Posts: 14,144
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Everybody wants a store, but nobody wants to live next to one.
Everybody wants an alternate route to town, too.
I now see the problem as more of an impasse; any development that might impact someone's lifestyle choices is "bad" -- and because everything has some impact, all development is therefore bad.
"Centralized" development means nobody has to bear the burden of living near the commercial center, but everybody gets to suffer the congested commute to drive there.
"Distributed" development means a few people have to suffer the burden of living next to the commercial center, but many can walk/bike there.
It appears that, despite the intent documented in the PCDP, there will not actually be any new commercial centers; all growth will be concentrated in existing "town centers" (thus excluding Orchidland).
The growth isn't going to stop.
Puna needs a better solution.
Posts: 998
Threads: 30
Joined: Feb 2012
quote:
Originally posted by leilaniguy
Everybody wants a store, but nobody wants to live next to one.
But in a democracy, shouldn't the majority rule these questions? Services (including commercial services) seem to find a way to be implemented in much of the rest of the developed world.
Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Posts: 14,144
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
in a democracy, shouldn't the majority rule these questions?
The local version of "democracy" is "one acre, one vote". Shipman (and a handful of others) want commercial development to be concentrated in "designated zones" which happen to be on land they own. Letting ordinary people develop their land means taking money out of Shipman's pockets.
If you don't like "follow the money", the alternate explanation is simpler: there is no clear majority. For everyone who wants a corner store, there's someone who opposes the "congestion and crime" that is somehow automatically included with any development.
Ironically, developing a modern telecommunications infrastructure would create plenty of opportunity without adding (and likely reducing) traffic congestion, but somehow this doesn't happen either.
services seem to find a way ... in much of the rest of the developed world.
It could easily be argued that Puna is not part of "the developed world".
Posts: 3,233
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
quote:
Originally posted by Punaperson
Kalakoa: " so why isn't at least this project ( by Orchidland General Store ) being restarted ? "
Because of the traffic, noise and trash generated by the present complex, with the burden being born by the relatively small number of OLE residents while the convenience goes to all.
Does anyone know the details here regarding the stalled development? I haven't heard of any concerns or complaints, so was guessing financial issues or possible lack of demand?
As for fiscal costs, the commercial entities pay more in road fees to help offset the maintenance. As the OLCA sets these fees, they hopefully are sufficient.
http://orchidland.org/association-busine...sessments/
As for other burdens, is there a record of complaints? I for one find it convenient to have some fuel, food, and hardware options closer at hand, but I do not live immediately next to them either.
Posts: 910
Threads: 20
Joined: Nov 2006
Vancouver
You wrote
Services(including commercial services)seem to find a way to be implemented in much of the rest of the developed world.
The key difference is Puna is new. A new store or small business can open on every street in London and Paris because for hundreds of years other businesses used that same location.
In S.E. Asia the standard for many neighborhoods is to construct hundreds of three story shared walled buildings with a common parking area.
This permits a shopkeeper to open a small store or business on the ground floor, and live on 2nd and 3rd.
With this model the shopkeepers and homeowners are one.
The American model forces the shopkeeper to have a separate house, drive to work, and pay a high monthly rent on a store they will never own.
Former Puna Beach Resident
Now sailing in SE Asia
HOT BuOYS Sailing
Posts: 14,144
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The American model forces the shopkeeper to have a separate house, drive to work, and pay a high monthly rent on a store they will never own.
There are other options:
- buy (or lease) a building in a mixed-use development (however, people who can afford this option don't really need to run a business)
- if the business is small enough, invest the $30K+ and 1-2 years in the local Special Use process (again, people who can afford this option probably don't need to run a business)
