Posts: 3,233
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
Unfortunately Pahoa has proven itself to be a distraction with regard to appropriate planning efforts considering the regions geological circumstances.
Appropriate planning hinged upon Punas geological circumstances would have focused on the most appropriate ingress and egress routes first and foremost. All else would have been based upon those routes.
I need not point out the most effective route planning for this area as that should be self apparent. Likewise it should also be self apparent that those routes were never adopted and even today we have wasted money in wrong decisions made in the haste of waiting till the last seeming minute. What we are experiencing today is a direct result of that wayward uncontrolled misguided planning.
Kane, what do you see as the most effective route planning? Given the historical direction of the lava flow, and now its current path, it's not self-apparent to me what the plan should have covered.
Posts: 14,144
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
it's not self-apparent to me what the plan should have covered.
The plan should have covered LZ3 and above, encouraged "trade-up" of existing LZ1/LZ2 lots, and created a "camping pass" system for those who would prefer an unpermitted lifestyle choice along the coast.
Posts: 3,233
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
it's not self-apparent to me what the plan should have covered.
The plan should have covered LZ3 and above, encouraged "trade-up" of existing LZ1/LZ2 lots, and created a "camping pass" system for those who would prefer an unpermitted lifestyle choice along the coast.
Can you expand on the second two ideas please? Trade up to what? Camping passes would work how? Pay to stay on own land? Limitations on development? Etc...
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
First and foremost, the current single local authority on this island is not capable of passing legislation that could be uniquely applied only to Puna. That would violate equal application clauses. This is perhaps the most important reason why most Counties were established in order to deal with the unique features of given geographical locations.
These are proposed measure that if the current County adopted would become applicable to the entirety of the County. When you have representatives outside your unique geographical location, they may find a measure completely inappropriate for their region and therefore vote against what another region may need. This is why Puna is as it is today.
What's self apparent with regard to the application of roads in Puna. This would be outlined through mitigation recommendations set forth by geological engineering assessments. This has not been done for Puna. I won't bother with stating the obvious on that point as it would not be well received here.
Until Puna has it's own local County authority separate from the County of Hawaii, we won't be seeing any form of a successful or practical development plan. If that wasn't bad enough, because the State of Hawaii does not allow for voter based referendums or initiatives etc and has placed the sole authority of County designation within the hands of the State legislature, forming such a County has about zero chance in hell at this time.
So all in all. We are wasting our time talking about a development plan for Puna.
First things first. Start talking about how to make Puna into it's own County. Maybe discuss how an outline should be drafted for taking the correct steps in forming a development plan accompanied by all the other outlines necessary to setup and run a County effectively. It all goes hand in hand.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
I see the whole PCDP idea as putting the cart before the horse.
Posts: 3,233
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Agreed about the mismatch between the specialized needs of various districts and a single county authority. Also agreed that creating district counties as a pragmatic solution is unlikely in the extreme.
My understanding (or perhaps hope) was that the CDPs are an attempt to bridge this divide by allowing districts to self-direct their development. However, they appear to lack "the force of law" and are seen as loose recommendations by the county? Is that an reasonable summary or is there a more accurate way to describe their current purpose and legal standing?
Given the uncertainties of the geographical, economic, and demographic changes related to the lava flow, all long term plans for Puna are in limbo. Allowing for more flexibility in addressing local needs, either explictly through the state of emergency declaration or implicitly due to the increased isolation of lower Puna, is one likely outcome IMHO. If this is of substantive difference from the current approach of ad-hoc planning and quasi-enforcement is unclear.
I remain hopeful that smaller communities with less interference can create some positive developments in the wake of the changes on the horizon.
Posts: 14,144
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
CDPs are an attempt to bridge this divide by allowing districts to self-direct their development.
This is completely correct, however each district contains a "large local landowner" who can outvote the people who actually live there.
PCDP was given the force of law in 2008, but the nice folks at Planning have decided they don't have to follow the CDPs if they don't feel like it.
When you have representatives outside your unique geographical location, they may find a measure completely inappropriate for their region and therefore vote against what another region may need.
This pattern repeats itself again on a smaller scale: the various huge subdivisions also want different things, so any plan which encompasses all these becomes a "lowest common denominator".
Trade up to what?
Start with: those leaving LZ1/LZ2 get preferential access to the tax foreclosure auction when "trading up" to LZ3 or better.
Camping passes would work how?
In lieu of a Certificate of Occupancy; side effect is that any "camping" structure doesn't become a first-class building (taxes, insurance, "loss").
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Technically anyone may camp on their own property already. The only exception to this guaranteed non-enumerated right is found in subdivisions with CC&R's that prohibit camping.
ETA.. I dislike the use of "un" in a word when not applicable as it suggest something that formerly was but no longer is.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Much of the building code needs to be tossed out the window for Puna. This wont happen in this County as it currently exists. Another aspect to this is the state requirements for building permits. The state allows each county to decide for themselves if they wish to implement building permits but muddied the issue by also making it mandatory that such permits must also apply to private owner builders. Then went on further to insult the authority by mandating owners builders be also considered contractors. There's a fundamental legal flaw in both of these added burdens regarding owner builders. The challenge has yet to be brought before the federal courts. Hawaii is not alone in making this mistake.
The state has made the fundamental mistake in exercising it's constitutional power to regulate commerce and extended it to the private home owner building their own home. This would be like assuming a mother at home making clothes for her family to be engaging in the business of manufacturing clothing and therefore allowing the state to surmise their police power extends into the fabrication of clothing for oneself and their family members.
No state has yet to provide a compelling argument that community safety is at stake with regard to the owner builder building a home for themselves, that it threatens the safety of the community. Thus the non-enumerated right has been trampled on with no challenge brought forth yet.
Posts: 14,144
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Technically anyone may camp on their own property already.
Only if you sleep in the open, or have the necessary permits.
Permit required for tent unless camping on approved camp ground; any building used for "habitation" must have "approved wastewater disposal"; any vehicle which remains stationary for 24h becomes a building.
