percentage of the properties have changed to commercial, or in some cases industrial, until then it is still done on a case by case basis with lots of room for input.

One of the big issues with zoning is that it tends to paint with a very broad brush, a multitude of uses are OK under each zoning classification, not all of which are OK with the community in which the uses would take place. People who are OK with a family run Thai restaurant often hate the idea of a McDonald's in the same place for example, but for zoning purposes the two are the same. Conditional use permits are much more restrictive, but that makes them really a bad idea for business people who need maximum flexibility.

Puna has really weird zoning, no light industrial, limited commercial, and thousands of acres zoned AG that are completely useless for farming because they are bare rock. HPP has big blocks designated for commercial/light industrial uses on the developer's original plans, but zoned AG by the county. This whole district was developed as a land scam, no one actually thought anyone would move into all these subdivisions, but thousands of people have. That history is going to require really intelligent, proactive, solid leadership from Puna district county council representatives for the next 10 years or so, while we get the zoning more in line with how people actually live and work here.

"Drive to Hilo." can no longer be the default answer to all the zoning and infrastructure issues here, we need representation on the county council who can read and understand zoning codes, who isn't beholden to anyone but the residents of Puna, and who understands how to balance the desire to preserve a certain way of life with the need for zoning that meets the needs of the citizens.

Carol

[Rob Tucker]

It would seem that any incoming businesses to Pahoa must meet the approval of their neighbors and any passing tourists. Perhaps rezoning by referendum is best?

With just a tweaking of the zoning code new classifications could be added just for Pahoa.

Donut zoning (D) for example could identify precisely which property the community would allow a donut shop on. A gluten free zone could be established too.

The code could also specify that no more than one of any type business could move in so that there would be no chance of competition. That might mean that one of our banks, Thai restaurants and pizza shops would have to close. Which ones? Would Cash & Carry be allowed to coexist with Malama Market? Probably not a good idea.

I have accounts at Bank of Hawaii so it would be logical for me to want that to stay. First Hawaiian Bank can go. This makes makes good Tiffany sense. Tiffany Hunt thought Pahoa too small for two surf shops.

Pahoa Mainstreet should also be designated as a Real Estate No Profit Zone (RENP). Can't have people exploiting their property and driving up prices by trying to make a profit and, God forbid, maybe contribute to their retirement or kid's college funds. That would fit some of James Weatherford's logic. So a Real Estate No Profit Zone makes good Tiffany/James sense. Residents (and certainly no one else) could sell their property for what they paid for it or less only. That's bound to preserve the local flair and flavor.

Interestingly I spent several years trying to get Mainstreet Pahoa Association interested in a Pahoa Design District. Way before Woodland Center, Longs and KFC came along. Could not get anyone interested. Tiffany either for a fact. Until a rezoning application came up next to her shop. She still confuses design districts with historical districts but that's okay. By the time she runs for council in 2016 (she has already announced on her web site some time back) she might have it figured out.

So roll on Pahoa. Your reputation for antibusiness is intact.