SB2274-Sustainable Living

[kjlpahoa]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russell
[ If you want to know why only Big Island and Maui are included, perhaps you should ask before throwing your mud around.
If anyone has a legitimate question about the bill I will try to answer them.

Russell

---

I think he is already asking why Maui is included so why not answer this legitimate question. If by chance you feel the question was not asked, then I will ask - Why Maui???

[Russell]

Thank you kjlpahoa for asking. The reason is that there is interest and support on Maui and the Big Island for this alternative. Period.
BTW, pahoated did not ask any questions, legitimate or otherwise. He was too consumed with insults and mudslinging, beginning with his first words, to bother with asking. As I've said a few times, I am happy to respond to real questions, but will not play in the mud with those who cannot muster the basics of respect and civility.


Russell

[Chunkster]

Once again we get a rude, condescending, and overly defensive response from Ruderman. Why not answer the question about Maui? Why expend political capital on fringe issues when you say you have a broader, more solid agenda that you complain about everyone ignoring? Many of us are increasingly coming to realize that you do not have the temperament for politics. Sometimes you have to let stuff roll off you back and stick to core issues. I'm not seeing that.

[rainyjim]

Sustainability on the big island is THE ISSUE - what pray tell is more important?

"fringe" issue? - what world are YOU living in?

He answered the question - maui has interest also apparently. I see you casting aspersions at Senator Ruderman - behind a screen name - something you have done everytime someone posts related to Ruderman - and once again where is the relevancy to the bill on sustainability? You are attacking ruderman - not the Bill, and FYI his responses were perfectly cordial.

[Russell]

Chunster, how can I be more clear? I answered the question when it was asked. I will repeat for your benefit "there is interest and support on Maui and the Big Island for this alternative." There is not, apparently, such support for this on Oahu or Kauai. I have no special associate on Maui that this is for, as accused. My senate colleague from Kauai opposes it; my colleagues from Maui are willing to consider it.
You think I'm rude for ignoring insults; I think commenters need to rise to the level of basic civility to be taken seriously. Otherwise, have fun playing in the mud without me.

Russell

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

The reason is that there is interest and support on Maui and the Big Island for this alternative.

---

County's existing Special Use process can already be used to authorize the activities listed in the bill; it does not seem to suggest that County actually grant such permission. Furthermore, many of the activities are already a "permitted agricultural use". Please explain the value proposition created by this additional legislation.

Bonus question: compare and contrast with HR2646, which actually provides an "alternative" the County Building and/or Planning process.

Footnote for Pete: the "condo" mechanism can already be used to effectively subdivide agricultural land and allow multiple free-standing single-family dwellings thereon. There exist actual TMKs in this configuration.

[rainyjim]

I'd venture a guess that the reason these "things" are included even though the SUP may permit them already is because the SUP is essentially a measure of either

a. How much money you have (i.e. can my lawyers lean on the county till they crack)

Or

b. i'm a part of the hui, I mean come on my whole family works for the county so I get SUPs approved easily.


So,

I think this legislation makes - living, building, growing food - basically existing - legal without a SUP (for those who can't quite finagle a SUP through the system).

[kalakoa]

The requirements of the Special Use process do not really foster "sustainability".

http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/...Page1.aspx

[kalakoa]

From the WHT article:

...the bill would still require a special use permit...

Best part of the SUP: any future changes to the permitted uses requires a new SUP.

[Rob Tucker]

"Sustainability" could be a buzz word for sustaining a county bureaucracy.